EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really wonder if the way EZY uses confidential flight data monitoring is still in the spirit of the way the CAA intended FDM when they made this mandatory for airlines... 
Regarding this whole 160/4 discussion: I see more and more colleagues flying with FDM and the price of fuel in the back of their minds instead of sound airmanship, which might explain why people fly 185 kts in flaps1 and not the instructed 180kts in flaps2, or why pilots start to reduce before 4nm as many are scared to end up flying Vref plus 11 kts at 1000'.
Regarding this whole 160/4 discussion: I see more and more colleagues flying with FDM and the price of fuel in the back of their minds instead of sound airmanship, which might explain why people fly 185 kts in flaps1 and not the instructed 180kts in flaps2, or why pilots start to reduce before 4nm as many are scared to end up flying Vref plus 11 kts at 1000'.
...if you know you won't be able to do 160kts to 4, then tell us ... We are quite happy to accomodate people as long as they inform us in good time...
As you did, so well, for many years, when we flew 190kts to 2.5 miles.
Best regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After being suspended from radar a few times because of losses of separation caused by pilots slowing early, catching many go arounds because the one in front slowed down and having to take remedial action on a weekly (almost daily) basis to resolve conflicts caused by pilots not obeying speed instructions, it is a mystery to me why pilots will readback a speed clearance they have no intention of following.
I think the key to the speed control issue is more feedback, and it needs to be given to the people who make flight standards policy. I've noticed more and more guys are flying very conservative approaches as a direct result of having their arses spanked by the FDM team for "FLIDRAS events". Now ezy have made their stance clear - one too many of these events and you will lose your job.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is hard about 160/4 in a A319? Occasionally tricky in the A320 and the A321 with some tailwind, never had a problem in an A319?? Gear down at 4.5 manage speed at 4.0? I am surprised that this causes an issue. Just my experience.
The problem is we must be fully configured by 3.3 miles, and most people give themselves a little margin, maybe a mile or so.
There is also a training/operating concept that you fly the maximum speed you feel safe at, and ATC should not bully you into something you feel is unsafe, or going to lead to a bust of the stable approach parameters.
What is not happening though, is "negative, it will be 160 to 5", which will prevent all the problems.
I have very very very rarely seen a genuine 160 to 4 flown, because it is too close to getting a phone call. The standard method seems to be managed speed and gear at 5 or just approaching 5.
There is also a training/operating concept that you fly the maximum speed you feel safe at, and ATC should not bully you into something you feel is unsafe, or going to lead to a bust of the stable approach parameters.
What is not happening though, is "negative, it will be 160 to 5", which will prevent all the problems.
I have very very very rarely seen a genuine 160 to 4 flown, because it is too close to getting a phone call. The standard method seems to be managed speed and gear at 5 or just approaching 5.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a training/operating concept that you fly the maximum speed you feel safe at, and ATC should not bully you into something you feel is unsafe, or going to lead to a bust of the stable approach parameters.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere on a dodgy name badge
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my chum is being disciplined by his company for not flying a stabilised approach.
He was instructed to maintain 180 to 4 by ATC then couldn't get configured by 500ft; fully configured by 390 RA in an empty aircraft positioning for servicing on to a 13000ft long runway with a planned exit at the end. Weather was cavok.
The management are doing him for gross professional misconduct.
Where's the sense or fairness in that?
He was instructed to maintain 180 to 4 by ATC then couldn't get configured by 500ft; fully configured by 390 RA in an empty aircraft positioning for servicing on to a 13000ft long runway with a planned exit at the end. Weather was cavok.
The management are doing him for gross professional misconduct.
Where's the sense or fairness in that?
Hmm...To me that does not sound as fair.
given these numbers
I would not expect to get fired. A grilling by the chief pilot certainly; perhaps re-training session in the simulator. But fired? Nah...not at my company.
(major continental European flag carrier with global network)
given these numbers
He was instructed to maintain 180 to 4 by ATC then couldn't get configured by 500ft; fully configured by 390 RA in an empty aircraft positioning for servicing on to a 13000ft long runway with a planned exit at the end. Weather was cavok.
(major continental European flag carrier with global network)
Rananim,
Well I for sure thought I, as the commander, was responsible for the aircraft. I really hope that I'm not in the back of yours when ATC command you into the ground.
If I'm not happy with an ATC instruction, I'll let them know.
ATC dont bully you.They command you.
If I'm not happy with an ATC instruction, I'll let them know.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's the sense or fairness in that?
What some airlines want you to do is switch off your brain and p!ss away some of that precious $146/barrel oil, instead of landing on a 13000' dry runway in an empty aircraft.
The airline brass probably thinks that they'll recuperate the wasted fuel flown in go-arounds when it's time to negotiate the next pay deal with braindead pilots.
It's like that Pink Floyd song: Comfortably Numb.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its so important to be configured at 1000' and on speed why not fly 160kts with gear and Conf 3 or Conf Full and just push for managed at 4D. Might not be the best for fuel economy but you wont get a phonecall.
You might....
When requested to maintain 160 kt until 4 miles adopt the following procedure;
Fly selected speed and Flap 2.
By 5nm latest, push managed speed and select the gear down.
When the gear is down and below VFE Next - select Flap 3.
When Flaps are at 3 and below VFE Next - select Flap Full
The approach should be stable by 1000ft above TDZE, the approach must be stable by 500ft RA.
This technique may be adapted to comply with maximum requests of 170 kt until 5nm or 180kt until 6nm. In all cases relevant conditions must be taken into account, the request should be declined if conditions are not conducive to achieving stable parameters at 1000' above TDZE. Tailwind on the approach or reduced flap landings will increase the difficulty of achieving stable parameters.
ATC must be informed if speed restrictions are not able to be complied with.
Fly selected speed and Flap 2.
By 5nm latest, push managed speed and select the gear down.
When the gear is down and below VFE Next - select Flap 3.
When Flaps are at 3 and below VFE Next - select Flap Full
The approach should be stable by 1000ft above TDZE, the approach must be stable by 500ft RA.
This technique may be adapted to comply with maximum requests of 170 kt until 5nm or 180kt until 6nm. In all cases relevant conditions must be taken into account, the request should be declined if conditions are not conducive to achieving stable parameters at 1000' above TDZE. Tailwind on the approach or reduced flap landings will increase the difficulty of achieving stable parameters.
ATC must be informed if speed restrictions are not able to be complied with.
Justin Cyder-Belvoire;
Over-reaction to FLIDRAS/SESMA/FOQA/FDA data is as serious and ineffective (and therefore wasteful) as under-reaction, (the issue with which we are wrestling). Your question is rhetorical for most here who have some form of healthy safety culture - there is NO sense or fairness in this wasteful act (of firing) whatsoever.
Rogue pilots come along in extremely rare cases. Most of us may get caught high or fast once in a while, - we may make an assumption, (cleared direct when we thought we were going to follow the STAR routing), we may be a bit behind the airplane once in a while due tailwinds or delayed descent clearance, we may have accepted an ATC clearance which later proved difficult to comply with, etc etc.
None of this is "rogue pilot" territory; -that is what the "negligence or criminal behaviour" sections are for in any good company safety policy - it isn't for firing on a whim or a bad approach well outside the FLIDRAS and airline SOP policy. That is a crew-contact matter for the Association FDA Pilots; if that meets with a certain resistance or "chip", that is a sign that the matter may have to go further - but that is rare in our experience.
The other side of the coin on your example however is this: My airline has stated quite clearly to the FOQA team that "long landings" (outside the touchdown zone) on "13000ft runways" are not a problem, and have implied (but not stated) that "idle thrust across the fence if one has speed" is similarly not a problem...they dismiss the FOQA data.
Those habits, practised sufficiently and without intervention, may be fine when one has 13000ft on a clear day but as we all know, runways are also 6000ft and contaminated. I think we'd all agree that keeping up skills and habits gazumps fuel conservation any day. Incidently, I believe that that is the kind of thinking which "permits" crews to take liberties with an empty, placement airplane "when no one is watching". How many accidents have been caused thus?...
He was instructed to maintain 180 to 4 by ATC then couldn't get configured by 500ft; fully configured by 390 RA in an empty aircraft positioning for servicing on to a 13000ft long runway with a planned exit at the end. Weather was cavok.
The management are doing him for gross professional misconduct.
Where's the sense or fairness in that?
The management are doing him for gross professional misconduct.
Where's the sense or fairness in that?
Rogue pilots come along in extremely rare cases. Most of us may get caught high or fast once in a while, - we may make an assumption, (cleared direct when we thought we were going to follow the STAR routing), we may be a bit behind the airplane once in a while due tailwinds or delayed descent clearance, we may have accepted an ATC clearance which later proved difficult to comply with, etc etc.
None of this is "rogue pilot" territory; -that is what the "negligence or criminal behaviour" sections are for in any good company safety policy - it isn't for firing on a whim or a bad approach well outside the FLIDRAS and airline SOP policy. That is a crew-contact matter for the Association FDA Pilots; if that meets with a certain resistance or "chip", that is a sign that the matter may have to go further - but that is rare in our experience.
The other side of the coin on your example however is this: My airline has stated quite clearly to the FOQA team that "long landings" (outside the touchdown zone) on "13000ft runways" are not a problem, and have implied (but not stated) that "idle thrust across the fence if one has speed" is similarly not a problem...they dismiss the FOQA data.
Those habits, practised sufficiently and without intervention, may be fine when one has 13000ft on a clear day but as we all know, runways are also 6000ft and contaminated. I think we'd all agree that keeping up skills and habits gazumps fuel conservation any day. Incidently, I believe that that is the kind of thinking which "permits" crews to take liberties with an empty, placement airplane "when no one is watching". How many accidents have been caused thus?...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHROW DIRECTOR - gee, I'm sorry but I'm flying to so many different places around the globe that I can't always remember what speeds to expect when I'm flying into that mess they call Heathrow - so if you tell me 160 to 4, and I decide that I can't do it, then tough 'cos that'll be exactly when I tell you - NOT BEFORE....
I'll do what I can to help - but hey, it's my aeroplane!!
Ranamin, ATC offer us a service, which the airlines pay for - but just remember who's the guy carrying the can. It's not the chap in the tower...
I'll do what I can to help - but hey, it's my aeroplane!!
Ranamin, ATC offer us a service, which the airlines pay for - but just remember who's the guy carrying the can. It's not the chap in the tower...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be afraid to use the term "UNABLE" if not in position to configure and fly a safe stable approach. Works good and lasts a long time. Averts unnecessary paperwork.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim, whilst there must be allowances made for cultural differences between operations on either side of the Atlantic I think you are tipping considerably too far towards - and, I think, past, the American style. ATC do NOT "command" us any where in the ICAO world, whatever are you thinking of??? Who is the Captain of the aircraft??? Not the poor ATC Officer, that's for sure. I'll be thankful not to be SLF on one of your flights...
As far as 390ft, 19 miles of planned exit configured runway positioning excuses
STOP!!
Bolleaux!
Company SOP says "Should" be stabilised by 1000', and "MUST" be stabilised by 500ft. "Must" is an imperative. There can be no exceptions.
Let's go on, shell we? SOPs continue by saying that if the a/c is not configured by 500' then the (PNF) "Must" say, "Captain You Must Go-Around!" What is ambiguous about that?
Clearly this did not all happen.
The next call by SOP's is along the lines of (PNF) "I have control. GO AROUND Flaps 15!"
Clearly this did not all happen either, or there would have been a go-around.
Red hetrrings about empty 19000m planned exits just don't apply.
This is beginning to sound like the line being drawn, or, as Voltaire once (almost) put it,
"De temps en temps il faut tuer un Capitaine, pour encourager les autres."
The SOP is unmistakeably clear. You may well think that airmanship might might allow a variation, but then again might airmanship not have made him go around according to SOP?
And, as has been said before, I'd be very surprised if this was the sole event leading up to this result, unless there is a lot more here than we are privy to.
As far as 390ft, 19 miles of planned exit configured runway positioning excuses
STOP!!
Bolleaux!
Company SOP says "Should" be stabilised by 1000', and "MUST" be stabilised by 500ft. "Must" is an imperative. There can be no exceptions.
Let's go on, shell we? SOPs continue by saying that if the a/c is not configured by 500' then the (PNF) "Must" say, "Captain You Must Go-Around!" What is ambiguous about that?
Clearly this did not all happen.
The next call by SOP's is along the lines of (PNF) "I have control. GO AROUND Flaps 15!"
Clearly this did not all happen either, or there would have been a go-around.
Red hetrrings about empty 19000m planned exits just don't apply.
This is beginning to sound like the line being drawn, or, as Voltaire once (almost) put it,
"De temps en temps il faut tuer un Capitaine, pour encourager les autres."
The SOP is unmistakeably clear. You may well think that airmanship might might allow a variation, but then again might airmanship not have made him go around according to SOP?
And, as has been said before, I'd be very surprised if this was the sole event leading up to this result, unless there is a lot more here than we are privy to.
What I'm getting from this is if pilots are not conservative enough with speed reduction they're in the sh*t but if they're too conservative the ATCO is. Easy should have a 160 to 5 agreement for the 319s and if that means extra spacing and a reduced capacity so be it but none of us (pilots/ATCOs) should be trying to work around this problem and carrying the can through personal responsibility.
To have an SOP insisting speed reduction is at 5dme at the latest which is quite clearly at odds with ATC procedures encourages a culture of routine rule breaking at odds with the safety culture we strive for.
After a loss of separation it's fairly standard to be suspended until the radar and RTF recordings are played back and all the forms are filled in which usually takes between 1 and 4 hours.
To have an SOP insisting speed reduction is at 5dme at the latest which is quite clearly at odds with ATC procedures encourages a culture of routine rule breaking at odds with the safety culture we strive for.
I didn't realise that a loss of separation caused by the crew not carrying out an instruction you have given them can lead to an ATCO being suspended. If you have issued the instruction surely it is our responsibility to carry it out and any loss of separation that results would be our fault?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100%PLease,
Facetious argument.The issue here is not descent below min radar altitude(which of course you refuse) but speed control in busy airspace.Pilots and ATCO's must help each other out.Unwritten gentlemen's rule.We need each other.Its more important than any phone call,any FDM unit,any SOP or any other such nonsense.160 till 4 is very conservative anyway.Live with 180 till 4
most of the time with no problems but of course I dont fly Airbus
Facetious argument.The issue here is not descent below min radar altitude(which of course you refuse) but speed control in busy airspace.Pilots and ATCO's must help each other out.Unwritten gentlemen's rule.We need each other.Its more important than any phone call,any FDM unit,any SOP or any other such nonsense.160 till 4 is very conservative anyway.Live with 180 till 4
most of the time with no problems but of course I dont fly Airbus
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
160 till 4 is very conservative anyway.Live with 180 till 4
This fella's SOP says he should be in landing config and speed by 1000ft. That leaves you just one mile to get from intermediate config, gear up 160Kts to 125ish Kts all configured at 1000ft, 3 miles.
How is that conservative? On this side of the pond 180 to 4 is regarded as downright cowboy in this field of aviation, and would make even the mandatory 500ft fully cofigured gate nigh-on impossible.
Just what do you think you are achieving (apart from an almost total loss of options) by screaming around like that on late finals. It might save you 3 or 4 seconds over a sensibly measured approach, and blatantly busts your Company SOPs. Impressive!
This, or something like it, cost this poor bugger his job.
Can you argue the Conservatism of that?