EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ireland
Age: 41
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frozenboxhauler i think your right a point but if the union becmes too strong i think it sometimes undermines the management of an airline and their ability to weild the axe. But your perfectly right, i fly for an airline that has no representation (unuion wise) and i'd always err on the side of caution f##k them. But your only one minor mistake away from a dismissal. in any regard unuion or not were all human and i wish all the best to this aviator im sure he/she could be any of us..
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should never be 'a mistake' away from dismissal.
The commercial aircraft's flight deck operation is designed to be error-tolerant. You may be 'a deliberate foolhardy act' or 'a disobedience of the rules' away from dismissal, but 'a mistake', never.
The commercial aircraft's flight deck operation is designed to be error-tolerant. You may be 'a deliberate foolhardy act' or 'a disobedience of the rules' away from dismissal, but 'a mistake', never.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR71:
Thing is, you never know whether today is going to be the day that your brakes/reversers/runway drainage/brain fails...so whilst one may be able to lose 20kts in the last 500' (N1 might be a little low for 'safety' though), how far will you push it to see? You have to put a 'gate' in somewhere.
The fact that the 'gates' we use are usually manufacturer-derived from decades of accident statistics aside, as a Captain you'll appreciate how nice it can be sometimes for someone else to have made the decision for you, from the peace and quiet of an office; so you don't have to do so at 500'.
However, I assume you're not arguing against the stabilised approach concept itself but rather the draconian application thereof. Consider, though, if you were a Chief Pilot, what would you do? Think back to some of the Captains you might have flown with earlier in your career(!) and whether you could sleep easy at your desk in the knowledge that their discretion to apply safe judgement was all that was preventing the next runway excursion.
And was that last sentence a statement or a question? Maybe you've been getting a few too many management e-mails recently..
Frontlefthamster - Perhaps the 'mistake' was to fail to pay sufficient attention in the debrief the last time...
Which is more unsafe:
1) 500RA at Vref+20 (i.e., unstable) but lands at Vref, or
2) 500RA at Vref+15 (i.e., stable) but lands at Vref+15?
1) 500RA at Vref+20 (i.e., unstable) but lands at Vref, or
2) 500RA at Vref+15 (i.e., stable) but lands at Vref+15?
The fact that the 'gates' we use are usually manufacturer-derived from decades of accident statistics aside, as a Captain you'll appreciate how nice it can be sometimes for someone else to have made the decision for you, from the peace and quiet of an office; so you don't have to do so at 500'.
However, I assume you're not arguing against the stabilised approach concept itself but rather the draconian application thereof. Consider, though, if you were a Chief Pilot, what would you do? Think back to some of the Captains you might have flown with earlier in your career(!) and whether you could sleep easy at your desk in the knowledge that their discretion to apply safe judgement was all that was preventing the next runway excursion.
And was that last sentence a statement or a question? Maybe you've been getting a few too many management e-mails recently..
Frontlefthamster - Perhaps the 'mistake' was to fail to pay sufficient attention in the debrief the last time...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and now that someone has pointed out that your profile says you're an engineer, I am sorry that you have embroiled yourself in this pilots' debate. I hope you're better with a spanner than you are with a keyboard...
Gary, if the debrief was well-founded then you may be right on target...
Your attempt at a grammatical poser falls foul, however, as any fule no that your sentence is what we might term an optional imperative, and thus both of the proffered options are invalid.
Gary, if the debrief was well-founded then you may be right on target...
Your attempt at a grammatical poser falls foul, however, as any fule no that your sentence is what we might term an optional imperative, and thus both of the proffered options are invalid.
Last edited by frontlefthamster; 19th Jul 2008 at 19:12.
Just to put a little balance into this debate...
remember; it's a 'crew' awareness thing, this 500' stable gate.
I'm not it any way admonishing responsibility of the crew for spotting an ommision at 500' (which besides the way was 15kts fast), but ask yourself why no ASR was filed? - could it be because on 5th censec early neither pilot due to extranneous factors actually noticed?
Now, not to finger anybody, but why would the F/O now be firmly entrenched as a captain with EJ, and the captain himself be summarily sacked? No disrespect to F/O involved, (a thoroughly professional chap with the upmost integrity), but perhaps just a teeny bit of company personal retribution against a forthright individual who has stood up to EJ in the past?
It's not nice to see fellow professionals go down no matter what the circumstances. It could happen to any of us.
remember; it's a 'crew' awareness thing, this 500' stable gate.
I'm not it any way admonishing responsibility of the crew for spotting an ommision at 500' (which besides the way was 15kts fast), but ask yourself why no ASR was filed? - could it be because on 5th censec early neither pilot due to extranneous factors actually noticed?
Now, not to finger anybody, but why would the F/O now be firmly entrenched as a captain with EJ, and the captain himself be summarily sacked? No disrespect to F/O involved, (a thoroughly professional chap with the upmost integrity), but perhaps just a teeny bit of company personal retribution against a forthright individual who has stood up to EJ in the past?
It's not nice to see fellow professionals go down no matter what the circumstances. It could happen to any of us.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY's sops are very good if you are flying into a very busy field, however, this is not always the case.
Say, for instance, an EZY aircraft is flying into field were there is not much traffic, whats wrong with starting to extend flaps at 10 or even 9 DME out for example?
As long as the airplane crosses the threshold at the CORRECT speed and path and with an APPROPRIATE power setting, then we can all affirm that the flight has been conducted in a safe manner. More so, plenty of fuel can be saved in these ever so difficult times.
These days, operators are shoving too much stress onto pilots back, which quite frankly have enough as it is.
FOQA is a very powerful tool if used correctly and "fairly". Pilots should be given talks in their yearly courses, and should be invited to debate about FOQA events. In this way, operators learn about their pilots needs and thoughts, and pilots become more aware of risks. I.e. use FOQA to teach pilots, not the scare them (more stress by the way).
I believe this is as simple as it should be.
SOPS should be known by heart and followed NEARLY at all times, this includes bad weather, whenever we feel tired etc etc; But lets not obsese, visual approaches are healthy, fuel efficient, they teach you how to fly the airplane in nearly any scenario and excuse me, but they are also extremely fun and fulfilling
These are my conclusions: Bad weather, tired, heavy traffic = SOPS
Good weather, relaxed, traffic permiting = extend flaps and gear later than normal, fly a visual approach when posible, enjoy your job because you have a damn good on!
Sorry about my grammer and spelling, i'm not an english speaking person and this is not my native language!
Say, for instance, an EZY aircraft is flying into field were there is not much traffic, whats wrong with starting to extend flaps at 10 or even 9 DME out for example?
As long as the airplane crosses the threshold at the CORRECT speed and path and with an APPROPRIATE power setting, then we can all affirm that the flight has been conducted in a safe manner. More so, plenty of fuel can be saved in these ever so difficult times.
These days, operators are shoving too much stress onto pilots back, which quite frankly have enough as it is.
FOQA is a very powerful tool if used correctly and "fairly". Pilots should be given talks in their yearly courses, and should be invited to debate about FOQA events. In this way, operators learn about their pilots needs and thoughts, and pilots become more aware of risks. I.e. use FOQA to teach pilots, not the scare them (more stress by the way).
I believe this is as simple as it should be.
SOPS should be known by heart and followed NEARLY at all times, this includes bad weather, whenever we feel tired etc etc; But lets not obsese, visual approaches are healthy, fuel efficient, they teach you how to fly the airplane in nearly any scenario and excuse me, but they are also extremely fun and fulfilling
These are my conclusions: Bad weather, tired, heavy traffic = SOPS
Good weather, relaxed, traffic permiting = extend flaps and gear later than normal, fly a visual approach when posible, enjoy your job because you have a damn good on!
Sorry about my grammer and spelling, i'm not an english speaking person and this is not my native language!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alberto, your sentiments are commendable, and clearly find favour with others.
However, all of the work on approach and landing accident reduction tells us that a sensible gate at 500 ft will dramatically reduce the accident and incident numbers.
I agree absolutely that pilots should feel able to fly the aircraft with some flexibility, make visual approaches when weather and traffic permits, and so on, but to suggest that the only 'gate' should be at 35 ft would be to go back to the old statistics, with many more 'events', broken aircraft, and losses of life.
One other thought... The more often that an able pilot feels he needs to disobey the SOPs, the worse the SOPs...
However, all of the work on approach and landing accident reduction tells us that a sensible gate at 500 ft will dramatically reduce the accident and incident numbers.
I agree absolutely that pilots should feel able to fly the aircraft with some flexibility, make visual approaches when weather and traffic permits, and so on, but to suggest that the only 'gate' should be at 35 ft would be to go back to the old statistics, with many more 'events', broken aircraft, and losses of life.
One other thought... The more often that an able pilot feels he needs to disobey the SOPs, the worse the SOPs...
The OM criteria for a stabilised approach represent our Company's tolerance for risk. When you exceed the criteria, and simply accept the deviation and tell yourself, "It's okay; I still feel safe," you are betting the Company's future.
Read through the link and consider: http://www.nlr.nl/id~2612/lang~en.pdf
What would you do? Would you be willing to accept these risks for your Crew, your Passengers, and your Company? Remember, our OM guidance
and required PF/PNF interactions are in place to mitigate the daily risk we face on the line, at the end of the day it isn't our call, is it?
Brgds
Read through the link and consider: http://www.nlr.nl/id~2612/lang~en.pdf
What would you do? Would you be willing to accept these risks for your Crew, your Passengers, and your Company? Remember, our OM guidance
and required PF/PNF interactions are in place to mitigate the daily risk we face on the line, at the end of the day it isn't our call, is it?
Brgds
Last edited by LYKA; 21st Jul 2008 at 09:57.
Alberto I have to disagree.
I have seen some shambolic approaches that come across the threshold on speed with a sensible power. Also, pilots have different opinions of what is good/bad/marginal weather. What happens when the FO is tired and the captain is fresh? Does he turn to the FO and say "it will be alright" and apply his particular stable approach criteria? Stable approach gates are there for good reason, some maybe on the cautious side but they protect pilots from each others differing views on what is and is not acceptable.
I have seen some shambolic approaches that come across the threshold on speed with a sensible power. Also, pilots have different opinions of what is good/bad/marginal weather. What happens when the FO is tired and the captain is fresh? Does he turn to the FO and say "it will be alright" and apply his particular stable approach criteria? Stable approach gates are there for good reason, some maybe on the cautious side but they protect pilots from each others differing views on what is and is not acceptable.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....but they are also extremely fun and fulfilling
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I fly for EZY and regularly fly visual approach's and often take the first stage of flap at 10 miles or less if conditions permit.
However IAW SOP the gear is down at 1500 AAL and I am fully configured at 1000 AAL (usually fully stable) and stable at 500'.
You can still fly your aircraft within the SOP, enjoy your day out, be fuel efficient and safe.
Stable approach's are now a basic tenant of SOP and safe flying. They allow the other crew member to intervene, based on objective parameters, in order to prevent a potentialy dangerous situation. They prevent arguments on the flight deck about what is or is not acceptable and as we can see from this thread there are many diverse views on that.
Companies must pay insurance premiums so if the insurance companies measure risk in a certain way then the airline will do much the same in order to reduce its premium. Nothing wrong with that.
However IAW SOP the gear is down at 1500 AAL and I am fully configured at 1000 AAL (usually fully stable) and stable at 500'.
You can still fly your aircraft within the SOP, enjoy your day out, be fuel efficient and safe.
Stable approach's are now a basic tenant of SOP and safe flying. They allow the other crew member to intervene, based on objective parameters, in order to prevent a potentialy dangerous situation. They prevent arguments on the flight deck about what is or is not acceptable and as we can see from this thread there are many diverse views on that.
Companies must pay insurance premiums so if the insurance companies measure risk in a certain way then the airline will do much the same in order to reduce its premium. Nothing wrong with that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm affraid a disagree with Airbrake and LYKA! Let me explain my self!
It occurs that even though i strongly beleive SOPS are designed to be followed at all times, we may also divert from them in the scenarios I posted on the previous one. When I stated that the crew felt fresh, I obviously meant both, CRM.........
I beleive that if a first officer allows his captain to make a visual, or divert from an SOP when he doesn't feel comfortable, that is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing for the FO to do, obviously if anything goes wrong he will be "out of the loop" and that is the real danger, not the fact that a visual approach is being flown.
About the NRL report, well, apparantely a DC10 glided over the threshold at nearly 40 kts above VREF, if i´m not mistaken my thoughts were about croosing the threshold at the proper speed power setting and path, wit NO exception.
In order to cross the threshold with these parameters, the approach configuration MUST be started at a suitable distance, 10 DME or so is what I beleive i suggested, right?
If you made a mistake and at 10DME your too fast to lower flaps, there is still time to conduct the rest of the approach in a safe maner, IE LOWER THE GEAR!
If you are still too fast or unstabilised, I agree G/A!
I don't mean to go against anyone or cause an arguement, all i'm saying is that some companies are to harsh and they don't let the box "think out of the box". What will happen when multiple malfunctions occur? Are the pilots still to expected to follow certain procedures? Is this always appropriate?
As you can see, dear forum readers, there is much more into flying than SOPS.
Just to remind: Feeling fresh, comfortable, good conditions...... go ahead and even if you fly a bus, enjoy the bus.
ANd just one last thing, lets all remember that there are 2 of us in the flight deck, desitions are made together that is why the pair of us are put into the pit. If you feel unhappy with something, say it, and dont allow your collegue to put you in a delicate situation.
PS, I thought this needed not be mentioned, though since a CRM factor (even common sense if you like) was pulled out in an earlier post, this is my honest reply.
Please, no hard feelings, its just my opinion!
It occurs that even though i strongly beleive SOPS are designed to be followed at all times, we may also divert from them in the scenarios I posted on the previous one. When I stated that the crew felt fresh, I obviously meant both, CRM.........
I beleive that if a first officer allows his captain to make a visual, or divert from an SOP when he doesn't feel comfortable, that is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing for the FO to do, obviously if anything goes wrong he will be "out of the loop" and that is the real danger, not the fact that a visual approach is being flown.
About the NRL report, well, apparantely a DC10 glided over the threshold at nearly 40 kts above VREF, if i´m not mistaken my thoughts were about croosing the threshold at the proper speed power setting and path, wit NO exception.
In order to cross the threshold with these parameters, the approach configuration MUST be started at a suitable distance, 10 DME or so is what I beleive i suggested, right?
If you made a mistake and at 10DME your too fast to lower flaps, there is still time to conduct the rest of the approach in a safe maner, IE LOWER THE GEAR!
If you are still too fast or unstabilised, I agree G/A!
I don't mean to go against anyone or cause an arguement, all i'm saying is that some companies are to harsh and they don't let the box "think out of the box". What will happen when multiple malfunctions occur? Are the pilots still to expected to follow certain procedures? Is this always appropriate?
As you can see, dear forum readers, there is much more into flying than SOPS.
Just to remind: Feeling fresh, comfortable, good conditions...... go ahead and even if you fly a bus, enjoy the bus.
ANd just one last thing, lets all remember that there are 2 of us in the flight deck, desitions are made together that is why the pair of us are put into the pit. If you feel unhappy with something, say it, and dont allow your collegue to put you in a delicate situation.
PS, I thought this needed not be mentioned, though since a CRM factor (even common sense if you like) was pulled out in an earlier post, this is my honest reply.
Please, no hard feelings, its just my opinion!
You're a bus driver (quite literally!) and thinking outside the box and/or applying common sense seem to be a qualities most people in the UK don't posses
The stabilised approach criteria are not designed to keep the approach safe. They are designed to preserve the safety margin between an unsafe approach and the Company standard for a stabilised approach. That safety margin is a carefully crafted condition that the leaders of this Company want us to deliver. These criteria are written to describe the conditions of a safe entry to stabilised approach and landing. If a crew cannot achieve the entry to stabilised conditions by 1,000 feet, the PNF is required to direct a go-around at 500ft and the PF is directed to initiate a go-around
We do not have separate manuals for gifted aviators and average aviators. Everyone on this team uses the same rulebook.
You may not agree with the guiding concepts of the procedures, but our boss has. As the old adage goes, what interests my boss fascinates me.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree with you further, that is exactly the reason why if both of us feel safe about it and both of us are sure the airplane will land at the TDZ at the correct parameters the Boss will be ever so happy to see that loads of fuel has been saved and that the flight was perfectly safe.
I'm no rebel believe me, neither do I consider myself a "gifted pilot" but when conditions don't permit I have no doubt that the airplane has to be established AT THE LATEST at 1000'AGL! Otherwise, I always configure late but safe, saving a lot and not risking insurance premiums.
I'm no rebel believe me, neither do I consider myself a "gifted pilot" but when conditions don't permit I have no doubt that the airplane has to be established AT THE LATEST at 1000'AGL! Otherwise, I always configure late but safe, saving a lot and not risking insurance premiums.
but when conditions don't permit I have no doubt that the airplane has to be established AT THE LATEST at 1000'AGL! Otherwise, I always configure late but safe, saving a lot and not risking insurance premiums.
Secondly wasting fuel: This statement is not true. Second, it’s not your call. The leadership has stated that the OM is the way they want everyone to fly the aircraft. It is an economic and risk management decision that they have made using lots of information that none of us worker bees has full access to. If you think that $140/barrel oil price is hurting the share price, imagine what front page pictures of twisted orange metal would do. I hear consistent reports from pilots who fly by the book, on the economy profile, and in compliance with OM procedures, who continue to under-burn fuel and operate on time. If we are wasting gas, it is by doing wasteful things like cruising/descending well above ECON speed when not required to do so etc. Remember, if you have a better mousetrap, make your case with the leadership. Enough!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orange, green or blue rubble, any of these would be a terrible news paper front page.
I think i'm not getting to you, so i'm going to be as plain as I can.
In all of my posts I have discussed possible ways to conduct a flight, but ALWAYS in a safe and fuel efficient way. Of course this includes flying at optimum levels, descending at the correct point, asking for short cuts etc etc.
My main worry is the way that certain approaches are flown.
There are some cases were pilots start to configure the aircraft very far out in order to be established at 500'AGL minimum. (Even though I don´t agree with the 500'AGL criteria in all cases, sometimes it is necesary, asi I said before, weather etc!). But there is no need for configuring 15 NM out at 2000'AGL, it doesn't enhance safety, and yes, it wastes alot of precious fuel, its just a nuisance to everybody else and I don't beleive you will disagree with me in this fact. So if you still want to tell me about leadership, feel free, but you know fully well my ideas carry no risk what so ever.
I think i'm not getting to you, so i'm going to be as plain as I can.
In all of my posts I have discussed possible ways to conduct a flight, but ALWAYS in a safe and fuel efficient way. Of course this includes flying at optimum levels, descending at the correct point, asking for short cuts etc etc.
My main worry is the way that certain approaches are flown.
There are some cases were pilots start to configure the aircraft very far out in order to be established at 500'AGL minimum. (Even though I don´t agree with the 500'AGL criteria in all cases, sometimes it is necesary, asi I said before, weather etc!). But there is no need for configuring 15 NM out at 2000'AGL, it doesn't enhance safety, and yes, it wastes alot of precious fuel, its just a nuisance to everybody else and I don't beleive you will disagree with me in this fact. So if you still want to tell me about leadership, feel free, but you know fully well my ideas carry no risk what so ever.