EZY Captain gets the boot
AltFlaps;
If it were only that simple!
I understand what you're saying, have heard it from many quarters as we try to establish an FDA Program and I know why you say it.
First, I ask of you the same understanding with the opposite view, for very good reasons with which you may even possibly agree.
It's very easy to say no pilot's data should be protected if, a) if you're management, b) a regulator or a potential prosecutor, c) don't have a FOQA Program, d) don't have a union, e) aren't flight crew flying airliners.
Which is it please, or are you a regular line pilot but still believe that "bollox" is the answer?
Here are some thoughts on this. The following applies to non-Asian countries and any other states including non-ICAO states where we know that FOQA data is used purely for disciplinary measures.
In announcing "bollox to the unions", please consider this: if data loses the protections afforded under pilot/management agreements and is instead made available to those wishing to fire pilots using FOQA data, that door swings both ways. Pilots will instantly begin requesting and using data in all manner of operational, industrial and political battles and it won't stop there. The c/c's will be after the data to "prove" turbulence injury cases. Then passengers...
If the airline management gets the data to do with what they will, so will the courts, the media and the very same pilots' unions which you seem to hate will demand and ultimately achieve the same level of access "in the name of the public good", especially if there is an accident. It will be "no-holds-barred" and "bollox to the unions" may become an embarrassing utterance.
In truth the protection of safety information and flight data gathered under FOQA/FDA Programs is really a lot more complicated than that. It is an old, trite saying now but still applies: Be careful what you wish for.
Edited to add the following:
At the same time, ASRs are not "get-out-of-jail-cards", nor should FOQA agreements be a suit-of-iron which protects pilots against negligence or intentional acts of non-compliance. Perhaps this addresses the point you are making which, if I interpret correctly, I am in full agreement.
Again however, if the data shows intentional non-compliance (and this is not as hard to detect as some may believe), this is not simply a matter of "getting the guy involved and whacking him/her with a rolled newspaper or worse". Do that, and FOQA is out the door or, at best, a sham. This is where agreement with the pilots comes in. Any agreement with the pilots, union or no, that is worth signing will include ways processes and procedures for dealing with such non-compliance as will any safety reporting policy worth signing on to.
That way, if a repeat series of safety events shows up in the data belonging to the same person, the safety problem which clearly exists and which is beyond mere "human factors", is handled according to established procedures. Some advocate showing "such people" the door. Unless the event is negligent in the extreme or criminal, (both of which should be covered in any safety policy and agreement), such an outcome is expensive and produces no solution worth having.
The purpose of the agreement to which both the union and management must be signatories, is to deal rationally with serious safety matters before they turn into an accident. If it's merely used to whack pilots, FOQA as a pre-emptive safety tool is finished and exists merely as a corporate box-tick until the next accident, and, as I have iterated here before, any organization that collects safety data and doesn't do anything with it or merely uses it to punish, is placing not it's pilots, but itself (and perhaps its very existence) in jeopardy should an accident occur. Just ask QANTAS about their Bangkok accident, the antecedents of which were "in the data" years before.
Unfortunately, it is only after an accident that managers, senior executives, bean-counters and perhaps even shareholders, sit up and take notice (if they're not up on charges).
I suspect we're in agreement on fundamentals. But dismissing the union with a "bollocks" would eventually render any data-program ineffective and place the enterprise itself at risk. SMS, such as it is in some locales, is too far along now to return to the seventies, an unenlightened enforcement culture which did not prevent but contributed to the accident rate experienced at the time.
Bollox to the unions!
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections in straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and flew in a professional manor, then what's the problem?
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections in straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and flew in a professional manor, then what's the problem?
I understand what you're saying, have heard it from many quarters as we try to establish an FDA Program and I know why you say it.
First, I ask of you the same understanding with the opposite view, for very good reasons with which you may even possibly agree.
It's very easy to say no pilot's data should be protected if, a) if you're management, b) a regulator or a potential prosecutor, c) don't have a FOQA Program, d) don't have a union, e) aren't flight crew flying airliners.
Which is it please, or are you a regular line pilot but still believe that "bollox" is the answer?
Here are some thoughts on this. The following applies to non-Asian countries and any other states including non-ICAO states where we know that FOQA data is used purely for disciplinary measures.
In announcing "bollox to the unions", please consider this: if data loses the protections afforded under pilot/management agreements and is instead made available to those wishing to fire pilots using FOQA data, that door swings both ways. Pilots will instantly begin requesting and using data in all manner of operational, industrial and political battles and it won't stop there. The c/c's will be after the data to "prove" turbulence injury cases. Then passengers...
If the airline management gets the data to do with what they will, so will the courts, the media and the very same pilots' unions which you seem to hate will demand and ultimately achieve the same level of access "in the name of the public good", especially if there is an accident. It will be "no-holds-barred" and "bollox to the unions" may become an embarrassing utterance.
In truth the protection of safety information and flight data gathered under FOQA/FDA Programs is really a lot more complicated than that. It is an old, trite saying now but still applies: Be careful what you wish for.
Edited to add the following:
At the same time, ASRs are not "get-out-of-jail-cards", nor should FOQA agreements be a suit-of-iron which protects pilots against negligence or intentional acts of non-compliance. Perhaps this addresses the point you are making which, if I interpret correctly, I am in full agreement.
Again however, if the data shows intentional non-compliance (and this is not as hard to detect as some may believe), this is not simply a matter of "getting the guy involved and whacking him/her with a rolled newspaper or worse". Do that, and FOQA is out the door or, at best, a sham. This is where agreement with the pilots comes in. Any agreement with the pilots, union or no, that is worth signing will include ways processes and procedures for dealing with such non-compliance as will any safety reporting policy worth signing on to.
That way, if a repeat series of safety events shows up in the data belonging to the same person, the safety problem which clearly exists and which is beyond mere "human factors", is handled according to established procedures. Some advocate showing "such people" the door. Unless the event is negligent in the extreme or criminal, (both of which should be covered in any safety policy and agreement), such an outcome is expensive and produces no solution worth having.
The purpose of the agreement to which both the union and management must be signatories, is to deal rationally with serious safety matters before they turn into an accident. If it's merely used to whack pilots, FOQA as a pre-emptive safety tool is finished and exists merely as a corporate box-tick until the next accident, and, as I have iterated here before, any organization that collects safety data and doesn't do anything with it or merely uses it to punish, is placing not it's pilots, but itself (and perhaps its very existence) in jeopardy should an accident occur. Just ask QANTAS about their Bangkok accident, the antecedents of which were "in the data" years before.
Unfortunately, it is only after an accident that managers, senior executives, bean-counters and perhaps even shareholders, sit up and take notice (if they're not up on charges).
I suspect we're in agreement on fundamentals. But dismissing the union with a "bollocks" would eventually render any data-program ineffective and place the enterprise itself at risk. SMS, such as it is in some locales, is too far along now to return to the seventies, an unenlightened enforcement culture which did not prevent but contributed to the accident rate experienced at the time.
Last edited by PJ2; 11th Jul 2008 at 00:45.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an ezy behind me at AGP today he was being asked to keep the speed up leaving mar on the ILS Y,captain very politely declined blaming SOP and "had to be at 180knts" once on the localiser.
I know absolutely nothing about the reasons for this dismissal but I do know that data from QAR's should be confidential and not used in this manner.So many variables in flying that exceedances will occur..its only a persistent pattern of high sink rate on final that should raise alarm bells.Everything else can be dealt with by a friendly chat with the CP.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is the problem...You just cannot do this in the States.You fly the speed they tell you.You are a pilot and they expect you to act like one.To non-comply with an ATC command because of SOP is a disgrace!Absolute disgrace.
ATC wont ask you to fly anything dangerous
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To non-comply with an ATC command because of SOP is a disgrace!
Remember the S in ATS, it stands of Service. ATS/ATC is a service that stops you hitting the other tins in the sky. The pilots control the aircraft, ATC control you not hitting other aircraft. If the captain wants to fly at 180kts into AGP (which seems reasonable to me given the nature of the place) that's his perogative and shall remain so long as ATCOs are not the legally responsible commander of the aircraft.
ATC wont ask you to fly anything dangerous
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And this is the problem...You just cannot do this in the States.You fly the speed they tell you.You are a pilot and they expect you to act like one.To non-comply with an ATC command because of SOP is a disgrace!Absolute disgrace.
I'll try to give the 180 to the marker with a tailwind at JFK and late configuration for noise to the Europeans but if it doesn't work out, I'm going to burn some carbon credits and go around. Big Brother is definitely watching the QAR tape these days.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camelhair,
You share the sky with thousands of others.ATC coordinate it all by issuing commands.Speed control(both fast/slow) is one of their best tools.To deny them this is unprofessional.180 knots at 25nm is woefully slow and a disgrace,unless you're on your own on the approach(which is never the case in the States).
I have flown into all the Spanish airports.Their ATC is not the best but it is not deficient.There are no special problems at AGP(cat b?)..simple step down procedure,some terrain.Why would anyone have flaps out at 25 miles unless instructed to do so.This isnt Nepal.Thats where all the turb is anyway,25 miles out for rwy 14.Burns more fuel as well.Might be SOP,but its poor airmanship.
Perhaps the focus on the QAR/SOP is compromising airmanship.Discuss.
You share the sky with thousands of others.ATC coordinate it all by issuing commands.Speed control(both fast/slow) is one of their best tools.To deny them this is unprofessional.180 knots at 25nm is woefully slow and a disgrace,unless you're on your own on the approach(which is never the case in the States).
I have flown into all the Spanish airports.Their ATC is not the best but it is not deficient.There are no special problems at AGP(cat b?)..simple step down procedure,some terrain.Why would anyone have flaps out at 25 miles unless instructed to do so.This isnt Nepal.Thats where all the turb is anyway,25 miles out for rwy 14.Burns more fuel as well.Might be SOP,but its poor airmanship.
Perhaps the focus on the QAR/SOP is compromising airmanship.Discuss.
On the 340-500 and 600 we are quite often at close to max landing weight, even after a fourteen hour flight, what I do( and many of my colleagues) is select flap 3 early announce "flap 3 non standard", then gear down. The 340 does not like to go down and slow down at the same time, this way we dont get invited for "tea and biscuits" with the fleet manager.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananmin
AGP is often a problem, i have been cleared for the approach on R13 only for us to point out that the ILS is identing for R33, for them to reply " yes we have landing traffic on the R33 ILS at 7 miles" !!
There is no need normally for 180 at 25 miles, but again i have been kept high FL120 at 25 miles inbound MAR cleared for the approach maintain high speed contact TWR who then want min approach speed, they simply don't talk to each other.
East Midlands circuit height? abeam down wind 09 FL060 descend 3000ft?
Time after time you will be in the same ground position no matter that the QNH is way above standard or hoofing Easterly tail wind BHX no better, the best are LGW follow their speeds to the knt and they'll drop you in on profile on the LOC.
Of course recent fuel prices have caused airline to change their FMC cost index, but no one told ATC? so you have Easy going down at 255 baby at 265Ryanair at warp 8 Flybe 145 at 300knts and so on.
It would be far better if ATC just instruct on speed, they have the big picture (unless you are a Spanish ATC in which case its not the big picture its the flat screen (TV that is!!))
Lol
There is no need normally for 180 at 25 miles, but again i have been kept high FL120 at 25 miles inbound MAR cleared for the approach maintain high speed contact TWR who then want min approach speed, they simply don't talk to each other.
East Midlands circuit height? abeam down wind 09 FL060 descend 3000ft?
Time after time you will be in the same ground position no matter that the QNH is way above standard or hoofing Easterly tail wind BHX no better, the best are LGW follow their speeds to the knt and they'll drop you in on profile on the LOC.
Of course recent fuel prices have caused airline to change their FMC cost index, but no one told ATC? so you have Easy going down at 255 baby at 265Ryanair at warp 8 Flybe 145 at 300knts and so on.
It would be far better if ATC just instruct on speed, they have the big picture (unless you are a Spanish ATC in which case its not the big picture its the flat screen (TV that is!!))
Lol
160kias to 4dme on request by ATC (LGW i.e) is an " EZY approved" speed, which will normally assure to be stable at our "gates".
And this is quite commom at LGW, right?
And this is quite commom at LGW, right?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim
Agree with that... and here lies probably one of the problems at Ez, way too regulated, well let's call it too SOPed. Don't use your head girls & boys, just follow the SOPs.
The upside: apparent safety, management protection as regards to the law
The downside: pilots use part of their concentration on keepin'within SOPs instead of using their heads, specially in situations...
On the other hand, again in eZ, speeds and configs on the approach are recommendations only. The stabilized 1000/500 criterias are the ones that are mandatory. Finally the game for us is to reach these as quickly and elegantly as possible.
CamelhAir
Fully supportive 
Frankly I think the big ATC/PILOTS war has already started. ATC would at best like to remote control us (look for instance at the American terrorist take-over control project), on our side we could do without them using TCAS/free flight concepts.
In conclusion:
I'm paid to follow SOPs and as long as deemed safe will abide to them
live 2 fly 2 live
Might be SOP,but its poor airmanship.
The upside: apparent safety, management protection as regards to the law
The downside: pilots use part of their concentration on keepin'within SOPs instead of using their heads, specially in situations...
On the other hand, again in eZ, speeds and configs on the approach are recommendations only. The stabilized 1000/500 criterias are the ones that are mandatory. Finally the game for us is to reach these as quickly and elegantly as possible.
CamelhAir
the S in ATS, it stands of Service
Frankly I think the big ATC/PILOTS war has already started. ATC would at best like to remote control us (look for instance at the American terrorist take-over control project), on our side we could do without them using TCAS/free flight concepts.
In conclusion:
I'm paid to follow SOPs and as long as deemed safe will abide to them
live 2 fly 2 live
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inkjet:
When was the last time you flew into BHX?
Rwy 33 FL80 at HON passing HON 210kts descent to 4000ft QNH you have about 28 miles to touch down plenty of room for anyone to get the aircraft down. If you want to route HON EBONY GROVE then just let me know and we'll bang you into the hold at GROVE and you can descend with all the miles you think you need whilst we let all the guys and girls that can get their aircraft down 4000ft in 20 miles land ahead of you.
Have you ever been to visit ATC at BHX you would be made welcome and we could explain some of the airspace limitations that we have.
All traffic vectored into BHX now is given a CDA (continuous descent approach) all ATCOs are trained to provide them. If for any reason you are high, it is generally because London have kept you high inbound because the departures to the south conflict with the inbound routes!
Time after time you will be in the same ground position no matter that the QNH is way above standard or hoofing Easterly tail wind BHX no better
Rwy 33 FL80 at HON passing HON 210kts descent to 4000ft QNH you have about 28 miles to touch down plenty of room for anyone to get the aircraft down. If you want to route HON EBONY GROVE then just let me know and we'll bang you into the hold at GROVE and you can descend with all the miles you think you need whilst we let all the guys and girls that can get their aircraft down 4000ft in 20 miles land ahead of you.
Have you ever been to visit ATC at BHX you would be made welcome and we could explain some of the airspace limitations that we have.
All traffic vectored into BHX now is given a CDA (continuous descent approach) all ATCOs are trained to provide them. If for any reason you are high, it is generally because London have kept you high inbound because the departures to the south conflict with the inbound routes!
Last edited by radar707; 11th Jul 2008 at 10:31.
short flights long nights
In my past life when I flew 737NGs into AGP I was always slowed to 180 knots by 20 miles...if not there can be big problems trying to stop the olg girl at the bottom!!! A few people that I was training wanted to show me that I was an"old women" and how you could "keep it up till close in"....was always good for a goaround practise!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kraut, I've yet to see an EZY 319 keep 160 to 4 at Gatwick.
The aim is to be stable and in landing config by 1000ft above TDZ. What works in still air is 180kts to 6dme, 170kts to 5dme and 160kts to 4dme. Observing those rules of thumb should have the aircraft stable and on approach speed at 1100ft.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all well and good Wingswinger and I take your points on board. However, 160 to 4 is a standard ATC assigned speed on final approach. Everybody gets it unless requested otherwise...BA 737 fleet have cottoned onto this and routinely ask for 170 to 5 when they are on the downwind leg. This is not a problem for us as long as we are told well in advance.
The reason it is a standard speed is to ensure we achieve the correct spacing requested by the tower in order for them to get a deaparture away. More importantly, it is sometimes an issue of maintaining the correct space between a pair of a/c for vortex reasons.
If the assigned speed is a problem then we need to know sooner rather than later.It is not acceptable to just read back "160 to 4DME" and then batter on regardless flying your own speed. There are moves afoot to make 170 to 5 the standard final approach speed for everybody, which will hopefully improve things.
The reason it is a standard speed is to ensure we achieve the correct spacing requested by the tower in order for them to get a deaparture away. More importantly, it is sometimes an issue of maintaining the correct space between a pair of a/c for vortex reasons.
If the assigned speed is a problem then we need to know sooner rather than later.It is not acceptable to just read back "160 to 4DME" and then batter on regardless flying your own speed. There are moves afoot to make 170 to 5 the standard final approach speed for everybody, which will hopefully improve things.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Hmm, Interesting discussion. I don't have AGP plates to hand but I'm sure that somewhere on 10-4 or 10-9 (it used to be on the airfield plate????) it states that aircraft should maintain 180knots when established on the LOC and then 160 to the marker. All the comments regarding the ILS at 3.2° are correct. If you hit the glide in Flap 1 (Airbus) around 200 knots you will not be able to slow it down with out taking the gear first to get Flap 2 (not good practice to take F2 at VFE next -1 knot anyway.) So F2/180 actually works very nicely.
I cannot understand why people get so uptight about people decelerating. I'll admit 180 at 25 is a bit conservative - but that's the Commanders choice. Who knows it may have been his first sector after Command check. I always constrain my speed and profile at MAR - because often you get cleared direct to the 17D point (straight over the high ground....) and I don't want a high ROD trying to make up for a lost couple of miles - I'd rather they just let us fly the procedure - you probably only save <1 minute with the direct. So for me it's 220/FL65 at MAR - I'm then in a position to start configuring/decelerating and I can V/S the steps without any drama. It's worked for the last 10 years - and I don't plan on changing.
I like a simple(safe) life.
A4
Just found it:
250 <FL100
Reduce to 210 final turn to intercept LOC course when within 20 nm
180 when crossing 12D
160 when crossing GM Lctr
So, 180 from 12 is "standard" - not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
A4
I cannot understand why people get so uptight about people decelerating. I'll admit 180 at 25 is a bit conservative - but that's the Commanders choice. Who knows it may have been his first sector after Command check. I always constrain my speed and profile at MAR - because often you get cleared direct to the 17D point (straight over the high ground....) and I don't want a high ROD trying to make up for a lost couple of miles - I'd rather they just let us fly the procedure - you probably only save <1 minute with the direct. So for me it's 220/FL65 at MAR - I'm then in a position to start configuring/decelerating and I can V/S the steps without any drama. It's worked for the last 10 years - and I don't plan on changing.
I like a simple(safe) life.
A4
Just found it:
250 <FL100
Reduce to 210 final turn to intercept LOC course when within 20 nm
180 when crossing 12D
160 when crossing GM Lctr
So, 180 from 12 is "standard" - not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
A4
Last edited by A4; 11th Jul 2008 at 11:18.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just like on the roads.... having some consideration for those behind you, if you chose to travel slower than 'average'. 180 at 25 miles may not be dangerous, or illegal, but it is inconsiderate, if you have been put at the front of a queue.
Too may people are not familiar enough with how fast you can slow the aircraft with gear. eJ over-SOP's philosophy denies most new recruits the concept of using gear gear before flaps if it helps in the optimum descent. I get really frustrated when FO's fart round with speedbrake at 180/190 (A319) when dropping the gear is an instant cure.
Too may people are not familiar enough with how fast you can slow the aircraft with gear. eJ over-SOP's philosophy denies most new recruits the concept of using gear gear before flaps if it helps in the optimum descent. I get really frustrated when FO's fart round with speedbrake at 180/190 (A319) when dropping the gear is an instant cure.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ezy are keen to get the 'stable approach' (as measured by Flight data analysis) because there will be a reduction in Insurance Premiums if they can prove compliance in 9x.x% of approaches. Quite difficult to do sometimes as the average Airbus autothrottle has real trouble keeping the speed within the mandated parameters. Nothing directly to do with flight safety. There are all sorts of ridiculous things that go on in Ezy, but it's when something costs money that the full weight of their effort comes to the fore.
Having said that, I don't condone silly or dangerous flying - if that's what the sacked pilot did.
Having said that, I don't condone silly or dangerous flying - if that's what the sacked pilot did.