GF -072 :Very inexperienced flight crew?
Guest
Posts: n/a
GF -072 :Very inexperienced flight crew?
Having analysed the CVR on the net i couldent help but notice the vast inexperience of the flight crew.The captain had only been flying for 6 years and had only 82 hrs as captain on the A320.The F/O had only been flying for just over a year , with 608 hrs TT,and had also failed (acheived too many 'D' ratings) some simulator checks.
Was their inexperience a major factor into the crash?Gulf Air Captains officially went on the record and described the co as 'meek','Shy',and 'reserved'.Some questioned his potential ability to speak up if he thought something was not quite right.
Any thoughts?
Was their inexperience a major factor into the crash?Gulf Air Captains officially went on the record and described the co as 'meek','Shy',and 'reserved'.Some questioned his potential ability to speak up if he thought something was not quite right.
Any thoughts?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
The communication problem here has nothing to do with 600hrs or 6000hrs.
CRM is about the crew working together in the most effective way by communicating.
If the FO is trained right in CRM,heŽll speak up long before they run into this sort of situation - even with low hours.
If the CP is trained right in CRM, heŽll listen to his FO and factor the FOs input into further actions - even with low hours in command, moreover especially then .
IŽm not laying any blame on the colleagues for anything!
CRM is about the crew working together in the most effective way by communicating.
If the FO is trained right in CRM,heŽll speak up long before they run into this sort of situation - even with low hours.
If the CP is trained right in CRM, heŽll listen to his FO and factor the FOs input into further actions - even with low hours in command, moreover especially then .
IŽm not laying any blame on the colleagues for anything!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just what do you mean by that 5 apu? Interested to know since I am copilot with just over a years experiance and 600 hours jet time. Can't wait to get some more experience then I can be perfect too.
[This message has been edited by whats_it_doing_now? (edited 19 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by whats_it_doing_now? (edited 19 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A voice yellig STALL STALL?
Does this mean? Do it?
Or does it mean do not do it?
Or does it mean something else!
Seems better if it told the pilots what to do, as the pilots have obviously got it wrong so far and they cannot phone a friend.
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
[This message has been edited by scanscanscan (edited 25 May 2001).]
Does this mean? Do it?
Or does it mean do not do it?
Or does it mean something else!
Seems better if it told the pilots what to do, as the pilots have obviously got it wrong so far and they cannot phone a friend.
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
[This message has been edited by scanscanscan (edited 25 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Airbus, in normal law, meaning everything is funtioning, cannot (in theory) be stalled. If these pilots had done nothing else, but pull the sidestick full aft, the aircraft would have applied TOGA thrust once it reached a certain airspeed. The aircraft would have climbed like a banshee looking for a banana and would start reducing the bank angle.
Apparently these aviators did the bad thing of flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground (water).
Apparently these aviators did the bad thing of flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground (water).
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's a problem that when new equipment becomes reachable in the bidding process, the awarded captain will often be new to the airplane even though probably experienced as a captain. While seniority rules, there is no requirement to season in the right seat before taking command. Is this a safety issue? You bet!
Guest
Posts: n/a
With regard to the comment about low flight time. I understand what the poster means. I was a captain at a regional when they started hiring very low time pilots (under 1,000 hrs). Most (not all) of the new pilots I flew with had never flown into a busy airport or shot an actual instrument approach. I could tell stories, but basically, it was a shocking experience. In short, my new fo's were cfi's that had a few hundred hours doing steep turns.
After a few years, they'd be alright, but they were upgrading to captain in six months. So when this started, you had new captains who hadn't learned the ropes yet flying with very green fo's. You could have two guys up front that had never used a wx radar dodging storms...or dealing with winter ops.
This is not to slam low time guys, but there's a lot of things to learn that can't be taught in a classroom or sim, and many of the new hires I flew with thought they new it all. We've all been new, but I think many of the older guys learned the hard way...flying something like a Navajo on night charter jobs and the like. We also took several years to make captain.
Do foreign carriers have rules like the US regarding pilot pairing (as it relates to avoiding the pairing of two low time pilots)?
After a few years, they'd be alright, but they were upgrading to captain in six months. So when this started, you had new captains who hadn't learned the ropes yet flying with very green fo's. You could have two guys up front that had never used a wx radar dodging storms...or dealing with winter ops.
This is not to slam low time guys, but there's a lot of things to learn that can't be taught in a classroom or sim, and many of the new hires I flew with thought they new it all. We've all been new, but I think many of the older guys learned the hard way...flying something like a Navajo on night charter jobs and the like. We also took several years to make captain.
Do foreign carriers have rules like the US regarding pilot pairing (as it relates to avoiding the pairing of two low time pilots)?
Guest
Posts: n/a
We all talk about experience, but why and how did he get himself that high and fast in the first place. The cardinal sin I feel they/he made was the disconnecting of the autopilot to make a non presision approach. The a/c has everything there to help you and they used none of them.
Madness. Lets just hope others have learnt from this.
Madness. Lets just hope others have learnt from this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the point of CRM is being over emphasised.
I do agree that an experienced (eg 1500hrs+on type)First Officer would have ensured that this type of accident does not occur, however the continued practice of some companies releasing people to line as Captains when they are clearly incapable of doing so , or just have not yet aquired the necessary experience dumbfounds me.
I will not travel on an airline that I suspect carry out this practice. The public need to be informed of it and managment that allows this practce to continue need to be held criminally liable.
I do agree that an experienced (eg 1500hrs+on type)First Officer would have ensured that this type of accident does not occur, however the continued practice of some companies releasing people to line as Captains when they are clearly incapable of doing so , or just have not yet aquired the necessary experience dumbfounds me.
I will not travel on an airline that I suspect carry out this practice. The public need to be informed of it and managment that allows this practce to continue need to be held criminally liable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The instrument presentation to the pilot in the A320 is so good that it is easier to fly a visual approach in an A320 than in your simplest light aircraft.
If you keep the 'bird' (flight path vector) above the horizon the aircraft will always be climbing. Put it on the horizon and you will be level. Under the computer's normal law the flight path will always be constant however much you push or pull the thrust levers. It couldn't be simpler.
These were professional pilots. It should have never happened.
If you keep the 'bird' (flight path vector) above the horizon the aircraft will always be climbing. Put it on the horizon and you will be level. Under the computer's normal law the flight path will always be constant however much you push or pull the thrust levers. It couldn't be simpler.
These were professional pilots. It should have never happened.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flap5.
Maybe they were looking somewhere else than on the instruments? I doubt they would have done the maneuvers they did if they had looked at the instruments (especially the pitching down after hearing the flaps-overspeed warning).
GF072 has been discussed on several other threads and I find the theory on "Somatogravic Illusions - the False Pitch-up Illusion" very interesting and plausible.
You can find here:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/013394.html
Maybe they were looking somewhere else than on the instruments? I doubt they would have done the maneuvers they did if they had looked at the instruments (especially the pitching down after hearing the flaps-overspeed warning).
GF072 has been discussed on several other threads and I find the theory on "Somatogravic Illusions - the False Pitch-up Illusion" very interesting and plausible.
You can find here:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/013394.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
The simple fact is, very low time F/O’s can be left way out of the loop when things start to get away from the norm (fit hits the Shan). We have all seen how fast that can happen. It’s called inexperience. We need to think back to our 300th hour and appreciate how raw we really were. The very fact that in a recent accident the F/O had no input to the controls, even in the last seconds before impact, says a heck of a lot.
I believe it is asking for problems when a company allows a pilot to occupy a crew seat of a slippery jet or high performance turbo-prop with such low time. The trouble is that the companies (bean counters) rely on their misguided belief that the Captain will be able to do it all on his/her own on the day. Two pilot a/c are so designed for very good reasons, such as, the handling of abnormal situations and various levels of incapacitation etc.
Companies need to ask themselves a simple question. Is this crew combination capable of handling a heavy-duty emergency with a high probability of coming out on top? If not, they shouldn’t roster the said crew. Two experienced pilots will best assure this.
Some of the problem may stem from the fact that senior salaries are able to be kept higher if the junior salaries are kept lower, hence the possible acceptance by Flight Ops departments of very low time F/O’s or S/O’s. Cheap labor. And you thought only Nike did that.
Many countries do not posses much of a GA industry. Low time guys need to get a start somewhere. I believe companies should establish agreements, so that their low time F/O’s are able to gain experience on less demanding a/c before returning to crew high performance types. RBA have done so in the past.
Pilots should be accepted with due regard to ability and not, as is sometimes the case, based on who they know. This is a problem particularly in Asia.
I have a good friend who works for a flying school set up by a large Asian carrier. He confirms that some of the students are connected, rather than possessing even average ability. Then of course, pressure is brought to bear to get them through and the weak link story we are all familiar with begins.
It’s commonsense really. Until airlines get serious about the low time F/O situation, senseless loss of life will continue to occur. This situation can improve if some overseeing authority forces the companies to make change, otherwise the bean counters will prevail.
These problems are endemic in aviation in many regions around the world.
The travelling public deserves more. I guess it will take successful litigation by some victim’s relatives, before the relentless drive for greater profit, gives way to the necessity to show adequate care and responsibility to the travelling public.
[This message has been edited by Roadrunner (edited 21 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Roadrunner (edited 21 May 2001).]
I believe it is asking for problems when a company allows a pilot to occupy a crew seat of a slippery jet or high performance turbo-prop with such low time. The trouble is that the companies (bean counters) rely on their misguided belief that the Captain will be able to do it all on his/her own on the day. Two pilot a/c are so designed for very good reasons, such as, the handling of abnormal situations and various levels of incapacitation etc.
Companies need to ask themselves a simple question. Is this crew combination capable of handling a heavy-duty emergency with a high probability of coming out on top? If not, they shouldn’t roster the said crew. Two experienced pilots will best assure this.
Some of the problem may stem from the fact that senior salaries are able to be kept higher if the junior salaries are kept lower, hence the possible acceptance by Flight Ops departments of very low time F/O’s or S/O’s. Cheap labor. And you thought only Nike did that.
Many countries do not posses much of a GA industry. Low time guys need to get a start somewhere. I believe companies should establish agreements, so that their low time F/O’s are able to gain experience on less demanding a/c before returning to crew high performance types. RBA have done so in the past.
Pilots should be accepted with due regard to ability and not, as is sometimes the case, based on who they know. This is a problem particularly in Asia.
I have a good friend who works for a flying school set up by a large Asian carrier. He confirms that some of the students are connected, rather than possessing even average ability. Then of course, pressure is brought to bear to get them through and the weak link story we are all familiar with begins.
It’s commonsense really. Until airlines get serious about the low time F/O situation, senseless loss of life will continue to occur. This situation can improve if some overseeing authority forces the companies to make change, otherwise the bean counters will prevail.
These problems are endemic in aviation in many regions around the world.
The travelling public deserves more. I guess it will take successful litigation by some victim’s relatives, before the relentless drive for greater profit, gives way to the necessity to show adequate care and responsibility to the travelling public.
[This message has been edited by Roadrunner (edited 21 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Roadrunner (edited 21 May 2001).]