A little Non-standard, but way more fun
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
Let me take the counter intuitive route ... this is a very GOOD event.
1) No one was hurt (even if the FO should subsequently be taken round the back of the fuel dump and given a good kicking!)
2) The carrier will have learnt a valuable lesson. It should ensure that ALL their flight crews smarten up their act and start following the rules. Thus preventing an experiment becoming a truly big smash.
3) It might (just) have an effect upon the FAA. Certainly other carriers in the world can use this as a free example of why there are rules.
1) No one was hurt (even if the FO should subsequently be taken round the back of the fuel dump and given a good kicking!)
2) The carrier will have learnt a valuable lesson. It should ensure that ALL their flight crews smarten up their act and start following the rules. Thus preventing an experiment becoming a truly big smash.
3) It might (just) have an effect upon the FAA. Certainly other carriers in the world can use this as a free example of why there are rules.
It seems to me that the regulatory authorities around the world all pretty much insist that a pilot fly the airplane the way the manufacturer’s procedures describe … and, at least in the US, the Flight Operations Evaluation Board and the Flight Standardization Board evaluates the manufacturer’s procedures to see if any adjustments might be necessary – this includes approaches and landings. This being the case, what kind of effect do you think this circumstance will or should have on the FAA, as you describe in the 3rd part of your justification for this being a good event?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gone to my "Happy Place".
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Yes. Flap 45 is the normal landing config.
2. I don't remember any special limitations.
3. So no.
4. Of course.
5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.
2. I don't remember any special limitations.
3. So no.
4. Of course.
5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.
In the adsence of an atmospheric issue (Windshear, thermal, etc) , it seems that this can be chaulked up to an "Ooops" on the crews behalf.
I'll wait over here while the jury deliberates.
ps: Can I assume that the LV ops requirement of flaps 22 is to satisfy go-around climb performance?
Paxing All Over The World
AirRabbit
Good question and please bear in mind that I am SLF so am probably speaking through my hat!
Having heard a lot about the laissez-faire attitude of many CAAs [a French noun meaning a policy of non-interference, especially abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market] I wondered if the FAA might be shocked into trying to implement their own rules more strongly. If air crew, ATC and others involved, felt that someone was going to kick their backside - then rules might be followed.
I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!
So, apart from my wishful thinking about the FAA, this carrier is luckier than they deserve and all their pax can travel in the knowledge that this carrier is now SAFER than it was before.
what kind of effect do you think this circumstance will or should have on the FAA, as you describe in the 3rd part of your justification for this being a good event?
Having heard a lot about the laissez-faire attitude of many CAAs [a French noun meaning a policy of non-interference, especially abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market] I wondered if the FAA might be shocked into trying to implement their own rules more strongly. If air crew, ATC and others involved, felt that someone was going to kick their backside - then rules might be followed.
I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!
So, apart from my wishful thinking about the FAA, this carrier is luckier than they deserve and all their pax can travel in the knowledge that this carrier is now SAFER than it was before.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jimmy
Truthfully I'm not 100% sure why it was flap 22 for the CAT II landings, but yes, G/A perf must have been a part of it. Flap 45 just added a lot of drag.
While these guys didn't breach a SOP with their very high bodyangle on touchdown, that is not really the point.
There is no SOP, for example, that says you mustn't land upside down either.
Truthfully I'm not 100% sure why it was flap 22 for the CAT II landings, but yes, G/A perf must have been a part of it. Flap 45 just added a lot of drag.
While these guys didn't breach a SOP with their very high bodyangle on touchdown, that is not really the point.
There is no SOP, for example, that says you mustn't land upside down either.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend
5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.
Originally Posted by deep and fast
Now our normal setting for landing is 22
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
If air crew, ATC and others involved, felt that someone was going to kick their backside - then rules might be followed.
I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!
I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, all the planes I have flown so far came with books mentioning the landing technique. It also contaied a graph showing bank and pitch limitations and the combination thereof...
I would very much take this one as a nonadherence to SOP - I forget the official classification, wether it was H1 or H2 or whatever, but the definition said something like "intentional breach of SOPs".
Nic
I would very much take this one as a nonadherence to SOP - I forget the official classification, wether it was H1 or H2 or whatever, but the definition said something like "intentional breach of SOPs".
Nic
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by YoDawg
But in the incident quoted in the title, the FO indicated a voluntary breach of SOP's , even beforehand, and that needs immediate reaction from the left side.
If Flap45 landings are normal then it appears to me this FO might be guilty of no more than a bad landing. Not everyone's a test pilot. Seems like he flared high, then held it off trying to make a good landing instead of putting it down regardless.
"Seems" - from what's written there. Maybe you are in possession of more facts? Or did I miss something?
The F/O was operating the aircraft … of that there is little doubt. The Captain is in charge of what goes on in his aircraft … of that there is little doubt as well. According to the information available, the F/O made the incredible statement to the NTSB, that he briefed on the fact that his landing technique was not in accordance with standard procedures. That isn’t speculation – that is what the F/O said. On that basis alone, the questions being asked are the basic questions that should be asked at some point - at least in my opinion. 1) Why did the Captain not question the F/O as to what it was he was describing that was considered “non-standard” before allowing him to fly the landing approach? 2) Why did the F/O think it was acceptable to hold the aircraft off the runway until the stick shaker sounded? 3) Why did the Captain not take the aircraft away from the F/O at the first sign that he was raising the nose beyond that which is necessary to safely land the airplane?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YoDawg, all the information available to me is what I posted from the Herald at the start of the thread. Of course I don't know everything and can only judge from these few lines.
You might feel this is inappropriate, and you may be right. But then we couldn't discuss anything on here.
I did ask, and am doing it again at this point, for anyone who knows more of this incident to share the information, I am highly interessted.
I do uphold my opinion though, this kind of announced "I'll show you something" is not acceptable and had demanded oposition from the other side of the cockpit, no matter who says sucha thing.
My company pays me to fly safe, safe and also safe, and if I have some time left over, they are happy to see me be on time and give the passengers a comfortable ride!
Nic
You might feel this is inappropriate, and you may be right. But then we couldn't discuss anything on here.
I did ask, and am doing it again at this point, for anyone who knows more of this incident to share the information, I am highly interessted.
I do uphold my opinion though, this kind of announced "I'll show you something" is not acceptable and had demanded oposition from the other side of the cockpit, no matter who says sucha thing.
My company pays me to fly safe, safe and also safe, and if I have some time left over, they are happy to see me be on time and give the passengers a comfortable ride!
Nic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Report
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flying pilot's excessive angle of attack during the landing flare resulting in abnormal runway contact.
The flying pilot's excessive angle of attack during the landing flare resulting in abnormal runway contact.
Nic
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap 22 for CAT II is so that in the few seconds after becoming visual at 100' the change into attitude for touchdown or flare is less and if you are on speed you can pretty much fly to the runway as it is. Also, helps with less sink on flap retraction in the go-around.
