Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Having flown quite a few times as the "shotgun", it very much depended on the Training Captain. In some cases you were invited to help the new boy with walk rounds, paper work, monitoring etc. However one trainer (and he was the Chief trainer) informed me that I was in effect a spare tyre, and had no function unless he was taken ill, which case I was to assume command. If there was a spare seat down the back I was to sit in it. We're back to talking egos, aren't we?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHFour
I resent your cracks about size 12 feet. I have size 13 feet (USA). I am also quite clumsy with most ground things. (though not flying things)
While it can be appropriate to have your feet NEAR the rudder pedals, only ONE person should attempt to fly the plane at a time. Be ready, be alert, but interference is something that can make things worse.
IF the wx is too bad, or the field too demanding, the captain should just say: I think I will fly this leg. And that's that.
While it can be appropriate to have your feet NEAR the rudder pedals, only ONE person should attempt to fly the plane at a time. Be ready, be alert, but interference is something that can make things worse.
IF the wx is too bad, or the field too demanding, the captain should just say: I think I will fly this leg. And that's that.
Last edited by protectthehornet; 26th Apr 2009 at 01:12.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throw a trainee or re-cert into the mix (especially if it is a relatively rare experience, e.g. in private practice or PPL experiences) then sometimes we all can get too pedantic or enthusiastic about a minor teaching point whilst the airspeed dramatically declines as the academic points are rammed home to the trainee.
There are times to be teaching, times to be probing knowledge, times to be discussing procedures et al. On final approach in the aircraft, is not one of them. The trainee would have completed a series of simulator sessions where the process would have been discussed, practiced and then debriefed extensively, if necessary freezing the sim to show/ highlight some area which was causing difficulty. Only when the required standard had been met would the trainee be released to start flying an aeroplane with a Training Captain, Safety Pilot and passengers onboard.
The Safety Pilot is a resource to be used by the Training Captain as he sees fit. He is there for legal reasons until such time as the trainee is seen fit to be able to handle a pilot incapacitation safely. This will require a few days with a Training Captain to ensure his decision making and handling are at a suitable level to divert the aircraft safely and land at a suitable diversion airfield.
He should be briefed before flight to ensure he clearly understands what is required of him. I personally make sure they understand that they are not to 'back seat drive' pointing out every little error and keep interrupting. Some choose to use the Safety Pilot to lower the workload on the new trainee, perhaps by getting them to do the walkround check, or organise the fuelling etc. Others will not.
What any good Training Captain should do though is to clearly brief the Safety Pilot about them being an extra pair of eyes on the flightdeck and to appropriately intervene when safety could be compromised. This incident would be a classic example of when I would require my Safety Pilot to call "SPEED" in a very clear tone until it was acknowledged/ appropriate action taken.
Coming down final approach on ANY sector is not the time to be distracting the PF with inappropriate training input. If a few prompts don't see the situation suitably controlled then you just take control and sort it out yourself. The time to then chat about it is on stand with the engines shutdown.
PP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brussels
Age: 71
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prelimenary Report released
New Preliminary Official Publication
The Investigative body has published a new, updated report:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/ra...imenary_EN.pdf
Autocoupled aproach, glideslope capture from above due to short-ish lineup at 5NM. They seemed to be out of the loop and a bit rushed. Read for yourself.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/ra...imenary_EN.pdf
Autocoupled aproach, glideslope capture from above due to short-ish lineup at 5NM. They seemed to be out of the loop and a bit rushed. Read for yourself.
Last edited by fox niner; 28th Apr 2009 at 11:53.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly NOT the default "toys" in MSFS but the payware by PMDG, the 737NG series so the cockpit is quite well simulated. In any case, your tone suggests that you should stick with flying rather than communicating with people as you are much too arrogant to get anyones respect with that attitude.
I have a number of "payware by PMDG" addons on my gaming PC. I also have the Level-D 767 and RealAir SF-260 - two more "as real is it gets" addons for flightsim. However sitting in an armchair at 0 ft is somewhat different to flying hundreds of people around at FL350. Apart from which I don't recall PMDG covering Human Factors and CRM in their "How to fly" guide
When you get your CPL/ATPL and a few thousand hours of real flying experience I'm sure people will be less likely to reply to your posts in such a negative way.
TrafficPilot
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the interim report:
At approximately 770 feet, the crew set the selected airspeed to 144 knots. At that moment the actual airspeed was 144 knots. The autothrottle system should have maintained the speed selected by the crew but, with the thrust levers at idle and the autothrottle system still in the retard mode, speed continued to decay.
Does the above statement imply criticism of Boeing's autothrottle design?
For balance, should the report have said something about the crew not seeming to recognise that the autothrottle was in reterd mode and that their airspeed was decaying to a dangerously low level?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flyburg
BOAC,
Out of curiousity and not wanting to go back and read 2360 posts, where did you get that information?
Thanks
Out of curiousity and not wanting to go back and read 2360 posts, where did you get that information?
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Byrna" NOT the default "toys" in MSFS but the payware by PMDG, the 737NG series so the cockpit is quite well simulated.
Vow - you really got to know your stuff - have you ever flown a real aircraft?
I got PPL only, reading for ATPL - and would not open my mouth to make any comments for why this happen, because it is out of my leaguen for now, even if I had been "Playing" with MS Flight Sim, PMDG or not, flying is not just pushing some buttons and moving a joystick/yoke - you are a joke man.
Vow - you really got to know your stuff - have you ever flown a real aircraft?
I got PPL only, reading for ATPL - and would not open my mouth to make any comments for why this happen, because it is out of my leaguen for now, even if I had been "Playing" with MS Flight Sim, PMDG or not, flying is not just pushing some buttons and moving a joystick/yoke - you are a joke man.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avionista
I think they have made a fairly accurate technical statement. A typical autothrottle system normally commands the throttles between an upper and lower limit. The lower limit is slightly above idle. In the case of this accident, the autothrottle computer responded correctly to the faulty rad alt input by overriding the lower limit and retarding the throttles to the full idle stop. This allows the thrust reverser to be selected upon landing. At that point, the autothrottle would normally disconnect through the thrust reverser selection.
Byrna, you badly need a reality check. No matter how expensive your toys may be; they are still toys, especially when used by amateurs. You appear to be clueless regarding flight deck operations.
Before posting any more of your unqualified opinions, please take some time to (at least try to) educate yourself. Here's some interesting reading material:
The limits of expertise - Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents. Dismukes, Berman, Loukopoulos.
Ten Questions About Human Error: A New View of Human Factors and System Safety. Sidney Dekker.
Human factors in aviation. Wiener, Nagel.
Until then, Byrna (to paraphrase yourself), you should stick with your toys rather than communicate with professionals as you are currently much too ignorant to get anyone's respect with your attitude.
Before posting any more of your unqualified opinions, please take some time to (at least try to) educate yourself. Here's some interesting reading material:
The limits of expertise - Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents. Dismukes, Berman, Loukopoulos.
Ten Questions About Human Error: A New View of Human Factors and System Safety. Sidney Dekker.
Human factors in aviation. Wiener, Nagel.
Until then, Byrna (to paraphrase yourself), you should stick with your toys rather than communicate with professionals as you are currently much too ignorant to get anyone's respect with your attitude.
Keep in mind that this is an Interim Report and will only relay the facts as the Investigation Authority is aware of. Any discussion of the crews response to the A/T behaviour will be more appropriate in the final report which will probably be released in 2011 at the earliest. Even the statement "The autothrottle system should have maintained the speed selected by the crew" is more analysis than factual information and could have been left out.
On another point, all the Virtual Airline pilots out there-get a reality check. Your world is not the real world of aviation and despite the advances of computer technology never will be.
Maybe the Moderators could start a Forum called Virtual Pilots Rumour Network.
On another point, all the Virtual Airline pilots out there-get a reality check. Your world is not the real world of aviation and despite the advances of computer technology never will be.
Maybe the Moderators could start a Forum called Virtual Pilots Rumour Network.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years ago I remember watching a BA produced video about "rushed approaches". We all rather jokingly said that we didn't need a video to show us how to perform rushed approaches, we were all pretty damn good at them already. Nowadays, particularly at places like AMS ( where they like to be just that little bit "smarter" 
) and others that had better remain nameless ,where they just can't get a CDA right to save themselves, there is a much greater requirement to fly non-classical GS captures from above & abbreviated stable segments.
1000'IMC/ 500 VMC seems sensible to me, but for sure the workload on a trainee ( & his trainer) is increased.
Well, we ain't going back to 10miles drag-it-in approaches anytime soon, so even the new guys will need to get this sussed pretty early on in their training.
The time scale from 770ft when 144kt was set (and was also the actual speed), to Sh1t "STICK SHAKE" @ 460' was relatively short, still no excuse for no-one to be watching the pot boiling over, but it wasn't the 100 seconds blink that people were accusing them of, more like 30 sec at most, during which the landing checklist would have to be completed, and perhaps missed app alt set if not done immediately after G/S capture at only 1330'.
Methinks the current trend to be just that little bit too smart in stabilising the approach got them. It's great fun if you are planning it that way, and very satisfying when spool up/ configuration/ ROD and everything all come together @ 520 radio and yet another thimblefull of Shell's finest is saved for the Beanie's
, BUT. . . . if you are new , half asleep, or simply not planning/expecting it, it can finish as a wake up call a little too late if you are more accustomed to operating further from the limits.
I still think they were a bit dozy IMHO, but I can certainly see how it happened, nothing out the ordinary, just a rushed approach with the crew a bit behind on the drag curve. . . . I think we have all seen one of those at some time ?
) and others that had better remain nameless ,where they just can't get a CDA right to save themselves, there is a much greater requirement to fly non-classical GS captures from above & abbreviated stable segments. 1000'IMC/ 500 VMC seems sensible to me, but for sure the workload on a trainee ( & his trainer) is increased.
Well, we ain't going back to 10miles drag-it-in approaches anytime soon, so even the new guys will need to get this sussed pretty early on in their training.
The time scale from 770ft when 144kt was set (and was also the actual speed), to Sh1t "STICK SHAKE" @ 460' was relatively short, still no excuse for no-one to be watching the pot boiling over, but it wasn't the 100 seconds blink that people were accusing them of, more like 30 sec at most, during which the landing checklist would have to be completed, and perhaps missed app alt set if not done immediately after G/S capture at only 1330'.
Methinks the current trend to be just that little bit too smart in stabilising the approach got them. It's great fun if you are planning it that way, and very satisfying when spool up/ configuration/ ROD and everything all come together @ 520 radio and yet another thimblefull of Shell's finest is saved for the Beanie's
, BUT. . . . if you are new , half asleep, or simply not planning/expecting it, it can finish as a wake up call a little too late if you are more accustomed to operating further from the limits. I still think they were a bit dozy IMHO, but I can certainly see how it happened, nothing out the ordinary, just a rushed approach with the crew a bit behind on the drag curve. . . . I think we have all seen one of those at some time ?
Last edited by captplaystation; 29th Apr 2009 at 20:06.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: TN
Age: 51
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad job by Boeing
Hi i fly the B 737 NG, The consequences of the failure of the RA is studied in many different chapters in FCOM and it's difficult to find out all the degraded systems when the failure occurs, and since a long time i'm wondering why Boeing has never inserted a procedure how to intercept glide slope from above since it's quite special procedure
, neither a check list that deals with the failure of a radio altimeter, in A320 FCOM, these 2 procedures exist and they are very helpfull.
, neither a check list that deals with the failure of a radio altimeter, in A320 FCOM, these 2 procedures exist and they are very helpfull.