Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reminded of the book and film , "Failsafe". Things break and the humans don't know what is going on.
this plane wouldn't have crashed if it had originally been built without autothrottles.
this plane wouldn't have crashed if it had originally been built without autothrottles.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please enlighten us on a published SPECIAL procedure for intercepting the Glide Slope from 'above' that works on a Boeing? Thanks
Alt select (after LOC capture)........ min 500ft HAA
Sounds simple.. it is..
how many rookies on the 73' haven't been caught by an inappropriate Alt Capture during an approach from above? Messing it up even more!
You know, when you have been flying the 73 for some time it is not easy to imagine how difficult it was in the beginning. So much happening in a short time... total lack of SA.
Then as a line instructor you probably have more than average experience, seen it all. Easy to be a little too relaxed. Gets out of hand quickly!
Once in a while you'll be reminded and have to face the facts, as someone else on this thread has mentioned (I'll always remember!): PAY ATTENTION or die!
this plane wouldn't have crashed if it had originally been built without autothrottles.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe:
But that's the point. With no autothrottle there's zero chance of the throttles doing anything uncommanded by the crew as in the EHAM accident.
How many aeroplanes would have crashed in a non-autothrottle world because the pilots did not pay enough attention to what the throttles were doing?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That has always been exactly my point, MU, on the advance of automated systems in aircraft. The more the 'system' takes care of the less we 'monitor'. Not saying it is a 'bad thing' per se (having flown the odd long sector without any form of autopilot
) but it is certainly a mind-set which needs to be carefully trained out.
) but it is certainly a mind-set which needs to be carefully trained out.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Haven't a lot of pilots on this thread stated that they keep their hands on the throttles anyway during the approach, whether autothrottle controlled or not? Is this the "training out" you refer to?
Is it not a reasonable thought process that if you have just pushed the throttles forward, because they are not in the position they should be, as controlled by the AT, then it is sensible to make sure that they stay where you put them? Assuming no distractions etc etc.
Haven't a lot of pilots on this thread stated that they keep their hands on the throttles anyway during the approach, whether autothrottle controlled or not? Is this the "training out" you refer to?
Is it not a reasonable thought process that if you have just pushed the throttles forward, because they are not in the position they should be, as controlled by the AT, then it is sensible to make sure that they stay where you put them? Assuming no distractions etc etc.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, varies from company to company, runway to runway,what turn -off you want to make, runway conditions etc etc. It also depends whether the flight-ops management at the time are emphasising money saving on fuel or brake wear. Wouldn't have made much difference here anyway, they would still have stalled at idle thrust with 30 long before they got to the R/W.
In my opinion the aircraft is more speed-stable with 40 and a little less sensitive to pitch attitude, whilst also being less critical in the flare, thereby avoiding the ballooning new guys often end up with. I personally think the tiny extra bit of fuel burned is worth it, but there are of course other considerations such as flap-track wear and handling in limiting crosswinds to be thrown into the mix. Think you will see a fair mix of 30/40 in normal ops.
In my opinion the aircraft is more speed-stable with 40 and a little less sensitive to pitch attitude, whilst also being less critical in the flare, thereby avoiding the ballooning new guys often end up with. I personally think the tiny extra bit of fuel burned is worth it, but there are of course other considerations such as flap-track wear and handling in limiting crosswinds to be thrown into the mix. Think you will see a fair mix of 30/40 in normal ops.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigd3
Haven't a lot of pilots on this thread stated that they keep their hands on the throttles anyway during the approach,
Is this the "training out" you refer to?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Shortened approach requiring non standard capture of the G/S from above. Leads to a non stabilized ROD necessitating PL's at idle.
It's hard to mentally put yourself in the exact same situation. But given the scenario, I like to think I would have simply clicked off both the AP and AT. Manually put the aircraft were it needed to be to capture the G/S without over speeding and then re stabilized the aircraft on the approach before re engaging the AP/AT if desired.
A trainee pilot perhaps keen to demonstrate compliance with SOP's that include maximum use of automation, thought otherwise. Something basic got missed, the training captain didn't intervene, and the aircraft consequently ended up in a plowed field short of the runway.
Also, it's not clear from the report, but did the pilot place the PL's at idle to control speed as the ROD was increased to 1400'/min, or was that the AT? Without the failed RA might the aircraft have actually over sped and wouldn't that be what one might expected of a trainee who gets a little behind the aircraft and wouldn't that have been a safer outcome?
The more the 'system' takes care of the less we 'monitor'.
It's hard to mentally put yourself in the exact same situation. But given the scenario, I like to think I would have simply clicked off both the AP and AT. Manually put the aircraft were it needed to be to capture the G/S without over speeding and then re stabilized the aircraft on the approach before re engaging the AP/AT if desired.
A trainee pilot perhaps keen to demonstrate compliance with SOP's that include maximum use of automation, thought otherwise. Something basic got missed, the training captain didn't intervene, and the aircraft consequently ended up in a plowed field short of the runway.
Also, it's not clear from the report, but did the pilot place the PL's at idle to control speed as the ROD was increased to 1400'/min, or was that the AT? Without the failed RA might the aircraft have actually over sped and wouldn't that be what one might expected of a trainee who gets a little behind the aircraft and wouldn't that have been a safer outcome?
ILS glideslope capture from above
Attempting ILS glideslope capture from above was an automatic instrument rating test fail item when I was an IRE in the mlitary. And it merited a bike-shed interview if anyone tried it on a routine IFR recovery with someone on their wing. It was considered dangerous for good and sensible safety reasons although reading this thread it seems to be fairly common practice in commercial flying.
This crew apparently executed a shortened approach requiring non standard capture of the G/S from above. Just how widespread is this malpractice?
This crew apparently executed a shortened approach requiring non standard capture of the G/S from above. Just how widespread is this malpractice?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike
I expect improvements in situational awareness resulting from the widespread availability of moving map displays has significantly reduced the inherent risks in the procedure. Leading perhaps to greater complacency and more widespread acceptance of this shortcut, especially at busy hubs.
I expect improvements in situational awareness resulting from the widespread availability of moving map displays has significantly reduced the inherent risks in the procedure. Leading perhaps to greater complacency and more widespread acceptance of this shortcut, especially at busy hubs.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MU - I endorse your 2390 post completely, except to point out that wrt your last paragraph, the A/T would have COMMANDED 'closed' if working normally with a RoD of 1400fpm. As has been repeatedly highlighted on this thread, the crew, and in particular the T Cpt, would not have found this throttle position 'unusual' for a large part of that approach, but one would have hoped that he would have been particularly attentive to the inherent dangers, his 'self-preservation' instints aroused by the apparent 'rush' of the approach..
To answer mike r - yes, they are more 'common' than my 'training ground' (mil IRE like yours) would have tolerated. There is an undue over-emphasis on the 'Continual Descent Approach' in commercial operations, which can push crews into an 'above' capture very easily. Now chuck in the 'ze aircraft will not let me stall' mentality - there is much fat to chew, I fear.
To answer mike r - yes, they are more 'common' than my 'training ground' (mil IRE like yours) would have tolerated. There is an undue over-emphasis on the 'Continual Descent Approach' in commercial operations, which can push crews into an 'above' capture very easily. Now chuck in the 'ze aircraft will not let me stall' mentality - there is much fat to chew, I fear.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: TN
Age: 51
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interception from above
about glide slope interception from above, it is included in A320 training manual, contains many steps, and crew are trained to use it by memory, we have to blance lower MCP altitude, arm approach mode if not already done, and engage initially vertical speed of 1500 ft/mn, it is very helpful to be familiar with these steps, i saw many times pilots hesitating which step must be done first (v/s engagement or resetting MCP alt...) and waiste a valuable time specially when intercepting glide at low altitude, so it may happened to the turkish crew to miss momentarily flight parameters monitoring and FMA indication when trying to catch glide slope.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descending from above onto the glide slope is so common any competent crew can do it with no risk. It is a non event. If you can't do it you should not be flying the aircraft. Simple as that. I thought all pilots monitored the thrust levers. Who stopped doing this and why?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chekib
we have to blance lower MCP altitude
Select the FCU altitude above aircraft altitude to avoid unwanted ALT*