Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: limbo
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz & Rainboe
It's with VERY good reason it's not recommended/allowed. Futura lost a nose gear in Shannon due in part to this "technique". Look it up on the AAIU website.
It's with VERY good reason it's not recommended/allowed. Futura lost a nose gear in Shannon due in part to this "technique". Look it up on the AAIU website.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no sponsor,
"since it is always difficult knowing exactly where you will be turned on base & intercept, and how fast/slow the controllers want you to be"
Well to my mind it's still an Air Traffic SERVICE, if you're not happy with the service you are receiving then you should be asking (and receiving) for more track miles, speed reductions etc.
"To throw away an approach because you are 150ft to high at 6 miles would be a nonsense. If you are not stabilized by your specified, company height (1000 or 500 ft) then yes you should throw it away."
Agreed, but even flying a CDA you can (and should) still be below the glide, lower your descent rate and capture from below before ALT HOLD engages. I agree it's not always as easy to do as it is to spout on here, and I have captured a glide from above before, but as I said previously, it isn't desirable practice.
Regards!
Atreyu
"since it is always difficult knowing exactly where you will be turned on base & intercept, and how fast/slow the controllers want you to be"
Well to my mind it's still an Air Traffic SERVICE, if you're not happy with the service you are receiving then you should be asking (and receiving) for more track miles, speed reductions etc.
"To throw away an approach because you are 150ft to high at 6 miles would be a nonsense. If you are not stabilized by your specified, company height (1000 or 500 ft) then yes you should throw it away."
Agreed, but even flying a CDA you can (and should) still be below the glide, lower your descent rate and capture from below before ALT HOLD engages. I agree it's not always as easy to do as it is to spout on here, and I have captured a glide from above before, but as I said previously, it isn't desirable practice.
Regards!
Atreyu
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how it could play out in a 777, if the 737 A/T system is radically different pipe up and I'll delete it!
The aircraft is on base and high relative to the G/P so the crew are in hdg sel with loc armed. Vertical mode is FlCh but App is not armed as they have not yet captured the loc (most operators SOP). The crew are concerned that an Alt capture may occurr at about the time of Loc intercept so they wind down MCP alt to either DA or runway, perhaps the raw data shows the ILS GP live so they are comfortable to do this.
Loc is captured but workload is high and the crew forget to arm App. At this stage the FD would be following loc in the lateral mode but an idle power descent to whatever alt was in the MCP window.
The crew now notice that the raw ILS data and the FD are in disagreement, its busy and they dont know why but opt to fly the raw ILS data.
On a 777 the A/T would make no attempt to control speed until the bugged MCP alt has been achieved, NOR WOULD A/T WAKE UP OCCURR.
The crew are so used to A/T ops with a good A/T that speed checking has assumed a lower priority in their scan pattern than it did when they flew previous types.
This scenario has ocurred several times on the 777, fortunately it has always been picked up before the speed got far enough below Vref to cause an serious incident.
Finally an apology if anyone has already suggested this, I thought I had read all the pages!
The aircraft is on base and high relative to the G/P so the crew are in hdg sel with loc armed. Vertical mode is FlCh but App is not armed as they have not yet captured the loc (most operators SOP). The crew are concerned that an Alt capture may occurr at about the time of Loc intercept so they wind down MCP alt to either DA or runway, perhaps the raw data shows the ILS GP live so they are comfortable to do this.
Loc is captured but workload is high and the crew forget to arm App. At this stage the FD would be following loc in the lateral mode but an idle power descent to whatever alt was in the MCP window.
The crew now notice that the raw ILS data and the FD are in disagreement, its busy and they dont know why but opt to fly the raw ILS data.
On a 777 the A/T would make no attempt to control speed until the bugged MCP alt has been achieved, NOR WOULD A/T WAKE UP OCCURR.
The crew are so used to A/T ops with a good A/T that speed checking has assumed a lower priority in their scan pattern than it did when they flew previous types.
This scenario has ocurred several times on the 777, fortunately it has always been picked up before the speed got far enough below Vref to cause an serious incident.
Finally an apology if anyone has already suggested this, I thought I had read all the pages!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by despegue
snoozer,
With all respect sir,
Your calculations regarding the air pressure are upside down, and you must not use 30' but 27' in the calculation.
Please feel free to read these pages, but may I ask you kindly to refrain from actively participating if you do not posses a commercial Pilot licence?
With all respect sir,
Your calculations regarding the air pressure are upside down, and you must not use 30' but 27' in the calculation.
Please feel free to read these pages, but may I ask you kindly to refrain from actively participating if you do not posses a commercial Pilot licence?
For instance, ATC can provide pertinent information at times as can engineers, cabin staff and others.
In the BA038 thread contributions from posters involved in fuel system component design and testing posted and in the Qantas Depressurisation thread someone who had experience in oxygen bottle manufacture and construction gave some very useful information.
There are a lot of people backing up the flight crew who make useful contributions here.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
Most of your comments are very sound and I agree with you most of the time, but to say you would actively arm the approach above the glide in IMC is a recipe for disaster due to the false glide scenario and the increased descent angles involved.
The system i would use and do if the atc screw up would be to disconnect the AP get the aircraft below the glideslope manually and then rearm safely with the automatics back in place so you can then monitor what is going on with some redundancy.
It makes you wonder if the false glide slope and IMC is a factor in this and once they popped out of cloud it was too late to get the a/c spooled up and going in an upwards direction rather than hitting terra firma. Also would the GPWS be inhibited due to the a/c being so close to the airport thinking it was about to land.
just a thought
Most of your comments are very sound and I agree with you most of the time, but to say you would actively arm the approach above the glide in IMC is a recipe for disaster due to the false glide scenario and the increased descent angles involved.
The system i would use and do if the atc screw up would be to disconnect the AP get the aircraft below the glideslope manually and then rearm safely with the automatics back in place so you can then monitor what is going on with some redundancy.
It makes you wonder if the false glide slope and IMC is a factor in this and once they popped out of cloud it was too late to get the a/c spooled up and going in an upwards direction rather than hitting terra firma. Also would the GPWS be inhibited due to the a/c being so close to the airport thinking it was about to land.
just a thought
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are in Level Change in a 737 it will keep the specified speed in the window, or 5 kts below in ARM, it will re-engage to fly the MCP speed. No speed control/protection if you are using V/S, however.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 767, in FLCH, the A/T will always maintain the selected airspeed.
In V/S, A/T will also maintain a minimum speed as long as the rate of climb/descent is within performance limits. (speed will drop if rate of climb is too low, and speed will increse if rate of descent is too low)
ASRAAM, are you saying the 777 does not do this?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridge (the original one)
Age: 76
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS capture from above
ASRAAM: I think "no sponsor" has a good answer: if you must capture GS from above, never set MCP alt lower than field elevation + 500 ft, unless you're stabilised on GS and past the FAF.
I would guess that GS capture from above before passing the FAF can be OK, but doing it after FAF in IMC would make me very nervous.
I would guess that GS capture from above before passing the FAF can be OK, but doing it after FAF in IMC would make me very nervous.
Last edited by Gegenbeispiel; 27th Feb 2009 at 15:02. Reason: typo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and with a Training Captain in command, is most peculiar.
Just for discussion...and for understanding...shall we assume that with a training Captain in command crew errors shall be minimized?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Board Confusion SPY vs SPL?
An additonal data point, derived from the google earth track and the EHAM2 liveatc.net recording:
ATC vectors them from ARTIP to SPL, but the craft remains on course for SPY. ATC then apparently sees they are off track several minutes later and vectors them on a heading of 265.
Looking at the Google earth track, it appears there was confusion about the direction to take after ARTIP, they seem to be on track for SPY and even ’swerve’ around lelystad to the south before continuing on a direct track to SPY.
This could mean there was confusion on the flight deck, and possibly with ATC, not unthinkable with 3 crewmembers, of which one is rumoured to have been ‘in training’ for this type of A/C.
Confusion can easily get a crew ‘behind the aircraft’ and domino into more confusion and problems.
Thoughts?
ATC vectors them from ARTIP to SPL, but the craft remains on course for SPY. ATC then apparently sees they are off track several minutes later and vectors them on a heading of 265.
Looking at the Google earth track, it appears there was confusion about the direction to take after ARTIP, they seem to be on track for SPY and even ’swerve’ around lelystad to the south before continuing on a direct track to SPY.
This could mean there was confusion on the flight deck, and possibly with ATC, not unthinkable with 3 crewmembers, of which one is rumoured to have been ‘in training’ for this type of A/C.
Confusion can easily get a crew ‘behind the aircraft’ and domino into more confusion and problems.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the facts you can determine the aircraft landed in a nose high attitude, wings level or near level in the landing configuration, the engine fan blade condition is a pointer, but with so many varibles in an impact situation, it's hardly definitive proof of how much power was being delivered at time of impact. The debris field and gouging suggest a very low forward momentum, any Mode S data before impact could confirm this hypothosis. The fueslage breaking apart but remaining 'together' would also suggest to me a high vertical rate with low forward speed, classic stalled condition, r.e. Staines (different circumstances i know but broadly speaking the same outcome, no fire, tail seperation on impact, fuselage broadly intact)
Stall seems likely, but as I previously posted there must have been a chain of events to cause such an accident.
Atreyu
Stall seems likely, but as I previously posted there must have been a chain of events to cause such an accident.
Atreyu
Last edited by Atreyu; 27th Feb 2009 at 15:10. Reason: spelling...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, that is a bad assumption. Training presents all kinds of opportunities for mistakes to be made. That is one reason most training is done in a simulator.
I don't think that it has been confirmed that there was any training going on during this flight. All we know is that there was a third pilot in the jumpseat, and that he was a "learner" or "apprentice".
He may have been along just to observe normal operations in preparation for his own training..
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 65
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question, perhaps aimed primarily at training pilots doing sim training, perhaps at anyone on this list who accessess FDR data for accident investigation. I apologise for my non-professional aviation-licencing status. Q. how often will a handling pilot be observed to make an extreme rearwards yoke input in the moments - seconds - prior to high energy arrival, ie. 'crash' if you will, other than perhaps a deliberate attempt to arrest descent rate of a controllable aircraft. Perhaps this is an imponderable. I know that aviation-forensic wisdom is that there is often, for example, evidence of violent rudder input (both legs) witnessed in lower limb injury patterns in violent impact. My thought is that the (witnessed?) terminal pitch-up of this a/c may have been deliberate, or, alternatively, instinctive. I acknowledge that a shrewd / 'cool' pilot will "fly" the aircraft all the way down.. my question rests on the psychological effect of ground-rush, and any pertinance to this incident is generic rather than specific.
PPL / sailplanes 500hrs / medical Dr.
PPL / sailplanes 500hrs / medical Dr.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F SLF
Training captains are trained to deal with issues & problems that line captains don't see (well, are not meant to see anyway, since those not up to it are not released to the line), specifically dealing with new people to the aircraft, and tend to be checked out in both seats. Errors/Issues would be expected with someone who is new to type and certainly new to the career.
Training captains are trained to deal with issues & problems that line captains don't see (well, are not meant to see anyway, since those not up to it are not released to the line), specifically dealing with new people to the aircraft, and tend to be checked out in both seats. Errors/Issues would be expected with someone who is new to type and certainly new to the career.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was about to post the same thing, Dysag - I certainly did not see / hear that stated in any of the trawling through statements in the Dutch media that I did yesterday.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no sponsor
and lost in Saigon (I love that city)
thanks for your replays...now comes my second thought...why so many posters mention the "additional workload on the cockpit due to the training session" maybe I am not using the same wording but that is what I understand from the posts.
Rainbow post defines "peculiar" the situation...
From outside I can see that there are different opinions of the "effect" of having a Training Captain on board.
FSLF
Training captains are trained to deal with issues & problems that line captains don't see (well, are not meant to see anyway, since those not up to it are not released to the line), specifically dealing with new people to the aircraft, and tend to be checked out in both seats. Errors/Issues would be expected with someone who is new to type and certainly new to the career
thanks for your replays...now comes my second thought...why so many posters mention the "additional workload on the cockpit due to the training session" maybe I am not using the same wording but that is what I understand from the posts.
Rainbow post defines "peculiar" the situation...
From outside I can see that there are different opinions of the "effect" of having a Training Captain on board.
FSLF