Jet Airways check pilot pulls CB on finals
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My goodnes me, imagine having to land a 737 raw data in visual conditions. I'm amazed that this didn't make media headlines around the globe. Terrified passangers fearing for ther lives etc.........
Good Lord, that is what the simulator is for for heaven's sakes.
One of my earliest pals in aviation lost his life in a Westwind that plunged into the water after departing Sydney in the late 70s.
The reason: a circuit breaker pulled by the training Capt. on a line check. A subsequent further failure rendered the situation irrecoverable.
Google it and read it for yourself. The real tragedy was that the trainer had a history of such stunts, was known for it, and was left to his own (stupid) devices. If he'd been "given correct guidance" my mate O*** would b e here today.
Cross Jet airways off my list of acceptable carriers.
BSD.
One of my earliest pals in aviation lost his life in a Westwind that plunged into the water after departing Sydney in the late 70s.
The reason: a circuit breaker pulled by the training Capt. on a line check. A subsequent further failure rendered the situation irrecoverable.
Google it and read it for yourself. The real tragedy was that the trainer had a history of such stunts, was known for it, and was left to his own (stupid) devices. If he'd been "given correct guidance" my mate O*** would b e here today.
Cross Jet airways off my list of acceptable carriers.
BSD.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone disputes that a pilot should be able to fly a raw data approach. But if a checker has a legitimate need to see it done, then it should be done by turning off the FD, not pulling circuit breakers!
And sudden unexpected failures should be reserved for the sim, you never know when a real failure is going to crawl out of the woodwork. Or if it already has, and you just killed the redundant system.
And as an aside, on the topic of raw data flying: Whilst being able to do it is clearly essential before any gets too smug about their ability to manage it do bear in mind that if you have too, then it usually means the aeroplane is a lot sicker than just not showing its magenta bars.
pb
And sudden unexpected failures should be reserved for the sim, you never know when a real failure is going to crawl out of the woodwork. Or if it already has, and you just killed the redundant system.
And as an aside, on the topic of raw data flying: Whilst being able to do it is clearly essential before any gets too smug about their ability to manage it do bear in mind that if you have too, then it usually means the aeroplane is a lot sicker than just not showing its magenta bars.
pb
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming of course that this is true then I would have called the go around. When we were nicely stabilised in the climb out (or level off potentially depending on the MA altitude given that they were at 3700ft allegedly) I would then reach for the PA handset and pass it to the checker and ask them ever so nicely if they could let the passengers know what is going on and the reasons for us going around. We would then enter a hold, sort ourselves out and brief for the next approach. The rest can get discussed on the ground when the parking brake is set.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I would have done!
If a check pilot would have done that to me in benign conditions in light traffic conditions, I would probably not have noticed the FD failing as it would have been OFF already, just like the autothrust. I fly the A320. Time permitting I would have handled the associated ECAM warning quicky or simply assessed it as being "disregardable" until after landing.
Although there are a lot of comments here dripping with irony in this thread, it does scare me that there are some here that really appear to think that having to fly an airliner without FD and AT is dangerous or an emergency.
Even though I don't think it's a good idea to pull CB's on a commercial flight with pax, I do agree with Greybeard (reply 28 ) on this one.
@akindofmagic:
Akindofmagic, From your profile I know that you're a 24 yr old CPL who spends most of his time in "the Interviews, jobs & sponsorship"-forum on the CTC wings (cadets) thread. You're really not in a position to be telling others they display a quite staggering lack of understanding of airline operations.
Although there are a lot of comments here dripping with irony in this thread, it does scare me that there are some here that really appear to think that having to fly an airliner without FD and AT is dangerous or an emergency.
Even though I don't think it's a good idea to pull CB's on a commercial flight with pax, I do agree with Greybeard (reply 28 ) on this one.
@akindofmagic:
Originally Posted by akindofmagic in reply 31
Graybeard: Are you for real, or have I missed some hidden irony in your post?
The training captain in this case has done something that is, on the face of it, illegal; he has wilfully gone against the manufacturer's recommendation, and therefore by extrapolation will also have gone outside his own company's SOPs. There can be no excuse.
Your post displays a quite staggering lack of understanding of airline operations.
The training captain in this case has done something that is, on the face of it, illegal; he has wilfully gone against the manufacturer's recommendation, and therefore by extrapolation will also have gone outside his own company's SOPs. There can be no excuse.
Your post displays a quite staggering lack of understanding of airline operations.
Last edited by sabenaboy; 4th Dec 2009 at 15:07.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a pilot for a major UK charter carrier. Hence, I feel qualified to comment.
I find it quite simply shocking that some people on here seem to think it's absolutely acceptable to deviate from the airframer's recommendations for no good reason. It should not be in dispute that a pilot should be able to fly on raw data; however, there can be no excuse for the behaviour of the training captain in this case (assuming of course that the facts as presented are correct).
I find it quite simply shocking that some people on here seem to think it's absolutely acceptable to deviate from the airframer's recommendations for no good reason. It should not be in dispute that a pilot should be able to fly on raw data; however, there can be no excuse for the behaviour of the training captain in this case (assuming of course that the facts as presented are correct).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree with Sabenaboy
It is stunning that we continue to see (mostly young) pilots who think that SOP's are more important to flight safety than decent stick-and rudder.
Makes me even more convinced that if it ain't with a Belgian I ain't goin'
(just a joke, but I do want to see a good standard in the cockpit, not merely button pushers )
Although I don't pull CB's "just for fun" and would NOT appreciate it when a jumpseater pulled that one on me...The operating crew should get some flight-training and the jumpseater his/hers rights removed.
It is stunning that we continue to see (mostly young) pilots who think that SOP's are more important to flight safety than decent stick-and rudder.
Makes me even more convinced that if it ain't with a Belgian I ain't goin'
(just a joke, but I do want to see a good standard in the cockpit, not merely button pushers )Although I don't pull CB's "just for fun" and would NOT appreciate it when a jumpseater pulled that one on me...The operating crew should get some flight-training and the jumpseater his/hers rights removed.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 31000FR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check flight
What I hear from my Indian friends is that this guy is a checker all right, but was just flying jumpseat as a pax. He apparently is not a regular with Jet, but a DGCA (Indian CAA) kingpin who is attached to Jet to overlook their flight safety standards. That explains why Jet did not deroster him on the spot, since these types seems to be above the law.
In India with its runaway expansion in aviation in recent years there has not been time to indulge in such details as the ability to handle big aircraft in raw data. A not uncommon career path is quickly through a pilot factory in the US and then - without any further increase in qualifications apart from a quick type rating- on to a 737 or 320. That is why the government has decided that all expat pilots must leave India in 6 month to make room for thousands of highly skilled (250hrs) local heroes. And that is why it is an established fact (by the Indian press) that flying without all support systems constitutes a near emergency.
Incredible? - no, itīs India.
In India with its runaway expansion in aviation in recent years there has not been time to indulge in such details as the ability to handle big aircraft in raw data. A not uncommon career path is quickly through a pilot factory in the US and then - without any further increase in qualifications apart from a quick type rating- on to a 737 or 320. That is why the government has decided that all expat pilots must leave India in 6 month to make room for thousands of highly skilled (250hrs) local heroes. And that is why it is an established fact (by the Indian press) that flying without all support systems constitutes a near emergency.
Incredible? - no, itīs India.
It is stunning that we continue to see (mostly young) pilots who think that SOP's are more important to flight safety than decent stick-and rudder.
Surely both are equally important. It goes without saying that one should be able to land manually on raw data where appropriate, but SOPs are there for a reason.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP's are indeed important, but...
Surely both are equally important. It goes without saying that one should be able to land manually on raw data where appropriate, but SOPs are there for a reason.
SOP's are made for the blind obedience by fools, and as guidelines for wise men!
To me that means that I will follow the SOP's as long as there is no good reason not to, but if necessary and safe, I will deviate from them!
Isn't that the reason why airliners are still being flown by humans and not by computers! (No, even A320's are not captained by computers
)Best regards,
Sabenaboy
Last edited by sabenaboy; 4th Dec 2009 at 17:34.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: US
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps
Those picking on the flying pilots skill should back off a bit. If when the auto pilot kicked off the aircraft was in a config change and triming for it, a high RATE of decent could begin. If close enough to the ground it does not take much of a deviation for this to be flagged on the DFDR reports. Other media reports and local comments state that this incident was discovered by DFDR monitering. If less than 1000' agl and greater than 1000' per minute that would be "high rate of decent" per most companies SOP's. The papers here in India are the most sensational I have seen anywhere in the world when it comes to aviation. If it is a slow enough day a wx deviation can and has made the front page of national newspapers and "breaking news" on television. Having said that the ACM should at the very least lose check airman status and be returned to the FO seat for a while. As for the flying pilot, I will hold judgment for more information. The Times of India when covering anything aviation has been on more than one occasion been refered to as the TOI let of India.
Jet
Jet
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that anyone has suggested that blind adherence to SOPs is either necessary or indeed desirable, and there will be occasions where deviations are required.
However, in this case the deviation from SOP (again, assuming all the facts are correct) was completely unnecessary, and could potentially have resulted in a dangerous situation developing.
Can you explain, sabenaboy, how you consider that it was necessary and safe to pull a circuit breaker in this case, in contravention of explicit instructions from the manufacturer?
However, in this case the deviation from SOP (again, assuming all the facts are correct) was completely unnecessary, and could potentially have resulted in a dangerous situation developing.
Can you explain, sabenaboy, how you consider that it was necessary and safe to pull a circuit breaker in this case, in contravention of explicit instructions from the manufacturer?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gatport
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've stated in a previous post about the over-reliance on 'puters and the clearly less than acceptable standard of manual flight.
It's the stunningly cavalier attitude that many of you have towards the actions of the check "pilot" that really gets me!
Akindofmagic's point still stands - the thought that the check "pilot"'s actions were anything other than grounds for dismissal - regardless of the wx conditions or his experience or any other factor you may feel is relevant - is dangerously over-confident, illegal and completely at odds with normal airliner operations - fact.
There can be no grey area here, it's black and white. It's about how to legally/safely operate an aircraft - experimenting with CB's in a serviceable aircraft when travelling as a passenger(!) doesn't even begin to fit into either category.
Sabenaboy - I do agree with your points about SOPs, there is flex - they don't and can't possibly cater for every situation. Thankfully most of us are capable of independent thought.
It's the stunningly cavalier attitude that many of you have towards the actions of the check "pilot" that really gets me!
Akindofmagic's point still stands - the thought that the check "pilot"'s actions were anything other than grounds for dismissal - regardless of the wx conditions or his experience or any other factor you may feel is relevant - is dangerously over-confident, illegal and completely at odds with normal airliner operations - fact.
There can be no grey area here, it's black and white. It's about how to legally/safely operate an aircraft - experimenting with CB's in a serviceable aircraft when travelling as a passenger(!) doesn't even begin to fit into either category.
Sabenaboy - I do agree with your points about SOPs, there is flex - they don't and can't possibly cater for every situation. Thankfully most of us are capable of independent thought.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idiocy
Off to Indian airspace very shortly. I trust the British line trainer who is a member of our flight crew...he would never randomly pull a c/b. to test a crew's response.. (Although the c/b's are in fact highly inaccessible on this type).
The Jet Airways/Indian Aviation Authority check airman is an idiot. Period.
The Jet Airways/Indian Aviation Authority check airman is an idiot. Period.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akindofmagic, you are deliberately twisting my words and you know it.
Didn't I say: "Even though I don't think it's a good idea to pull CB's on a commercial flight with pax..." in #52
Of course it's not wise to do stuff like that on the flightdeck. And I do not condone the actions of the check captain. But it should and would have been a non-event with a competent cockpit crew. So, Greybeard was probably right that the captain f..ed up to some extent, was pissed off and tried to get even with the check captain... Very similar to what you're trying to do to me after my message #52. Very childish, I'd say.
I thank you, akindofmagic, for your friendly PM in which you call me a cretin
and accuse me of belittling you!
Belittling someone? Isn't that what you did to Greybeard in #31 The fact thay you are a rookie F/O with a major UK charter carrier does not put you in a position that would allow you to belittle Greybeard, especially if he makes a valid comment.
I won't be going any further in this discussion with you. A waste of time it is.
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
(#60 ) Can you explain, sabenaboy, how you consider that it was necessary and safe to pull a circuit breaker in this case, in contravention of explicit instructions from the manufacturer?
Of course it's not wise to do stuff like that on the flightdeck. And I do not condone the actions of the check captain. But it should and would have been a non-event with a competent cockpit crew. So, Greybeard was probably right that the captain f..ed up to some extent, was pissed off and tried to get even with the check captain... Very similar to what you're trying to do to me after my message #52. Very childish, I'd say.
I thank you, akindofmagic, for your friendly PM in which you call me a cretin
and accuse me of belittling you!Belittling someone? Isn't that what you did to Greybeard in #31 The fact thay you are a rookie F/O with a major UK charter carrier does not put you in a position that would allow you to belittle Greybeard, especially if he makes a valid comment.
I won't be going any further in this discussion with you. A waste of time it is.
Last edited by sabenaboy; 5th Dec 2009 at 08:26. Reason: My quote of a PM was removed. I rephrased it.