Jet Airways check pilot pulls CB on finals
Junior trash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Airways check pilot pulls CB on finals
From the Times of India Check pilot's prank nearly crashes Jet flight - India - The Times of India
Pretty unbelieveable if true.
Pretty unbelieveable if true.
MUMBAI: A Jet Airways flight coming in to land in Mumbai in October lost height faster than the prescribed rate of descent as the auto-pilot
tripped, the flight director disappeared and the ground-proximity warning system went off. The flight finally landed safely — with none of its passengers hurt or even aware how close they had come to disaster, but for the experienced pilot and tons of luck.
The dangerous turn of events began — about 3,700 feet above the ground — when a check pilot, seated behind the commander and the first officer on the Jet Airways Delhi-Mumbai flight, pulled out a circuit-breaker. He did it ostensibly to check the pilot's ability to handle an emergency. Only, such checks are always done in simulators — never with a plane load of people.
The unthinking act set off a chain reaction, tripping the autopilot, making the flight director indications disappear and turning off the ground-proximity warning system. The aircraft went sinking at a rate faster than the maximum prescribed descent of 1,000 feet per minute over the hills behind Jarimari, Andheri, but — despite all this — the aircraft managed to make a safe landing.
Jet Airways has ordered a probe. But it has not derostered the check pilot though both aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus have a strict policy warning flight crew against use of circuit-breakers during flight — they are not pulled even on a check or a test flight. A Jet Airways spokesperson said: ``The flight had a normal approach and landing, carried out safely within the acceptable parameters. An internal inquiry is in progress.''
But inquiries and investigations are not carried out for flights that are ``operated safely within the acceptable parameters'' and an exceeding high sink rate is not an acceptable parameter, say aviation experts. The matter is over a month old but the inquiry is still in progress and no action has been taken against the pilot concerned.
The Directorate-General of Civil Aviation too has initiated an inquiry. ``I will be able to comment only after I have the facts from the air safety department,'' director-general Nasim Zaidi said.
When the commander was interrogated, he said (and gave it in writing) that after the aircraft landed, the ACM revealed to him that he had pulled out the circuit-breaker on Radio Altimeter 1 ``just to see his reaction to failures''.
The incident took place on October 20 on flight 9W 332 around 8.50am, during the morning peak hour. The check pilot was flying as an additional crew member (ACM) in the jump seat located behind the pilots' seats. An ACM's status is that of a passenger and s/he is not supposed to touch the flight controls. ``The aircraft was established on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 27,'' an official said, implying the aircraft was coming in to land from the east and was about 3,700 feet high and had got visual guidance to help it descend and touch down on the runway 27 centre line.
``At that instant, the autopilot tripped and the flight director disappeared,'' he added. A flight director gives visual cues to the pilot who follows it by, say, turning left or right or pitching the aircraft up or down to take it to its destination.
So, with both vital navigation instruments failing, the commander took over the flight controls to bring in the plane for landing entirely manually. ``But the aircraft started sinking fast. It was going down faster than 1000 feet a minute, the maximum prescribed descent rate. It was a dangerous situation as the approach to runway 27 was over hilly terrain,'' the official said.
When an aircraft has a higher-than-normal descent rate, the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) blares out a loud aural warning, ``sink rate whoop whoop pull up'' continuously till the descent rate is slowed down.
But no such alarm went off in this cockpit. ``A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS,'' said the source.
It is such a critical equipment to prevent crashes that the International Civil Aviation Organisation mandates that no passenger aircraft should fly without a functioning EGPWS. Jet Airways confirmed that the EGPWS warning was not received. This confirms a system malfunction or a deactivation of the system.
``Since the sink rate was very high, the Digital Flight Data Recorder showed up an `exceedance report', which was picked up by the airline's flight safety department after the aircraft landed,'' said the source.
``It is a very dangerous thing to do as pulling out a C/B can render unintended systems to fail, like the EGPWS failure in this case. No pilot would want to fly without an EGPWS,'' an official said. Aircraft manufacturers are so careful about C/Bs that these switches are not installed at locations easily accessible or even viewable from the pilot's seat. It is located behind the seat as Airbus and Boeing did not consider the possibility of an ACM pulling out a C/B.
tripped, the flight director disappeared and the ground-proximity warning system went off. The flight finally landed safely — with none of its passengers hurt or even aware how close they had come to disaster, but for the experienced pilot and tons of luck.
The dangerous turn of events began — about 3,700 feet above the ground — when a check pilot, seated behind the commander and the first officer on the Jet Airways Delhi-Mumbai flight, pulled out a circuit-breaker. He did it ostensibly to check the pilot's ability to handle an emergency. Only, such checks are always done in simulators — never with a plane load of people.
The unthinking act set off a chain reaction, tripping the autopilot, making the flight director indications disappear and turning off the ground-proximity warning system. The aircraft went sinking at a rate faster than the maximum prescribed descent of 1,000 feet per minute over the hills behind Jarimari, Andheri, but — despite all this — the aircraft managed to make a safe landing.
Jet Airways has ordered a probe. But it has not derostered the check pilot though both aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus have a strict policy warning flight crew against use of circuit-breakers during flight — they are not pulled even on a check or a test flight. A Jet Airways spokesperson said: ``The flight had a normal approach and landing, carried out safely within the acceptable parameters. An internal inquiry is in progress.''
But inquiries and investigations are not carried out for flights that are ``operated safely within the acceptable parameters'' and an exceeding high sink rate is not an acceptable parameter, say aviation experts. The matter is over a month old but the inquiry is still in progress and no action has been taken against the pilot concerned.
The Directorate-General of Civil Aviation too has initiated an inquiry. ``I will be able to comment only after I have the facts from the air safety department,'' director-general Nasim Zaidi said.
When the commander was interrogated, he said (and gave it in writing) that after the aircraft landed, the ACM revealed to him that he had pulled out the circuit-breaker on Radio Altimeter 1 ``just to see his reaction to failures''.
The incident took place on October 20 on flight 9W 332 around 8.50am, during the morning peak hour. The check pilot was flying as an additional crew member (ACM) in the jump seat located behind the pilots' seats. An ACM's status is that of a passenger and s/he is not supposed to touch the flight controls. ``The aircraft was established on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 27,'' an official said, implying the aircraft was coming in to land from the east and was about 3,700 feet high and had got visual guidance to help it descend and touch down on the runway 27 centre line.
``At that instant, the autopilot tripped and the flight director disappeared,'' he added. A flight director gives visual cues to the pilot who follows it by, say, turning left or right or pitching the aircraft up or down to take it to its destination.
So, with both vital navigation instruments failing, the commander took over the flight controls to bring in the plane for landing entirely manually. ``But the aircraft started sinking fast. It was going down faster than 1000 feet a minute, the maximum prescribed descent rate. It was a dangerous situation as the approach to runway 27 was over hilly terrain,'' the official said.
When an aircraft has a higher-than-normal descent rate, the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) blares out a loud aural warning, ``sink rate whoop whoop pull up'' continuously till the descent rate is slowed down.
But no such alarm went off in this cockpit. ``A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS,'' said the source.
It is such a critical equipment to prevent crashes that the International Civil Aviation Organisation mandates that no passenger aircraft should fly without a functioning EGPWS. Jet Airways confirmed that the EGPWS warning was not received. This confirms a system malfunction or a deactivation of the system.
``Since the sink rate was very high, the Digital Flight Data Recorder showed up an `exceedance report', which was picked up by the airline's flight safety department after the aircraft landed,'' said the source.
``It is a very dangerous thing to do as pulling out a C/B can render unintended systems to fail, like the EGPWS failure in this case. No pilot would want to fly without an EGPWS,'' an official said. Aircraft manufacturers are so careful about C/Bs that these switches are not installed at locations easily accessible or even viewable from the pilot's seat. It is located behind the seat as Airbus and Boeing did not consider the possibility of an ACM pulling out a C/B.
Buttonpusher
Prank ?
I'd call it dereliction of duty. What do you suppose he thinks simulators are for ? I hope he flies a desk for a while, just to clip his ego.
I'd call it dereliction of duty. What do you suppose he thinks simulators are for ? I hope he flies a desk for a while, just to clip his ego.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messing around with systems in flight????
Remember the DC-4 (Air Pennsylvania, I believe) in the 1940's???
Check pilot engaged the gust lock during cruise @ 4,000 ft. The aircraft started to climb, the Capt added nose down trim, Ck Pilot disengages the gust, and voila...the first half of an outside loop...A CAA (pre-FAA) Cessna was behind the flight and witnessed it....
60+ yrs later and we still haven't learned...
Remember the DC-4 (Air Pennsylvania, I believe) in the 1940's???
Check pilot engaged the gust lock during cruise @ 4,000 ft. The aircraft started to climb, the Capt added nose down trim, Ck Pilot disengages the gust, and voila...the first half of an outside loop...A CAA (pre-FAA) Cessna was behind the flight and witnessed it....
60+ yrs later and we still haven't learned...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Remember the DC-4 (Air Pennsylvania, I believe) in the 1940's???
TRANSPORT: Boys Will Be Boys
Monday, Oct. 27, 1947
Fortnight ago the heads of American Airlines faced an embarrassing task—explaining why one of their DC-4's had gone into a violent dive, on a clear, calm day near El Paso, had flown upside down, and dumped 48 fear-stricken passengers* out of their seats. After some consideration they decided not to talk at all. But last week the Civil Aeronautics Board revealed the simple, if startling, truth. The whole thing had been a, witless practical joke.
Its perpetrator was the plane's veteran chief pilot, Captain Charles R. Sisto, of Los Angeles. Captain Sisto was riding as a check pilot while another pilot, Captain John Beck, familiarized himself with the route. As the plane snored west at 8,000 feet, Sisto reached down from a jump seat behind Beck and fastened the gust lock—a device used to lock the rudder, elevator and ailerons while the plane is on the ground.
The plane began a steady climb. Puzzled, Pilot Beck adjusted trim tabs on the plane's control surfaces to bring the nose down. Then, still undetected, Sisto released the gust lock. The plane immediately went into an outside loop. Both Sisto and Beck, neither of whom had fastened his safety belt, were thrown from their seats. Two things saved the plane. Sisto struck buttons which feathered the propellors of three engines. Copilot Melvin Logan, who was securely belted in, was able to roll the ship right side up, a bare 300 to 400 feet from the ground.
Captain Sisto resigned (many airmen thought he should have been fired, many others thought he should have been jailed). If the plane had crashed, killing passengers and crew, it would doubtless have been added to the list of unexplainable accidents.
*A Frenchman, doused with the contents of the plane's chemical toilet, was apologetically informed: "This is not normal operating procedure in American airplanes."
Sisto's pilot licenses were pulled and he appealed unsuccessfully:
179 F2d 47 Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board | Open Jurist
Apparently, he later got at least a commercial license back since he flew as a copilot for Transocean Airlines a few years afterward (another version of the gustlock incident is here):
One of the More Unusual Pilots a
Last edited by Airbubba; 3rd Dec 2009 at 02:44.
Are pilots really so out of touch that a single radio altimeter failure (at any altitude, btw) would cause an accident? Heaven help us.
GB
GB
Did he pass?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard, SLF here, but post 1000 on the Turkish Schiphol accident.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...hiphol-50.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...hiphol-50.html
It sounds like the left radalt failed, and the pilots may not have noticed, or handled it correctly. Also sounds like Boeing will discuss radalt issues and their effect on the AT system.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ some hotel far away from everything
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 things are disturbing to me about this incident;
1. In VMC conditions (they called for a visual appr), with the AP failed as well as the EGWPS, the crew is back to godd old fashioned stick, rudder and power to land the aircraft from an altitude higher than approach minimums. It appears that this was very surprising to them, and it took a little bit of "manoeuvering" to re-establish somewhat of a final approach. Is this the state of aviation nowadays? Is this perhaps what sublimely lies behind why the FAA wants more thourough pilot training and screening? BTW, did this crew pass?
2. Was the check pilot trying to prove a point to someone (himself, the training sept, the crew?)?. In any case it appears he unveiled rust of handling skills by the crew, as well as a confidence with the auto-systems onboard. But with pax onboard!?!?!? On a ferryflight, sure, but not on a commercial flight. That`s what the sim is for (and one can always argue the value of knowing that you are in a sim vs the real thing, but that`s another thread). But, does this call for disciplinary action by the company, or evn the local CAA?
Or.... is this just more journalistic sensationalism to feed the hysteria fire?
1. In VMC conditions (they called for a visual appr), with the AP failed as well as the EGWPS, the crew is back to godd old fashioned stick, rudder and power to land the aircraft from an altitude higher than approach minimums. It appears that this was very surprising to them, and it took a little bit of "manoeuvering" to re-establish somewhat of a final approach. Is this the state of aviation nowadays? Is this perhaps what sublimely lies behind why the FAA wants more thourough pilot training and screening? BTW, did this crew pass?
2. Was the check pilot trying to prove a point to someone (himself, the training sept, the crew?)?. In any case it appears he unveiled rust of handling skills by the crew, as well as a confidence with the auto-systems onboard. But with pax onboard!?!?!? On a ferryflight, sure, but not on a commercial flight. That`s what the sim is for (and one can always argue the value of knowing that you are in a sim vs the real thing, but that`s another thread). But, does this call for disciplinary action by the company, or evn the local CAA?
Or.... is this just more journalistic sensationalism to feed the hysteria fire?
Arresting him could be a bit harsh. Ever watched 'Slum Dog Millionaire' ?
I would simply demote him to First Officer for five years, and in that time make him responsible for learning then teaching CRM, TEM and all those other exciting subjects that we get to do these days to make us more aware of our limitations.
It's called rehab.
I would simply demote him to First Officer for five years, and in that time make him responsible for learning then teaching CRM, TEM and all those other exciting subjects that we get to do these days to make us more aware of our limitations.
It's called rehab.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just revoke his ATPL and let him survive on his big EGO, what an idiot can a pilot be any more stupid. The pax should sue Jet Airways and then see what Jet does to the guy.Very unsafe, out right dangerous
Absolutely! The article clearly states that both autopilot and flight director are "vital navigation instruments". We have to ask questions about the safety of aeroplane design that lets AP and FD fail after radalt CB is pulled!
If you wonder, my tongue is firmly planted in cheek.
If you wonder, my tongue is firmly planted in cheek.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a nightmare scenario to be in. To look down and see no flight director commanding a left/right or up/down correction must be bloody scary, I think we can all agree on that. Especially with the runway and PAPIs out the window to confuse the already assaulted senses. It's all very well sitting in front of a laptop screen in a warm lounge and spouting out stuff about setting appropriate pitch and power and keeping the TDZ stationary in the windscreen but you're missing the point - THE FLIGHT DIRECTOR had failed. Manually landing an airliner is next to impossible with the failures they got. Bravo I say.
P.S. Agreed, the check pilot was a numpty.
P.S. Agreed, the check pilot was a numpty.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Essex,Uk
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that the so called check pilot is suspended and then sacked as a result.To pull Cb's on a chk flight is crass stupidity and very dangerous.It reminds me of the "The right stuff flight training regime" that we all recognise today could not be further from the ideal.Unbelievable.
The simulator is the place to have highlighted this potential fault to demonstrate its effects.That's called training.
Joe,TRE Retired.
The simulator is the place to have highlighted this potential fault to demonstrate its effects.That's called training.
Joe,TRE Retired.
Last edited by max alt; 3rd Dec 2009 at 09:03.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft landed safely after the radalt cb was pulled, pilots should be able to fly an ILS raw data no AP and no FD. All true.
Modern aircraft are highly complex and the systems are hugely interrelated, the failure of one system is rarely a single event with no other consequence than the single failure. In this case the AP FD and EGPWS all failed. The MEL will tell you whether it is legally acceptable to fly in this situation and what maintenance and operational actions are required for the flight to be undertaken. In flight events are dealt with by the QRH.
The problem here is the astounding actions of the check pilot who deliberately degraded the aircraft's systems during a critical phase of flight. Apart from the manufacturers instructions about not pulling a CB except as mandated as part of a QRH drill - it is common sense that you do not do this.
The mere fact that this Check Pilot thought he knew more than the manufacturers and was so smart and able that he could deal with any situation that arose as a result of his actions FROM THE JUMP SEAT beggars belief. We are all aware that accidents are the result of all the holes in the swiss cheese lining up - why on earth would any professional aviator deliberately reduce flight safety by lining some holes up intentionally. There is a place for these actions - the simulator, as any half decent pilot, let alone check pilot knows.
This man should be grounded by the company pending a full investigation. Failing that the regulators should pull his licence until the full facts are known.
Modern aircraft are highly complex and the systems are hugely interrelated, the failure of one system is rarely a single event with no other consequence than the single failure. In this case the AP FD and EGPWS all failed. The MEL will tell you whether it is legally acceptable to fly in this situation and what maintenance and operational actions are required for the flight to be undertaken. In flight events are dealt with by the QRH.
The problem here is the astounding actions of the check pilot who deliberately degraded the aircraft's systems during a critical phase of flight. Apart from the manufacturers instructions about not pulling a CB except as mandated as part of a QRH drill - it is common sense that you do not do this.
The mere fact that this Check Pilot thought he knew more than the manufacturers and was so smart and able that he could deal with any situation that arose as a result of his actions FROM THE JUMP SEAT beggars belief. We are all aware that accidents are the result of all the holes in the swiss cheese lining up - why on earth would any professional aviator deliberately reduce flight safety by lining some holes up intentionally. There is a place for these actions - the simulator, as any half decent pilot, let alone check pilot knows.
This man should be grounded by the company pending a full investigation. Failing that the regulators should pull his licence until the full facts are known.
If the news report (and that's one big if) bears some semblance to what has actually happened, than we have at least two issues here:
1) jumpseating checker pulling illegal and not quite smart stunt.
2) his stunt uncovering deficient manual flying skills on the part of the flightcrew.
However, I'd wait for official word before getting overly excited over it. I won't hold my breath though.
OFFTOPIC:
DownIn3Green, DC-4 dive at Bainbridge was suspected, but AFAIK not proven, on "unporting" - elevators losing balance and going fully nose down because of the missing hinge bolt. EK Gann's "Fate is the hunter" has a fantastic chapter on it.
Interestingly, capt Sisto was at Lester's groundschool with mr. Gann and he was described as "defiant" and "incorrigible" by the later.
1) jumpseating checker pulling illegal and not quite smart stunt.
2) his stunt uncovering deficient manual flying skills on the part of the flightcrew.
However, I'd wait for official word before getting overly excited over it. I won't hold my breath though.
OFFTOPIC:
DownIn3Green, DC-4 dive at Bainbridge was suspected, but AFAIK not proven, on "unporting" - elevators losing balance and going fully nose down because of the missing hinge bolt. EK Gann's "Fate is the hunter" has a fantastic chapter on it.
Interestingly, capt Sisto was at Lester's groundschool with mr. Gann and he was described as "defiant" and "incorrigible" by the later.
Last edited by Clandestino; 3rd Dec 2009 at 11:41. Reason: Whoops! Wrong button.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gatport
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect a line checker did that to me on a Cat3 approach - and pulled another little stunt.
You know who you are
You know who you are
It's not about the handling skills of the crew. To me that's completely irrelevant. If the check pilot suspected handling deficiencies then he reports his concerns and recommends a sim-check, it's not a massive deal. All crews should be able to fly a manual approach, no arguments there!
With regards FD/AP off approaches: They are not in themselves dangerous or even non-standard, but there is a time and a place. To say they are essentials is plain wrong (with the obvious exceptions) and smacks of over-reliance on technology - they are in the category "Nice to have, but can deal without"
What is a massive deal is the deliberately pulled circuit breaker (and it doesn't matter a jot which one is was) and the operation of the aircraft in a manner which is not only forbidden by the aircraft manufacturer but is also in violation of SOP's, no doubt, the TR manual, one's common sense and finally, is illegal ... not to mention the fact he wasn't even flying (or in a seat where he would be able to do so if something had gone wrong).
At the very least his licence should be revoked and he should be sacked. In my opinion he should also face appropriate criminal charges.
(and I'd quite like to see a poll of people who agree with me)
Less focus on the ineptitude of the crew and more on the outrageously dangerous actions of the idiot on the jump seat.
A_o_A