Air India Express B738 crash
bia botal
but of course - already addressed that in #233 - I was trying to emphasise a point, that flying doesn't always work out the way it is taught at Aviation College ( Shock ! Horror ! 
) and one has always to be prepared to improvise and 'interpret' the rules to save the situation. SOP's can't be written to cover every eventuality.
I started this, sorry, can we now close it !!
It's Beer o'clock - Goodnight.
One would hope you went around at the minimums
) and one has always to be prepared to improvise and 'interpret' the rules to save the situation. SOP's can't be written to cover every eventuality.I started this, sorry, can we now close it !!
Maybe the time has come for me to quit reading this stuff now that I am retired?
There is an ongoing very toxic discussion on a Canadian forum that is disturbing to see in a group of pilots who are flying the public around for a major airline, the depth of denial by some of these pilots is as I said, disturbing to say the least.
Maybe the time has come for me to quit reading this stuff now that I am retired?
Maybe the time has come for me to quit reading this stuff now that I am retired?
But then you realize that with a few balanced posts interspersed, that the posts we read do not represent a worthwhile sample of pilots in general. It's the strongly opinionated posters that tend to monopolize the discssion forums. So like always you have to read all and make the balances yourself.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was however, some serious 'creative' manual flying going on and if they hadn't chopped the thrust on landing it probably would have made a greaser instead of a cartwheel. Capt. Haines presentation is awesome.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baghdad A300 was an old, 3 man, version. Design standards from the 1970's, before the KSUX crash.
KSUX UAL DC-10 event? Go to the NTSB office in D.C. and read the investigators notes from the interviews. Checkout the FDR data traces from before, and after, CKA CA Denny King entered the cockpit. Read the interview notes. Connect the dots.
KSUX UAL DC-10 event? Go to the NTSB office in D.C. and read the investigators notes from the interviews. Checkout the FDR data traces from before, and after, CKA CA Denny King entered the cockpit. Read the interview notes. Connect the dots.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times of India article on AI 737-800 crash
Did airline's bar on hard landings force a pilot 'error'? - India - The Times of India
MUMBAI: Air crash investigators worldwide share a belief__that the initial reports on the probable cause of an aircrash usually turn out to be untrue.
The Air India Express top brass would do well to hope that this bit of industry wisdom holds true in the Mangalore aircrash case too since initial reports from aviation circles point at pilot error arising out of the management's highly controversial policies.
According to sources, the AI Express Boeing 737-800 aircraft touched down deep on runway 24 of Mangalore airport, much beyond the stipulated touchdown zone. Why would a senior commander miss the touchdown zone and hit the runway? Here's where the airline management's involvement comes in. There is a diktat for Air India Express pilots which bars hard landings. A circular issued by the airline about a year ago says that landings should not exceed 1.65G.
What is a 1.65G landing? When the undercarriage of a plane touches down on the runway, the sink rate goes from say 200 feet per minute to zero feet per minute in a few seconds. So for a higher sink rate, the impact on touchdown is greater and vice versa. A hard landing typically occurs when the sink rate is high and the aircraft touches down on the runway with a thud instead of doing a smooth transition onto ground.
The hard or smooth quotient of a landing is expressed in a term called "touchdown G". A 1G landing means the force which acted on aircraft tyres at the instant of touchdown is equivalent to the weight of the aircraft (1 x aircraft weight). A 2G landing would mean the force is two times the weight of the aircraft. Higher the value of G, harder the landing. The AI Express circular limits landings to 1.65G, though according to the aircraft manufacturer Boeing's specifications the aircraft can safely handle up to 2.5G landings.
"Every time a landing exceeds 1.65G, the pilot gets hauled up by the air safety department. Two hard landings and the pilot is sent for a training session. Passengers also complain about hard landings and so the airline is particular about smooth landings which are achieved with lower touchdown G values," said a source. Now, one of the ways to achieve a smooth touchdown is to come over the runway at a higher speed and float for some distance before letting the landing gear touch down on the runway. This reduces the G force on impact. "Pilots often land a few feet ahead of the touchdown zone when they float over the runway to make a smooth landing," said a source. "The AI Express commander too seems to have employed these tactics. His aircraft missed the touchdown point," the source added. What the commander executed was a late, smooth touchdown at high speed. "It is indeed pilot error, but it is an error that was forced by the management policy for smooth landings. A hard landing may be an uncomfortable landing, but sometimes it is a safer landing than a smooth landing," the source said.
Capt Z Glusica was popular among his first officers as he allowed them to do landings under his supervision. "Any commander with the kind of experience that Capt Glusica had can safely allow a first officer to land. But the AI Express air safety department is set against it. If a first officer never learns to land under the supervision of an experienced commander, how will he handle a situation if for instance the commander gets incapacitated?" asked the source. "Even if we assume that it was the first officer who touched down late then all that the commander had to do was do a go-around (i.e., take off again and come around for a second attempt at landing) and the aircraft would have landed safely," the official said.
A B737 aircraft can safely do a go-around after touchdown. But it cannot do a safe go-around if the decision to do a go-around is taken late or if it is taken after the reverse thrusters have been deployed (thrust in the opposite direction so as decelerate the aircraft). A go-around after thrust reversal selection is prohibited. "The airline policy is such that pilots try to avoid go-arounds as they have to explain it to the air safety department. A go-around infact is a highly recommended safety procedure when the touchdown is deep. But due to the airline diktat, the commander must have had a few microseconds of indecision after the aircraft touched down. So he seems to have either opted for the go-around late or he did it after deploying reverse thrusters. Since the go-around attempt failed, this is a plausible explanation," said the source.
There are unconfirmed reports that the plane's nose wheel burst after touchdown. It is difficult to bring an aircraft to a halt near the end of a runway as this portion bears aircraft skid marks and rubber desposits which affects braking action. When the plane attempted to lift off again the aircraft's wing hit the localiser (a T-shaped frangible antenna positioned perpendicular to the runway central line and located about 150 feet from the end of the runway) and then plunged into the valley. "Since the wreckage was well off the runway one can say that there seemed to have been an attempt to do a go around. Only investigations will reveal why did the attempt go wrong," says the source.
The pilots also brought in the fatigue angle to explain the wrong decisions taken by the pilot. "It does not matter how many days rest he got prior to these flights that he operated. He took off from Calicut on Friday night for Dubai and then came to Mangalore. The entire operation was done at night, during circadian low. His alertness level at the end of that 9-10 hour night duty surely would not have been very high," the pilot added. For the last three years, pilots of Air India, Indian Airlines and Jet Airways have been pushing for better pilot rest rules in India. Currently, the rest rules followed are the ones formulated in 1992.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do people expect FO's to be Captains if they're restricted from flying as FO's?
That is a SOP that I absolutely don't understand.
If they can't fly they don't belong at the pointy end of the airplane. If they can fly let them fly. In they're inexperienced allow the Captain to make the judgement call as to who flies the flight(segment/sector).
Newbies get at least 50% of all landings with me. Some trips as high as 75%. I don't need the landing experience, but junior does. Junior relief officers(IO's/FB's, etc) get half of 'my' landings. FO gets 50%, inexperienced relief pilot gets 25%, I get 25%.
I want new FO's up to speed as quickly as possible. Taking landings from them, when I have more than enough, doesn't increase their experience level as rapidly as possible.
MUMBAI: Air crash investigators worldwide share a belief__that the initial reports on the probable cause of an aircrash usually turn out to be untrue.
The Air India Express top brass would do well to hope that this bit of industry wisdom holds true in the Mangalore aircrash case too since initial reports from aviation circles point at pilot error arising out of the management's highly controversial policies.
According to sources, the AI Express Boeing 737-800 aircraft touched down deep on runway 24 of Mangalore airport, much beyond the stipulated touchdown zone. Why would a senior commander miss the touchdown zone and hit the runway? Here's where the airline management's involvement comes in. There is a diktat for Air India Express pilots which bars hard landings. A circular issued by the airline about a year ago says that landings should not exceed 1.65G.
What is a 1.65G landing? When the undercarriage of a plane touches down on the runway, the sink rate goes from say 200 feet per minute to zero feet per minute in a few seconds. So for a higher sink rate, the impact on touchdown is greater and vice versa. A hard landing typically occurs when the sink rate is high and the aircraft touches down on the runway with a thud instead of doing a smooth transition onto ground.
The hard or smooth quotient of a landing is expressed in a term called "touchdown G". A 1G landing means the force which acted on aircraft tyres at the instant of touchdown is equivalent to the weight of the aircraft (1 x aircraft weight). A 2G landing would mean the force is two times the weight of the aircraft. Higher the value of G, harder the landing. The AI Express circular limits landings to 1.65G, though according to the aircraft manufacturer Boeing's specifications the aircraft can safely handle up to 2.5G landings.
"Every time a landing exceeds 1.65G, the pilot gets hauled up by the air safety department. Two hard landings and the pilot is sent for a training session. Passengers also complain about hard landings and so the airline is particular about smooth landings which are achieved with lower touchdown G values," said a source. Now, one of the ways to achieve a smooth touchdown is to come over the runway at a higher speed and float for some distance before letting the landing gear touch down on the runway. This reduces the G force on impact. "Pilots often land a few feet ahead of the touchdown zone when they float over the runway to make a smooth landing," said a source. "The AI Express commander too seems to have employed these tactics. His aircraft missed the touchdown point," the source added. What the commander executed was a late, smooth touchdown at high speed. "It is indeed pilot error, but it is an error that was forced by the management policy for smooth landings. A hard landing may be an uncomfortable landing, but sometimes it is a safer landing than a smooth landing," the source said.
Capt Z Glusica was popular among his first officers as he allowed them to do landings under his supervision. "Any commander with the kind of experience that Capt Glusica had can safely allow a first officer to land. But the AI Express air safety department is set against it. If a first officer never learns to land under the supervision of an experienced commander, how will he handle a situation if for instance the commander gets incapacitated?" asked the source. "Even if we assume that it was the first officer who touched down late then all that the commander had to do was do a go-around (i.e., take off again and come around for a second attempt at landing) and the aircraft would have landed safely," the official said.
A B737 aircraft can safely do a go-around after touchdown. But it cannot do a safe go-around if the decision to do a go-around is taken late or if it is taken after the reverse thrusters have been deployed (thrust in the opposite direction so as decelerate the aircraft). A go-around after thrust reversal selection is prohibited. "The airline policy is such that pilots try to avoid go-arounds as they have to explain it to the air safety department. A go-around infact is a highly recommended safety procedure when the touchdown is deep. But due to the airline diktat, the commander must have had a few microseconds of indecision after the aircraft touched down. So he seems to have either opted for the go-around late or he did it after deploying reverse thrusters. Since the go-around attempt failed, this is a plausible explanation," said the source.
There are unconfirmed reports that the plane's nose wheel burst after touchdown. It is difficult to bring an aircraft to a halt near the end of a runway as this portion bears aircraft skid marks and rubber desposits which affects braking action. When the plane attempted to lift off again the aircraft's wing hit the localiser (a T-shaped frangible antenna positioned perpendicular to the runway central line and located about 150 feet from the end of the runway) and then plunged into the valley. "Since the wreckage was well off the runway one can say that there seemed to have been an attempt to do a go around. Only investigations will reveal why did the attempt go wrong," says the source.
The pilots also brought in the fatigue angle to explain the wrong decisions taken by the pilot. "It does not matter how many days rest he got prior to these flights that he operated. He took off from Calicut on Friday night for Dubai and then came to Mangalore. The entire operation was done at night, during circadian low. His alertness level at the end of that 9-10 hour night duty surely would not have been very high," the pilot added. For the last three years, pilots of Air India, Indian Airlines and Jet Airways have been pushing for better pilot rest rules in India. Currently, the rest rules followed are the ones formulated in 1992.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do people expect FO's to be Captains if they're restricted from flying as FO's?
That is a SOP that I absolutely don't understand.
If they can't fly they don't belong at the pointy end of the airplane. If they can fly let them fly. In they're inexperienced allow the Captain to make the judgement call as to who flies the flight(segment/sector).
Newbies get at least 50% of all landings with me. Some trips as high as 75%. I don't need the landing experience, but junior does. Junior relief officers(IO's/FB's, etc) get half of 'my' landings. FO gets 50%, inexperienced relief pilot gets 25%, I get 25%.
I want new FO's up to speed as quickly as possible. Taking landings from them, when I have more than enough, doesn't increase their experience level as rapidly as possible.
I want new FO's up to speed as quickly as possible. Taking landings from them, when I have more than enough, doesn't increase their experience level as rapidly as possible.
misd-agin is offline Report Post Reply
misd-agin is offline Report Post Reply
The answer is simulator specialised training. Most simulator type ratings are accented towards automation throughout the conversion course. Even the most basic of handling skills - the instrument rating test - is primarily on automatics with perhaps a teeny weeny bit of raw data hand flying tossed in for good measure.
Inexperienced newly graduated cadet first officers who legally are in command of a bloody big jet transport should never be put in that position of responsibility until they have been proved highly competent in pure flying skill and not merely ticked off in the right boxes as being found competent at monitoring a computer from the RH seat.
Simulator training for these newbies should include a high proportion of hand flown non-automatics, non flight director, circuits and landings, go-arounds and emphasis on wet runway crosswind landings on limiting runway lengths - not on huge 10,000 ft runways in the simulator where the risks involved with landing long never show up simply because the aircraft eventually stops with several thousand feet remaining. No wuckin furries mate - plenty of room.
During recurrent training in the simulator the same type of manual handling needs to be accented for captains, too.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At AI the FO's are, at best, given 3-5 take offs and landings a year. Some a lot more, others even less. The omniscient "Commander" will more than likely take all sectors. I do know that expat Capts will be more willing to "give flying" to the FO as that is what they are accustomed to do. The local guys are "accustomed" to a different ideology.
So, when the FO becomes a "Commander" he / she will behave the same way, ie following the "custom" & airline culture that they were bought up in to do all the flying. That is not their fault as they have been treated this way and hence belive "it is the way it should be".
Recency on t/o's & landings, let alone approaches? All waivered and / or covered up by the fraudulent proficiency checks and sims.
So, blame the pilot or blame the system?
So, when the FO becomes a "Commander" he / she will behave the same way, ie following the "custom" & airline culture that they were bought up in to do all the flying. That is not their fault as they have been treated this way and hence belive "it is the way it should be".
Recency on t/o's & landings, let alone approaches? All waivered and / or covered up by the fraudulent proficiency checks and sims.
So, blame the pilot or blame the system?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus is absolutely right.
Airline training standards are most definitely not the same worldwide.
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...6-doh-kul.html
So what is the international standard?
I am asking because occasionally I and my family need to travel from point A to point B.
We will not travel on questionable airlines, and regardless of the discussions and assertions here, we know from experience that these are many.
Our first/only priority is that we complete our journey safely.
Say what?
CJ
Airline training standards are most definitely not the same worldwide.
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...6-doh-kul.html
So what is the international standard?
I am asking because occasionally I and my family need to travel from point A to point B.
We will not travel on questionable airlines, and regardless of the discussions and assertions here, we know from experience that these are many.
Our first/only priority is that we complete our journey safely.
Say what?
CJ
Last edited by Carjockey; 26th May 2010 at 12:04.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the greatest respect for all 'professional' pilots out there.
I mean, how many times have I put my life (and my families lives) into your hands?
But there is an element amongst you (i'm sure you know who) who are neither 'pilots' nor 'professionals'.
These guys just want a 'job'!
It does not matter to them what that job is, and it does not matter to them if they can do the job or not!
They just want a job!
I know how it works, been exposed to this culture many many times...
GET RID OF THEM!!!
EXPOSE THEM!!!
You know who they are, and you know there is no place for this nonsense in ANY industry, particularly the AIRLINE industry!!!
CJ
I mean, how many times have I put my life (and my families lives) into your hands?
But there is an element amongst you (i'm sure you know who) who are neither 'pilots' nor 'professionals'.
These guys just want a 'job'!
It does not matter to them what that job is, and it does not matter to them if they can do the job or not!
They just want a job!
I know how it works, been exposed to this culture many many times...
GET RID OF THEM!!!
EXPOSE THEM!!!
You know who they are, and you know there is no place for this nonsense in ANY industry, particularly the AIRLINE industry!!!
CJ
At AI the FO's are, at best, given 3-5 take offs and landings a year. Some a lot more, others even less. The omniscient "Commander" will more than likely take all sectors. I do know that expat Capts will be more willing to "give flying" to the FO as that is what they are accustomed to do. The local guys are "accustomed" to a different ideology.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
infrequentflyer789
Yeah. I wouldn't expect with a missle to the wing that it would matter much whether or not your aircraft had any HYD check valves or not. I was thinking more if the CF6-50C2 threw a fan disc or came apart inflight. FWIW, the old A300-B4 is not a 3rd or 4th generation aircraft.
Also, cartwheel was a poor choice of words on my part. You're correct. It DID NOT cartwheel. However, it did roll and tumble upside down as it broke up. That's as close to cartwheel as damn is to swearing, I'd say. Is there a suitable word between tumble and cartwheel? (please don't say 'and'?)
Cartwheel or tumble, no matter what generation you're in a cartwheel or tumble is going to ruin your day, no matter how you slice it.
Willie
Yeah. I wouldn't expect with a missle to the wing that it would matter much whether or not your aircraft had any HYD check valves or not. I was thinking more if the CF6-50C2 threw a fan disc or came apart inflight. FWIW, the old A300-B4 is not a 3rd or 4th generation aircraft.
Also, cartwheel was a poor choice of words on my part. You're correct. It DID NOT cartwheel. However, it did roll and tumble upside down as it broke up. That's as close to cartwheel as damn is to swearing, I'd say. Is there a suitable word between tumble and cartwheel? (please don't say 'and'?)
Cartwheel or tumble, no matter what generation you're in a cartwheel or tumble is going to ruin your day, no matter how you slice it.
Willie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may seem rather obvious, but if my company tells me that hard landings are unacceptable and it is official company policy pilots will only conduct smooth landings, does that mean....
I must do smooth landings on dry runways, wet runways, contaminated runways, heavy crosswinds, it doesn't matter, no exceptions or what???
What if I don't? What if I'm so mezmerized by my skill I forget to sufficiently round out and hammer it on? What if I plant the aircraft to break the contaminant or water layer, or slush layer for more effective braking in an attempt to avoid hydroplanning???
Do Air India management, fleet managers, safety officers give you a Mulligan for staying within the required landing distance? Or, if I overshoot the touchdown zone, a little high on speed, slide it on and end up in an overrun or off the runway, do I get an attaboy? Or, if I were to do the same thing, paint it on, overrun and because the overrun turns out to be a 150 foot sudden dropoff and my aircraft plummets to disaster will they promise to check the FDR and confirm that I, at least, did make a smooth landing in compliance with that policy and that I won't be blamed for stuffing it up??? How does it work?
What professional pilot would give two seconds notice to such a silly edict?
Smooth landings are every pilots M.O. Give me a break! Putting it in writing is hilarious, it's such a joke.
Willie
I must do smooth landings on dry runways, wet runways, contaminated runways, heavy crosswinds, it doesn't matter, no exceptions or what???
What if I don't? What if I'm so mezmerized by my skill I forget to sufficiently round out and hammer it on? What if I plant the aircraft to break the contaminant or water layer, or slush layer for more effective braking in an attempt to avoid hydroplanning???
Do Air India management, fleet managers, safety officers give you a Mulligan for staying within the required landing distance? Or, if I overshoot the touchdown zone, a little high on speed, slide it on and end up in an overrun or off the runway, do I get an attaboy? Or, if I were to do the same thing, paint it on, overrun and because the overrun turns out to be a 150 foot sudden dropoff and my aircraft plummets to disaster will they promise to check the FDR and confirm that I, at least, did make a smooth landing in compliance with that policy and that I won't be blamed for stuffing it up??? How does it work?
What professional pilot would give two seconds notice to such a silly edict?
Smooth landings are every pilots M.O. Give me a break! Putting it in writing is hilarious, it's such a joke.
Willie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Words, again ....
An edict on smooth landings is indeed ridiculous. However, that is not what was quoted.
The AI guideline, or whatever, was about landings producing more than 1.65 g touchdown. Well, that figure is quite a banger.
Somebody after that wrote, huh, but the aircraft is stressed for 2.5 g, so what is the problem? Well, mixing up things. The 2.5 g limit is for loading the wings in a positive direction (the wings in that state deliver an amount of lift equal to 2.5 times the aircraft weight). The limit of 2.5 g applies only to the flaps up configuration, with flaps not up the limit is 2.0 g.
The negative g limit is -1.0 (flaps up) or 0.0 (flaps not up).
These g limits apply to flying the aircraft.
The touchdown g is something different, sure it is about 25 meters per second squared in acceleration, but this time the landing gear is doing the "lifting" thing and the wings try to continue on their way down, in other words, they are loaded in the same direction as if the aircraft is flown with negative g - there go your remarks about being stressed for 2.5 g.
Strength for touchdown is obviously calculated by manufacturers. Testing for it may be done literally by dropping the aircraft from a certain height onto the ground (possible/conceivable with fighter size aircraft). Anyway, quite a different method than the well known "load a wing to ultimate load capability" scenes. Do you remember from other threads the interesting technical discussion about, allegedly, the MD-11 gear being "too strong for the wing construction" (Fedex Narita)
For touchdown, techie information will prescribe what kind of inspection is needed after a hard landing, it depends on touchdown g, but also on aircraft mass, how much fuel (mass) was present in wingtanks, etcetera.
To keep it simple, hard landings have to be reported, therefore the touchdown g is monitored, may be by onboard means (ACMS printout firm landing or hard landing?) but also by flight data monitoring. Abnormally high rates of occurrence may rightly lead to investigation of piloting technique and/or training issues.
Of course, rambling about "pax comfort" in this context, if done in the official statement of AI would be utter stupidity.
The AI guideline, or whatever, was about landings producing more than 1.65 g touchdown. Well, that figure is quite a banger.
Somebody after that wrote, huh, but the aircraft is stressed for 2.5 g, so what is the problem? Well, mixing up things. The 2.5 g limit is for loading the wings in a positive direction (the wings in that state deliver an amount of lift equal to 2.5 times the aircraft weight). The limit of 2.5 g applies only to the flaps up configuration, with flaps not up the limit is 2.0 g.
The negative g limit is -1.0 (flaps up) or 0.0 (flaps not up).
These g limits apply to flying the aircraft.
The touchdown g is something different, sure it is about 25 meters per second squared in acceleration, but this time the landing gear is doing the "lifting" thing and the wings try to continue on their way down, in other words, they are loaded in the same direction as if the aircraft is flown with negative g - there go your remarks about being stressed for 2.5 g.
Strength for touchdown is obviously calculated by manufacturers. Testing for it may be done literally by dropping the aircraft from a certain height onto the ground (possible/conceivable with fighter size aircraft). Anyway, quite a different method than the well known "load a wing to ultimate load capability" scenes. Do you remember from other threads the interesting technical discussion about, allegedly, the MD-11 gear being "too strong for the wing construction" (Fedex Narita)
For touchdown, techie information will prescribe what kind of inspection is needed after a hard landing, it depends on touchdown g, but also on aircraft mass, how much fuel (mass) was present in wingtanks, etcetera.
To keep it simple, hard landings have to be reported, therefore the touchdown g is monitored, may be by onboard means (ACMS printout firm landing or hard landing?) but also by flight data monitoring. Abnormally high rates of occurrence may rightly lead to investigation of piloting technique and/or training issues.
Of course, rambling about "pax comfort" in this context, if done in the official statement of AI would be utter stupidity.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the point of shock absorbers again? 
If you land too hard, one of two things happen: you either put the gear through the wing or you bounce.
I rather like this: "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Being able to use the aircraft again afterwards is a bonus."
I wonder what the safety department think now the aircraft is a smoking hole and nearly everyone on board were killed?
ECAM Actions.
If you land too hard, one of two things happen: you either put the gear through the wing or you bounce.
I rather like this: "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Being able to use the aircraft again afterwards is a bonus."
I wonder what the safety department think now the aircraft is a smoking hole and nearly everyone on board were killed?
ECAM Actions.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A carpenter has many grades of sand paper and knows when to use each type.
So too a pilot with landings. Sometimes a landing should be a good firm PLUNK right on the spot with max braking right away.
Sometimes you can give yourself the luxury of a ''grease'' job.
Exceeding 600 FPM can damage the plane at normal landing weights. Overweight landings should be less than 300 fpm.
But if you are at all stable on approach and you do virtually nothing, you will have a decent landing. (in a transport).
While there have been plenty of pilots who ran airlines...right into the ground, I think that anyone who runs an airline but hasn't the piloting experience to back up decisions of an aeronautical nature, shouldn't be running the place.
So too a pilot with landings. Sometimes a landing should be a good firm PLUNK right on the spot with max braking right away.
Sometimes you can give yourself the luxury of a ''grease'' job.
Exceeding 600 FPM can damage the plane at normal landing weights. Overweight landings should be less than 300 fpm.
But if you are at all stable on approach and you do virtually nothing, you will have a decent landing. (in a transport).
While there have been plenty of pilots who ran airlines...right into the ground, I think that anyone who runs an airline but hasn't the piloting experience to back up decisions of an aeronautical nature, shouldn't be running the place.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carjockey - SOME large and otherwise successful airlines hire "cadets" with zero flight time. Some of those airlines apply parameters to the hiring bias of race and nationality along with a mandatory docile and non-assertive nature. If you have ever been in trouble you will not be selected so anyone with any experience in risk assessment is kicked out of the pool. Toss in an exaggerated sense of entitlement and *voila*, there you are. 400 hours of flight time and off you go into the dead of night into a monsoon at some 3rd world "airport" with a 10 year "veteran" at the helm plying his CRM.
The right seat guys I flew with at a large and non-bankrupt major carrier ranged in experience from former Commuter Airline Captains with type ratings and thousands of hours to trained killers who had lots of experience in everything from F-18s to F-16s, Air Force Fighter pilot instructors, C-5 Commanders, and the odd rotor heads who were a delight in every way to work with.
I guess it is a judgement call I don't want to make for you but I know who I am more comfortable waving see-ya-later to my family with.
Just for clarity, not all the low time cadets are frightening and those who are selected properly and trained well (along with a strong elimination program for those not suited for the job) go on to a career with no hiccups. My previous comments notwithstanding.
The right seat guys I flew with at a large and non-bankrupt major carrier ranged in experience from former Commuter Airline Captains with type ratings and thousands of hours to trained killers who had lots of experience in everything from F-18s to F-16s, Air Force Fighter pilot instructors, C-5 Commanders, and the odd rotor heads who were a delight in every way to work with.
I guess it is a judgement call I don't want to make for you but I know who I am more comfortable waving see-ya-later to my family with.
Just for clarity, not all the low time cadets are frightening and those who are selected properly and trained well (along with a strong elimination program for those not suited for the job) go on to a career with no hiccups. My previous comments notwithstanding.
Last edited by Plectron; 27th May 2010 at 06:09.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sand on the Rocks !
Age: 41
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wisperingwillows
Been reading through all the posts here and found some measured, some bodering on hysteria and a lot completely unrelated to the issue at hand. I would like to add a few sane comments to all those flying about here.
Just to give you a background to my comments
1. I am a Line Captain; one of those low time ones to be precise.
2. Have flow with lots of expats and Indians as p2 and p1
3. Have operated to and landed Mangalore several times (will have to check my log for an excat figure but atleast 10 or more; a few times in rain) ...
Issue 1 Mangalore Airport
Comment 1. The Mangalore airport usually gives you a DME arc approach which is not particularly challenging but you can end up high if you're not on the ball (situational awareness) or the........
Just to give you a background to my comments
1. I am a Line Captain; one of those low time ones to be precise.
2. Have flow with lots of expats and Indians as p2 and p1
3. Have operated to and landed Mangalore several times (will have to check my log for an excat figure but atleast 10 or more; a few times in rain) ...
Issue 1 Mangalore Airport
Comment 1. The Mangalore airport usually gives you a DME arc approach which is not particularly challenging but you can end up high if you're not on the ball (situational awareness) or the........
This is your captain, we are landing at Mangalore…
Last edited by iflytb20; 27th May 2010 at 06:30. Reason: wrong link