Air India Express B738 crash

[lomapaseo]

That sums it up in a nutshell!

Not really

Finding fault is one thing, corrective actions are what it's all about

[drive73]

I dont think the fo was being spiteful and thinking the way you speak of. He was responsible for the inintial descent and not getting the descent clearance from 37k until 77 miles, nor did he really effectively pass that along to the captain. He also seemed confused by the lack of radar vectors and stated he wasn't sure how to do the approach without radar? I think he didn't recognize the captain was mentally out of it and in tunnel vision world. The capt never responded to any of his requests or the automation giving him aural warnings. Clasic tunnel vision signs. He seemed to think the capt. Was going to save the approach. I don't think this is expat against local, stuff everybody wants it to be so badly.

[bravolima553]

According the report obviously there was no communication between the flightdeck crew, indicating they had problems with each other.
As further stated in the report, a question arouse: does the CMD Glusica knew about the written complaints of the F/O regarding to another CMD on another flight? I suppose, the fleet with 21 aircrafts is not as big that incidents like this doesn`t make the round....
As well according to the report, CMD Glusica was summonded two month earlier to his fleet commander beeing accused of a hard landing by another F/O. He felt being treated unfair at that case.

Angry men on the flightdeck?

[fireflybob]

A well known large low cost airline has the FO at 500 ft saying either "Five Hundred Continue" or "Five Hundred Go Around".

So if the FO calls "Five Hundred Go Around" the SOP is that the Captain will execute a Go Around.

Seems so simple - why can't other carriers have this system?

[Admiral346]

We do, but it's at 1000': Either stabilized or Goaround...

[Rananim]

A well known large low cost airline has the FO at 500 ft saying either "Five Hundred Continue" or "Five Hundred Go Around".

So if the FO calls "Five Hundred Go Around" the SOP is that the Captain will execute a Go Around.

Seems so simple - why can't other carriers have this system?

I dont agree with this as an SOP.I wouldnt fly with such an airline.I dont know of an airline that employs such a policy.I am not saying that under most circs,a good Captain should not listen to a good FO and heed the call.Thats fine.But the flt deck isnt a democracy even in todays pc world.In the system you describe,the gradient is totally flat and both should be wearing 4 stripes.That is as dangerous as the very steep gradient.CRM must start with the central premise that theres one Captain and work from there.FAR 91.1 is very explicit.
Of course,as related to this particular incident,your SOP works.But to dilute pilot-in-commands authority based on the actions of one bad Captain is a dangerous path to go down.Do your FO's order/execute a reject as well?

[Kenny]

Rananim,

I hate to tell you this but un-stable approaches still remain the number one reason for FOQA exceedances. Because of this the 500' call "stable" or "not stable" is being adopted by more and more airlines. My current company certainly does it as did the company I worked at before in the US.

The company I worked at in the US was probably one the only CRJ operators where the FO could call reject on the take off. Why? Because if they were PF and experienced a PCU runaway of the elevator on take off, only they would know.

Now, neither of these stop a Captain over-ruling the FO but they'd better have a damn good reason.

Unfortunately, FO's used to be seen as Captains in training. Now, with the decrease in experience levels, they're seen as more of a liability. Shame really.

[stepwilk]

the flt deck isnt a democracy even in todays pc world.

Decades of work down the drain.

[Centaurus]

So if the FO calls "Five Hundred Go Around" the SOP is that the Captain will execute a Go Around.

The captain is in charge of the flight and he decides whether or not a go-around is warranted - not the first officer. Your company SOP needs to be reviewed in terms of the Human Factors issues involved. Quite often a nervous nellie or inexperienced first officer will start yelling for a go-around when it is unwarranted. This is often seen in the simulator when a first officer is flying and decides he is going to execute a go-around when it is clear the approach is well within tolerances.

While 500 feet is standard with many operators as a decision point in terms of a stabilised approach, there are other pertinent factors to be considered. It is as bad empowering the first officer to initiate an abort during his take off rather than the captain making that vital decision and subsequent action to reject

[captjns]

In a number of carriers, it's not F/O or CAPT. that states 500 continue or G/A. It's the NFP that makes the observation as to whether or not the aircraft if on a stable approach. FR comes to mind with this "Challenge/Response" which seems to work.

Rananim... There is more than airline on the planet that may use different procedures than yours.

Perhaps Rananim, if and when your carrier establishes such a procedure, you will inform us of your resignation with immediate effect?

[stealthpilot]

I dont agree with this as an SOP.I wouldnt fly with such an airline.I dont know of an airline that employs such a policy.

A lot of airlines have that policy, more will embrace it.
At mine it isn't FO/Capt its PF/PNF. Stabilization criteria are laid down- 1000' or 500' depending on the approach, as Kenny pointed out unstabilized approaches are still very common.
No harm in going around, it's not a bad word anymore. How does a go around call 'dilute pilot-in-commands authority'?

Matter of fact in my company below 1000' anyone can call a go around. Above 1000' the FO can suggest it, but the captain can continue if he/she thinks they can stabilize in time. But at and below 1000' if anyone calls a go around- you go around. Can there be a few bad (for lack of a better word) calls of course!! Whats the worst that happens- the aircraft goes around and lands behind schedule and the pilot in question gets a debriefing.
Why do we have this call? No need to look further than the AI topic we are discussing.
or Incident: Air Europa B738 at Lanzarote on Oct 31st 2008, departed runway on landing

The captain is in charge of the flight and he decides whether or not a go-around is warranted - not the first officer. Your company SOP needs to be reviewed in terms of the Human Factors issues involved.

I disagree, if your company implies the captain solely decided on a go around that SOP needs to be revised. A go around is just that, a go around!!
Yes the captain is in charge of the entire flight, and he decides most things. But what have we learnt over the past few decades (even 4 years?). Pilots make mistakes, people get fixated. It could very well be an inexperienced FO, heck look at the link above it almost always involves an experienced captain. The empowerment to call a go around IS directly related to Human Factors and is in the larger interest of safety.
A go-around is not as important an event as a rejected takeoff ..... it's just a go around.

Quite often a nervous nellie or inexperienced first officer will start yelling for a go-around when it is unwarranted.

Quite often?? If that's the case send the FO for extra training. Thats no excuse for ignoring an actual call.

[RAM777]

just finished reading the report,pretty informative.I just wish the first officer had takenover the controls but now its too late.RIP. i wish all fellow pilots safe flying

[BOAC]

steathpilot - thank you for correcting a strange (and somewhat historic) concept! Certainly those F/Os would need more training.

[drive73]

I think what your all missing is the pm must be able to recognize when the pf is in a tunnel. You can make all the calls you want if the pf is in the tunnel it won't matter.
This is where experience comes in, or special training in recognition of this state. One can't expect a low time pilot or one with no experience with training to recognize it. India and other countries with 250 hour new hires will always have this problem. The absence of being a flight instructor is big. When you spend 2-3 thousand hours with people trying to kill you on a daily basis, recognition of these issues and how to deal with them is much easier and quicker. This needs to be trained for in these kinds of countries. There was not one response to the go around calls or automated calls, not one. No recognition until it was too late, a good pilot probably, but no recognition of a tunnel visioned capt. I am quite sure he knew something was screwed up, but this was probably his first experience with it and this caused confusion in his mind. They should put these kinds of things in regular training.

[captplaystation]

In theory it is covered in initial & recurrent CRM training, & many companies have a policy whereby if PF does not respond to the 2nd challenge, PM is to assume he is incapacitated & take control. That would have worked here, as whatever you care to call it ( fatigue/tunnel vision/ land-itis) sitting there , fixated on landing at any cost, whilst simultaneously ignoring the exhortations of both your colleague, and the machine, is a (not very subtle) form of incapacitation ,& should be dealt with by the other crew member on that basis.

[drive73]

Talking about it and dealing with it at 6 in the morning after an all night flight for the first time at 2 miles with the captain descending at 3 thousand feet a minute with very narrow window of time are two different beasts. You can't just talk about this kind of stuff it needs to be trained regularly for guys in this part of the world. As an instructor both light and jets I can't tell you how many times I have sat and watched guys with a disconnected ap horn blasting away yelling checklist items back and forth. Never canceling landing gear warning horns stuff like that. When something like this happens the pm can be drug into it just by not comprehending it is being taken this far, which it self can cause inaction on the pm's part. Think about it, as an fo how many times did you have to physically take the controls from your capt. In my 20k plus career I can think of only 1 time from an experienced captain, and I was really surprised it happened.

[PT6A]

Drive,

The First Officer was not a 250 hour guy... He was undergoing his Command training

[MDT06]

At mine airlines the PNF makes the 500 ft Go Around call out. According to the airline, it’s reducing the amount of un-stable approaches. So it must work.

[aterpster]

The unstabilized approach is serious but the reality that the airplane would not touch down until the last 2,500 feet of a short ("table top") runway borders on insanity on the part of the captain.

In a sense this accident (crash) is similar to the OPRN Jet Blue crash. A seriously messed up captain and a fairly experienced, but too timed F/O.

At 500 feet the AIE F/O should have shoved the throttles to "radar power" rotated, then exclaimed to the captain, "Would you like the airplane back to fly a proper approach, or should I do it?"

I feel so bad for the passengers aft of the area where the 8 survivors were seated. They survived the impact to die, probably not seriously injured, of a death by fire.

The worthless piece of **** captain died a quick death by impact.

Excuse my emotions, but they come from reading a good accident report like this one.

[drive73]

Pt, just because your undergoing command training doesn't mean your experienced. When I flew in India I flew with 3000 hour guys who couldn't manually turn the airplane or land without auto brakes. When 2750 of your 3000 hours is 95 percent automated flying your not experienced. Again if he was experienced in dealing with fixation he would have gone around. Instead we are reading this report. Multiple levels of an aviation career are important in building experience, if that's not available it needs to be trained in the sim.