Air India Express B738 crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On a Wing!
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst on the topic of Go-around's and Missed approaches...How the hell does any one of us know that they were even ATTEMPTING a go-around or a MA. I mean the frieking Cvr is a mangled mess at this point in time(as per the same irresponsible jounos' reports)and which FO in his right state of mind(may god rest his soul)would report to the Atc of ALL people that 'hey i've been begging with this guy all through to go-around,and we are now crashing in the valley'.Does it take a rocket scientist to tell us that this is just opportunistic,irresponsible reporting...!! The agenda being...blame the frieking expat!! Cause that seems to be the ONLY agenda in India for the past 2 years. Blame the white guy and get him outta here!
Poor thought process on all our parts,to say the least! And WE are supposed to be the analysts here...
Poor thought process on all our parts,to say the least! And WE are supposed to be the analysts here...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the
first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less).
first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less).
It just leaves too much usable runway behind the aircraft.
The aiming point is generally 1000 ft - 1500 ft, which will lead to a touchdown using correct technique within 2000 ft. Where available, the electronic glideslope is the primary source of slope control down to the runway.
Is the AIX manual an issue here ?
Strobes ON
That 3000 foot number would be the FAA definition of touchdown zone and the layout of the touchdown zone lighting. Does that settle it? Yes, on a dodgy runway, might be better to aim at 1500 feet. I do all the time, so I'm in the habit.
GF
That 3000 foot number would be the FAA definition of touchdown zone and the layout of the touchdown zone lighting. Does that settle it? Yes, on a dodgy runway, might be better to aim at 1500 feet. I do all the time, so I'm in the habit.
GF
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Words of wisdom from Air India :(
Operations Training Division,
Santa Cruz (East)
MUMBAI- 400 029
September 29, 2005
To:
ALLFLIGHTCREW
Recently, one of our B747-400 aircraft was involved in a runway overrun incident after landing during a heavy shower on runway 14 at Mumbai. There was no damage to the aircraft and no injuries to
Santa Cruz (East)
MUMBAI- 400 029
September 29, 2005
To:
ALLFLIGHTCREW
Recently, one of our B747-400 aircraft was involved in a runway overrun incident after landing during a heavy shower on runway 14 at Mumbai. There was no damage to the aircraft and no injuries to
the passengers or crew. However, to highlight the problems faced during landing in adverse weather compounded with wet / slippery runway conditions this circular is being issued
The information will subsequently be incorporated in the Operations Manual/SOP.
BrakingAction is reported as "Good", "Medium" or "Poor" after analyzing the readings of friction measuring devices such as DBV(Diagonal Brake Vehicle), ASFT(Airport Surface Friction Tester).
The British Mu meter and the "Griptester" trailer, etc. To increase friction, runway treatment is carried out. It is simply removal of rubber deposits by chemical or water blast techniques, or mechanical scrubbing.
Anywater on a runway creates a potential slippery situation and should be treated with caution.
Cross-wind/ tailwind components add to the threat.
When runway is wet or contaminated, calculate the landing distance required including the factored distances for components unserviceable, ego Thrust reversers, spoilers, etc. If landing distance required is marginal, compared with landing distance available, then consider diversion.
Determination of Landing Distance
For Boeing aeroplanes:
Tables are provided in the QRHfor DRYRunway and Slippery Runway with Braking action as Good, Medium and Poor. When the Runway is wet, the slippery runway table with "good" braking action is to be entered. However, if the braking action is reported as Medium then the 'Medium' table is used. In case of runway contaminated with water with no reports of braking action use Braking action "Medium". However, if the reported braking action is "poor" consider diversion except when there is no option. If diversion is not possible, then the "poor" table must be referred to.
For Airbus aeroplanes:
Acutallanding distances are given in the QRH for Dry, wet, 6.3 mm water, 12.7 mm water, 6.3 mm slush, 12.7 mm slush, compacted snow, and ice.
The information will subsequently be incorporated in the Operations Manual/SOP.
BrakingAction is reported as "Good", "Medium" or "Poor" after analyzing the readings of friction measuring devices such as DBV(Diagonal Brake Vehicle), ASFT(Airport Surface Friction Tester).
The British Mu meter and the "Griptester" trailer, etc. To increase friction, runway treatment is carried out. It is simply removal of rubber deposits by chemical or water blast techniques, or mechanical scrubbing.
Anywater on a runway creates a potential slippery situation and should be treated with caution.
Cross-wind/ tailwind components add to the threat.
When runway is wet or contaminated, calculate the landing distance required including the factored distances for components unserviceable, ego Thrust reversers, spoilers, etc. If landing distance required is marginal, compared with landing distance available, then consider diversion.
Determination of Landing Distance
For Boeing aeroplanes:
Tables are provided in the QRHfor DRYRunway and Slippery Runway with Braking action as Good, Medium and Poor. When the Runway is wet, the slippery runway table with "good" braking action is to be entered. However, if the braking action is reported as Medium then the 'Medium' table is used. In case of runway contaminated with water with no reports of braking action use Braking action "Medium". However, if the reported braking action is "poor" consider diversion except when there is no option. If diversion is not possible, then the "poor" table must be referred to.
For Airbus aeroplanes:
Acutallanding distances are given in the QRH for Dry, wet, 6.3 mm water, 12.7 mm water, 6.3 mm slush, 12.7 mm slush, compacted snow, and ice.
2
Landing Geometry:
The tables in the QRHgive the actual landing distance from the threshold assuming approximately 1000 feet of air distance, which is included in the tabulated distance. It is being emphasized that this caters to only 4 secs of flare to touchdown from the 30 feet point. However, the average flare
time ranges from 6 secs to 8 secs and therefore, it would be prudent to add another 1000 feet to the distance extracted from the table to give a more realistic landing distance. The landing distance is the distance from the landing threshold and not from "beyond glide
The tables in the QRHgive the actual landing distance from the threshold assuming approximately 1000 feet of air distance, which is included in the tabulated distance. It is being emphasized that this caters to only 4 secs of flare to touchdown from the 30 feet point. However, the average flare
time ranges from 6 secs to 8 secs and therefore, it would be prudent to add another 1000 feet to the distance extracted from the table to give a more realistic landing distance. The landing distance is the distance from the landing threshold and not from "beyond glide
slope". It is emphasized that this is the actual distance covered by the aircraft from the threshold including the
air (float) distance and does not include the Regulatory (FAA) 60%additional margin. When reported braking action is medium or braking action in the pilots' judgement is medium or
when the R/W is soaked with water, use Auto brakes as stated below :-
air (float) distance and does not include the Regulatory (FAA) 60%additional margin. When reported braking action is medium or braking action in the pilots' judgement is medium or
when the R/W is soaked with water, use Auto brakes as stated below :-
'Max' (B747-200/300)
'Max Auto' (B747-400
&: B777)
'Medium' (A-310)
In all cases monitor the deceleration rate. If it is observed to be less than the required rate of deceleration, then use maximum manual braking (i.e. full brake pedal deflection) which gives the highest deceleration ra,te.
Further emphasis should be placed upon the following :-
• Select appropriate auto-brake as per SOP.
• Approach on glide path at the correct approach speed.
• Avoid extended flare and ensure a firm touch down.
• Use maximum reverse thrust as soon as possible.
• Confirm extension of ground spoilers.
• Do not delay lowering nose-wheel onto the runway. This increases weight on wheels and activates aircraft systems associated with nose gear squat switches! proximity detectors.
• Monitor auto-brakes or apply pedal brakes with continuous steady pressure. Do not pump brakes or apply then release and reapply. The Anti-skid will regulate the braking most effectively if continuous pressure is maintained.
• For directional control use rudder pedals and differential braking. Do not use nose wheel steering tiller.
• At taxi speed use nose wheel steering with care.
Finally, it is being emphasized that at any point during final approach it is felt that adequate landing distance may not be available due to changed circumstances or weather, there should be no hesitation in executing a missed approach. Abrief write-up on Runway conditions and Hydroplaning is enclosed for information.
( CAPT.S.C. BAPTISTA )
'Medium' (A-310)
In all cases monitor the deceleration rate. If it is observed to be less than the required rate of deceleration, then use maximum manual braking (i.e. full brake pedal deflection) which gives the highest deceleration ra,te.
Further emphasis should be placed upon the following :-
• Select appropriate auto-brake as per SOP.
• Approach on glide path at the correct approach speed.
• Avoid extended flare and ensure a firm touch down.
• Use maximum reverse thrust as soon as possible.
• Confirm extension of ground spoilers.
• Do not delay lowering nose-wheel onto the runway. This increases weight on wheels and activates aircraft systems associated with nose gear squat switches! proximity detectors.
• Monitor auto-brakes or apply pedal brakes with continuous steady pressure. Do not pump brakes or apply then release and reapply. The Anti-skid will regulate the braking most effectively if continuous pressure is maintained.
• For directional control use rudder pedals and differential braking. Do not use nose wheel steering tiller.
• At taxi speed use nose wheel steering with care.
Finally, it is being emphasized that at any point during final approach it is felt that adequate landing distance may not be available due to changed circumstances or weather, there should be no hesitation in executing a missed approach. Abrief write-up on Runway conditions and Hydroplaning is enclosed for information.
( CAPT.S.C. BAPTISTA )
GENERAL MANAGER-OPS (TRG)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rspilot
You've got to be kidding: quote
"You are very right...in the MD80, stall recovery is to acually pitch the nose up slightly during stick shaker and you won't lose one foot of altitude."
If this isn't one of the scariest statements I've read in a long time, I don't know what is. During approach to a stall, stick shaker is NOT a stall, the first thing to do is reduce the angle of attack to below shaker. That means lower the nose. Loss of altitude is quite often a necessity. How much altitude loss depends strictly on your altitude. At FL350 be prepared to lose several thousand feet. Pulling up at shaker approaching a stall at high altitudes could mean, secondary stall, over booting an engine, compressor stall, loss of control.
The FAA PTS only talks about minimum loss of altitude, the acceptable 'number of feet lost' is not published ANYWHERE. Check it out.
Please, do some reading or get some instruction on low and high altitude stalls before you toss out such an incorrect statement.
(just trying to help)
Willie
You've got to be kidding: quote"You are very right...in the MD80, stall recovery is to acually pitch the nose up slightly during stick shaker and you won't lose one foot of altitude."
If this isn't one of the scariest statements I've read in a long time, I don't know what is. During approach to a stall, stick shaker is NOT a stall, the first thing to do is reduce the angle of attack to below shaker. That means lower the nose. Loss of altitude is quite often a necessity. How much altitude loss depends strictly on your altitude. At FL350 be prepared to lose several thousand feet. Pulling up at shaker approaching a stall at high altitudes could mean, secondary stall, over booting an engine, compressor stall, loss of control.
The FAA PTS only talks about minimum loss of altitude, the acceptable 'number of feet lost' is not published ANYWHERE. Check it out.
Please, do some reading or get some instruction on low and high altitude stalls before you toss out such an incorrect statement.
(just trying to help)
Willie
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy,
This isn't a hard cover up to engineer. Well placed source = dgca. If the expat broke sop, then everything Indian is in the clear. The final neat little bow is the "well trained" local fo begging for go arounds from 800 ft, even though the cvr is in the US at honeywell being decoded. The dgca makes the rules oversees aviation and investigates the accidents and in true indian government form can do no wrong. I may be wrong, but I doubt we will ever see the true cvr transcript or an final independant agency report on this accident.
This isn't a hard cover up to engineer. Well placed source = dgca. If the expat broke sop, then everything Indian is in the clear. The final neat little bow is the "well trained" local fo begging for go arounds from 800 ft, even though the cvr is in the US at honeywell being decoded. The dgca makes the rules oversees aviation and investigates the accidents and in true indian government form can do no wrong. I may be wrong, but I doubt we will ever see the true cvr transcript or an final independant agency report on this accident.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the TOI is wrong yet again (from Airbubba's post)
Here at Emirates an ASR is definitely required to be filed in the event of a go-around or missed approach... I guess the difference from AI is that there's no comeback from management (unless you muck the go-around itself up horrendously).
Aviation regulators abroad and airlines like Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Korean Air, have long done away with the practice of asking their pilots to file reports on go-arounds to give them complete freedom.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, if as some have reported, this is a captains only airport, allowing the FO to be PF would be a violation of SOP and still the captain's fault. If the FO was about to be made a captain, it's still the captain's fault but it might reflect badly on the system having placed the FO on the verge of promotion.
I'll stop now, all this spinning is making me ill.
I'll stop now, all this spinning is making me ill.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birthplace of Aviation
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@driver73
I understand coverup is not hard to engineer. My contention is that there is no motivation for coverup on the part of the investigator.
Despite this if we start with an assumption of cover up, it will be hard for us to accept the truth even if its revealed without bias.
Lets all start with the these fair assumptions:
1. The captain made a mistake doesn't mean that all expats are like that.
2. The F/O made a mistake doesn't mean that all F/O are like that.
At the same time the safety of the aircraft is primary responsibility of the Captain, so even if f/o was at mistake, the blame will be properly assigned to the captain. This, if happens, shall not be construed as bias in the investigation.
@NephewBob
Is this info any more credible than the fiction in the newspapers?
I understand coverup is not hard to engineer. My contention is that there is no motivation for coverup on the part of the investigator.
Despite this if we start with an assumption of cover up, it will be hard for us to accept the truth even if its revealed without bias.
Lets all start with the these fair assumptions:
1. The captain made a mistake doesn't mean that all expats are like that.
2. The F/O made a mistake doesn't mean that all F/O are like that.
At the same time the safety of the aircraft is primary responsibility of the Captain, so even if f/o was at mistake, the blame will be properly assigned to the captain. This, if happens, shall not be construed as bias in the investigation.
@NephewBob
Heard from a little bird today, that FO was PF
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy
I wouldn't accept those are fair assumptions as the investigation is far from over. It could have been a component failure. And how good of a report are you going to get out of the dgca if they share any of the responsabuility? I know you may be Indian and defending your country is admirable, but you have to admit the dgca is not well run, and corrupt. Do you feel the airspace runways, taxiways, atc are safe and well run? Why would you repave the bom runway and not groove it? Why no preperation for monsoon ie, burning tread away repainting centerlines, ect. I have been in 3rd world central american airports with smoother taxiways and runways. Why is this happening in India? Poor oversight with no real safety in mind. Bunch of guys with titles and a little power sipping tea and showing what big shots they are. Taking payoffs and taking care of themselves. Explain to me where you think I am wrong.
I wouldn't accept those are fair assumptions as the investigation is far from over. It could have been a component failure. And how good of a report are you going to get out of the dgca if they share any of the responsabuility? I know you may be Indian and defending your country is admirable, but you have to admit the dgca is not well run, and corrupt. Do you feel the airspace runways, taxiways, atc are safe and well run? Why would you repave the bom runway and not groove it? Why no preperation for monsoon ie, burning tread away repainting centerlines, ect. I have been in 3rd world central american airports with smoother taxiways and runways. Why is this happening in India? Poor oversight with no real safety in mind. Bunch of guys with titles and a little power sipping tea and showing what big shots they are. Taking payoffs and taking care of themselves. Explain to me where you think I am wrong.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mangalore, India
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope the person leading the inquiry is not either a) as xenophobic and / or b) open to corruption.
Govt sets up court of inquiry into Mangalore plane crash - Home - livemint.com
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N571
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recorders being sent to USA
While the existence of corruption cant be denied....the DGCAs record on accident investigation has been pretty good actually(the reports of the last few years are available on line)
The Air Marshal who conducted the Patna 737 Court of Inq. in 2000 had put on line the entire FDR and CVR downloads pretty early on in the investigation, and his final findings were not challenged.
The Govt. and the DGCA is also quite open to accepting foreign(especially US)expertise as required.They have regularly done so in the past. And unlike the case of Egypt Air or Silk Air, the press in India is unlikely to allow a disenting view (if it were to arise)from the NTSB to go unnoticed without a vigourous(if sometimes ill informed!) public debate.
Already some good is coming from this sad event...the public is being educated by the media on the need to get the touchdown zone correct,sometimes at the expense of a "smooth touchdown"
The travelling public tends to rate the quality of the entire flight based solely on how smooth the landing was.
The Air Marshal who conducted the Patna 737 Court of Inq. in 2000 had put on line the entire FDR and CVR downloads pretty early on in the investigation, and his final findings were not challenged.
The Govt. and the DGCA is also quite open to accepting foreign(especially US)expertise as required.They have regularly done so in the past. And unlike the case of Egypt Air or Silk Air, the press in India is unlikely to allow a disenting view (if it were to arise)from the NTSB to go unnoticed without a vigourous(if sometimes ill informed!) public debate.
Already some good is coming from this sad event...the public is being educated by the media on the need to get the touchdown zone correct,sometimes at the expense of a "smooth touchdown"
The travelling public tends to rate the quality of the entire flight based solely on how smooth the landing was.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever I'm sitting next to a passenger who makes some negative remark about a solid landing, particularly in a crosswind/short-runway situation (LGA, say), I smile at him or her and say, "How interesting! So you have experience landing a 737?" Or whatever the type is.
Funny the answers you get...
Funny the answers you get...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birthplace of Aviation
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC tapes gave crash probe early lead - India - The Times of India
Scenario 1
FO was pilot flying, and Captain was Pilot Pushing the 'press to talk' button, why would FO warn for a go around instead of initiating a go around?
Scenario 2
Captain was pilot flying and FO was Pilot Pushing the 'press to talk' button
Why would F/O chose to be talking to both ATC and warning the captain at the same time?
Scenario 3
The Ill Informed Journo:
"Is it possible to listen to pilot's conversation using the ATC radio?"
Senior ATC Source:
"Pilots have a 'press to talk' button in the cockpit for communication with the ATCs. When this button is pressed, any background noise in the cockpit including any conversation between the co-pilot and commander is also picked up."
Don't attribute to malice which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Don't rule-out malice.
"Pilots have a 'press to talk' button in the cockpit for communication with the ATCs. When this button is pressed, any background noise in the cockpit including any conversation between the co-pilot and commander is also picked up. We routinely hear such things in the cockpit while speaking to pilots," said a senior ATC official. The co-pilot's warning against landing come through clearly in the ATC tapes along with the conversation between the pilot and the ATC.
Scenario 1
FO was pilot flying, and Captain was Pilot Pushing the 'press to talk' button, why would FO warn for a go around instead of initiating a go around?
Scenario 2
Captain was pilot flying and FO was Pilot Pushing the 'press to talk' button
Why would F/O chose to be talking to both ATC and warning the captain at the same time?
Scenario 3
The Ill Informed Journo:
"Is it possible to listen to pilot's conversation using the ATC radio?"
Senior ATC Source:
"Pilots have a 'press to talk' button in the cockpit for communication with the ATCs. When this button is pressed, any background noise in the cockpit including any conversation between the co-pilot and commander is also picked up."
Don't attribute to malice which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Don't rule-out malice.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routine radio calls from ATC should be complete well before the MAP is reached. Surely Indian ATC adheres to this convention.
What an odd set of circumstances going on just the tapes and the skewed journalistic interpretation of them.
What an odd set of circumstances going on just the tapes and the skewed journalistic interpretation of them.