Airblue down near Islamabad
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
I am amused you say that. When I said the same thing on a Pakistani paper this morning I got jumped on and was asked in a very indignant tone "HOW do you know that? Have YOU heard the CVR?! Please stop speculating!"
I am amused you say that. When I said the same thing on a Pakistani paper this morning I got jumped on and was asked in a very indignant tone "HOW do you know that? Have YOU heard the CVR?! Please stop speculating!"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, just a SLF / PPL MEP here and slightly off thread, so mods feel free to delete if applicable
I think it's time pilots stood up against the discouraging of hand flying by airlines (I understand Easyjet discourages this, perhaps others do too?)
I think it's time pilots stood up against the discouraging of hand flying by airlines (I understand Easyjet discourages this, perhaps others do too?)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Meekal
everyone is entitled to their opinions
political reasons on both sides were the cause fo the incident report not being made public. a high profile incident on the best medium tactical airlifter lockheed had to offer would have pretty much closed down the C-130 production line.
the Fokker in multal was also crew error. by crew i mean the ground crew who overloaded the airplane and that extra cargo not beign entered in the W&B calculations. and the flight crew using an overboost feature above the temp limits which blew the engine. the airplane was still going in for a safe landing, but they ran into a powerline which basically flipped it on its back and you know the rest. and the Fokker was grounded because the crowd refused to fly on the airplane, not because of some dark conspiricy!
and yes i am you average civilian, no i am not in PIA (i am not even in the country) and yes i have read both incident reports.
back to topic. as far as i know the FDR was recovered on the 1st day. the crash site and looks like a low energy impact which kind of puts a shadow on the engine being at TOGA power or accelerating.
but hey i still fly stuff with fans at the pointy end so who am i to know
everyone is entitled to their opinions
political reasons on both sides were the cause fo the incident report not being made public. a high profile incident on the best medium tactical airlifter lockheed had to offer would have pretty much closed down the C-130 production line.
the Fokker in multal was also crew error. by crew i mean the ground crew who overloaded the airplane and that extra cargo not beign entered in the W&B calculations. and the flight crew using an overboost feature above the temp limits which blew the engine. the airplane was still going in for a safe landing, but they ran into a powerline which basically flipped it on its back and you know the rest. and the Fokker was grounded because the crowd refused to fly on the airplane, not because of some dark conspiricy!
and yes i am you average civilian, no i am not in PIA (i am not even in the country) and yes i have read both incident reports.
back to topic. as far as i know the FDR was recovered on the 1st day. the crash site and looks like a low energy impact which kind of puts a shadow on the engine being at TOGA power or accelerating.
but hey i still fly stuff with fans at the pointy end so who am i to know
The only valid excuse for being outside the protected area is a miss. But if it was a miss, you first need to turn back to the airport. I think I'd like to get back to the approach end of the ILS runway before turning to the MA course in conformance with any circling restrictions.
Doing a miss at minimum altitude from the opposite end of the approach straight through the boundary of the OCA ain't likely to work
Doing a miss at minimum altitude from the opposite end of the approach straight through the boundary of the OCA ain't likely to work
I think it's time pilots stood up against the discouraging of hand flying by airlines (I understand Easyjet discourages this, perhaps others do too?)
Back on topic I struggle to understand how you end up 7 miles away from the runway on a circle to land without things being pretty drastically wrong on the flightdeck. Its way outside the margins. Hopefully a formal report will provide the answer and I'm amazed that any country can get away with not publishing accident investigation reports.
WWW
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by denlopviper
the crash site... looks like a low energy impact
Originally Posted by denlopviper
which kind of puts a shadow on the engine being at TOGA power or accelerating.
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully a formal report will provide the answer and I'm amazed that any country can get away with not publishing accident investigation reports.
Apparently, they've never released a report before.
Farrell
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from another forum:
"The fatal mistake by the pilot in continuing towards Margallas, instead of turning left while circling for Runway 12, was not the first. The aircraft had during its descent into Islamabad airport strayed into Kahuta area but was corrected by the control tower"
Not verified but gives more weight to the 'map shift' theory
"The fatal mistake by the pilot in continuing towards Margallas, instead of turning left while circling for Runway 12, was not the first. The aircraft had during its descent into Islamabad airport strayed into Kahuta area but was corrected by the control tower"
Not verified but gives more weight to the 'map shift' theory
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since your Part 121 operations are outside the U.S. most of the time, do your agust FAA inspectors and handlers test you on knowing when an airport is 2.3 for cicling and when it's 5+ ("+" is because PANS-OPS, unlike TERPs, wisely increase the limit with airport elevation).
However, many of our pilots are FAA rated, and certainly know the difference between Terps and PansOps. If they did not, they wouldn't be here...
Personally, we find no special difficulty with circling using Terps procedures, because...that is how we conduct our training....IE: we do not now allow our pilots to maneuver outside the 2 mile visibility area during circling, unless the weather is VMC.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.
Absolutely correct, and consistant with FAA procedures.
It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.
Absolutely correct, and consistant with FAA procedures.
And, what if the Jepp chart for ABC Airport in Country Z doesn't proclaim either TERPS or PANS-OPS on the lower left margin of the chart?
If not, why not?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe that the crash report of the VVIP C-130 was not released because of commercial considerations.
I don't think this straying into restricted area around Kahuta makes sense. He was coming from the Lahore side and joined the ILS-DME for 30 and then did the circle-to-land procedure. To over-fly Kahuta which is further north-east, he would have had to overshoot the extended center-line for 30 and then turn right going away from the field. That's a pretty weird track. I read it and it has zero credibility.
Kahuta becomes an issue when you take-off from 30 and make a RIGHT-hand climbing turn over the Margalla's (forget the name of the SID) and then out on the 160 radial towards Lahore. If that turn is wide you can stray awfully close to (or into)the restricted area.
Many years ago I was watching a BA 747 depart 30 and make that right hand turn. He came right over my house and I was listening to ATC on my VHF receiver and heard Chaklala tell him "Speedbird XXX, expedite your turn". He was low and heavy (Destination Manchester) and you could understand why they did not want to bank it too hard. But I reckon he did not stray into the restricted area because he changed over to Cherat.
I don't believe power lines can cause a F.27 to flip! I think in the Multan crash he pretty much ploughed straight-ahead into the fields. I believe the fatalities were mostly due to the ensuing fire.
The over-loading was a rumor. No one knows. So was the over-boost. These are all rumors. There is no published report! The in-flight fire on the 707 was a rumor too. They say some pilgrim was trying to cook something in-flight!
I would not describe the Airblue crash as 'low energy'. We have all seen the pictures here. There is no recognizable wreckage; nor were many if not all the bodies. An aircraft hitting a hill and exploding is hardly 'low energy'.
I don't think this straying into restricted area around Kahuta makes sense. He was coming from the Lahore side and joined the ILS-DME for 30 and then did the circle-to-land procedure. To over-fly Kahuta which is further north-east, he would have had to overshoot the extended center-line for 30 and then turn right going away from the field. That's a pretty weird track. I read it and it has zero credibility.
Kahuta becomes an issue when you take-off from 30 and make a RIGHT-hand climbing turn over the Margalla's (forget the name of the SID) and then out on the 160 radial towards Lahore. If that turn is wide you can stray awfully close to (or into)the restricted area.
Many years ago I was watching a BA 747 depart 30 and make that right hand turn. He came right over my house and I was listening to ATC on my VHF receiver and heard Chaklala tell him "Speedbird XXX, expedite your turn". He was low and heavy (Destination Manchester) and you could understand why they did not want to bank it too hard. But I reckon he did not stray into the restricted area because he changed over to Cherat.
I don't believe power lines can cause a F.27 to flip! I think in the Multan crash he pretty much ploughed straight-ahead into the fields. I believe the fatalities were mostly due to the ensuing fire.
The over-loading was a rumor. No one knows. So was the over-boost. These are all rumors. There is no published report! The in-flight fire on the 707 was a rumor too. They say some pilgrim was trying to cook something in-flight!
I would not describe the Airblue crash as 'low energy'. We have all seen the pictures here. There is no recognizable wreckage; nor were many if not all the bodies. An aircraft hitting a hill and exploding is hardly 'low energy'.
Discussions about circling approaches never cease to amaze me. From time immemorial, the procedure has counted as one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to undertake in a big jet (and yes, I include the A321 in that category). For many reasons, most important being issues of fatigue, combined with poor visibility/night time, combined with low altitude manoeuvring, combined with LACK OF PRACTICE!
Someone many posts ago pointed out that most of us get to “practice” circling approaches in the sim, usually once in a blue moon (lots of stuff to get through on recurrencies these days). I am sure that even the aces that fly for 411A’s outfit would find it challenging if thrown into a circling situation at short notice, maybe after a long multi sector day/night.
My company’s stabilisation criteria require wings level at 400 ft after a circling approach. In a 747/777? Give me a break! The wingtips would have been scraping the treetops just before that, if you were not precisely on the numbers (and who can guarantee that 100% every time? 411A’s boys, maybe…).
The sooner someone in the regulatory department accepts the fact that Cat C/D a/c should not be doing this sort of stuff, the better. Let’s forget the “macho’. Our customers deserve it. I personally resolved long ago not to accept an instruction to circle, certainly not in mountainous terrain; divert is a better option, whether commercial dept likes it or not. Fortunately the situation has not arisen yet.
To the credit of our ops department, we are even discouraged from accepting the last minute side-step to other runways much beloved in US airports. This may be ok for those guys operating in there day in and day out, but not for the occasional visitor.
I can hear the armchair experts spouting now-“this should not be a problem for the professional pilot” and indeed it would not, but it would not be tidy, or comfortable, and in this day and age, our aim is to make everything as drama free as possible. No one likes surprises in the air, be you pilot or passenger. To the uninitiated, you would not believe how much Big Brother (AFDR-data recorder) is watching you in the cockpit. Put one foot outside the many (very tight) approach /landing parameters and it is a call from the office for a discussion with the Chief Pilot (no tea and biccy’s either, and quite rightly so). Flight safety is what it is today because of these sort of policies. It’s the least our customers deserve.
Back to the main topic; someone suggested possible “Map Shift”? Maybe in the older a/c, but in today’s machines with triple IRS/GPS Nav working overtime to maintain RNP/ANP, I doubt if it was a factor. Have a read in past issues of Aviation Week about Chinese airline operations into high altitude, mountainous airfields using RNAV approaches..
Someone many posts ago pointed out that most of us get to “practice” circling approaches in the sim, usually once in a blue moon (lots of stuff to get through on recurrencies these days). I am sure that even the aces that fly for 411A’s outfit would find it challenging if thrown into a circling situation at short notice, maybe after a long multi sector day/night.
My company’s stabilisation criteria require wings level at 400 ft after a circling approach. In a 747/777? Give me a break! The wingtips would have been scraping the treetops just before that, if you were not precisely on the numbers (and who can guarantee that 100% every time? 411A’s boys, maybe…).
The sooner someone in the regulatory department accepts the fact that Cat C/D a/c should not be doing this sort of stuff, the better. Let’s forget the “macho’. Our customers deserve it. I personally resolved long ago not to accept an instruction to circle, certainly not in mountainous terrain; divert is a better option, whether commercial dept likes it or not. Fortunately the situation has not arisen yet.
To the credit of our ops department, we are even discouraged from accepting the last minute side-step to other runways much beloved in US airports. This may be ok for those guys operating in there day in and day out, but not for the occasional visitor.
I can hear the armchair experts spouting now-“this should not be a problem for the professional pilot” and indeed it would not, but it would not be tidy, or comfortable, and in this day and age, our aim is to make everything as drama free as possible. No one likes surprises in the air, be you pilot or passenger. To the uninitiated, you would not believe how much Big Brother (AFDR-data recorder) is watching you in the cockpit. Put one foot outside the many (very tight) approach /landing parameters and it is a call from the office for a discussion with the Chief Pilot (no tea and biccy’s either, and quite rightly so). Flight safety is what it is today because of these sort of policies. It’s the least our customers deserve.
Back to the main topic; someone suggested possible “Map Shift”? Maybe in the older a/c, but in today’s machines with triple IRS/GPS Nav working overtime to maintain RNP/ANP, I doubt if it was a factor. Have a read in past issues of Aviation Week about Chinese airline operations into high altitude, mountainous airfields using RNAV approaches..
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really is time we knocked this 'map shift' stuff on the head.
We understand an ILS was flown to circling DA - map shift would have no effect.
We understand the a/c was trying to turn right into a left-hand downwind circling approach - a visual manoeuvre - map shift would have no effect.
For reasons as yet unknown the a/c kept going to the north-west of the field. Not even on an extended downwind track. Presumably ILS DME still displayed - map shift should have no effect.
And that's without GPS!
We understand an ILS was flown to circling DA - map shift would have no effect.
We understand the a/c was trying to turn right into a left-hand downwind circling approach - a visual manoeuvre - map shift would have no effect.
For reasons as yet unknown the a/c kept going to the north-west of the field. Not even on an extended downwind track. Presumably ILS DME still displayed - map shift should have no effect.
And that's without GPS!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A:
I added the statement in parens to my otherwise direct quote of your second sentence. I thought it would be apparent that was my insert to clarify for the thread what I hoped you implied by your statement. 
Answering a question with a question is no answer at all.
That was my direct quote, aterpster...not what you 'quoted'.....
Do you not know what procedures are normally used at the airport of intended landing?
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
map shift
BOAC, in #254, you imply that the FMS/Map position was correct during the approach and thus it would not shift, or if it did the discrepancy would be small.
There are many unknowns, e.g. which type of nav aids could the FMS accept and were these nav aids available for a position update during the descent and approach.
ILS is an unlikely updating aid, so too the associated DME in older FMS’s (problems of coupled systems when switching runway ends – n.a. here?).
Thus, what are the local DMEs, what was their availability – serviceability and line of sight? Does this FMS use TACAN inputs, etc, etc?
ILS displayed – maybe, but it would have to be tied to the map runway/airfield position, and it this position which is being questioned. Pre-empting another question – in some aircraft (all?), an ILS can be flown with a map shift as the beam is ground referenced. If this reference can be compared with the map, it is a good indicator of a possible map-slip. Conversely if not, it’s a hazard as it might generate a false sense of map accuracy.
The same for being 'visual' downwind, this the essence of a circling approach as 'visual contact' ties the aircraft position to the ground (no map shift), but in poor weather at low altitude the crew might be susceptible to mental map shift;- illusion, wish-think, press-on-itis, or only the first officer in contact (no crosscheck of position).
Even in speculation we require more information – and let’s speculate as it might help the investigators, or at least trigger a much needed response; but of greater importance it should enable us to think, and if applicable be shown to be wrong about these problems - thus we learn.
There are many unknowns, e.g. which type of nav aids could the FMS accept and were these nav aids available for a position update during the descent and approach.
ILS is an unlikely updating aid, so too the associated DME in older FMS’s (problems of coupled systems when switching runway ends – n.a. here?).
Thus, what are the local DMEs, what was their availability – serviceability and line of sight? Does this FMS use TACAN inputs, etc, etc?
ILS displayed – maybe, but it would have to be tied to the map runway/airfield position, and it this position which is being questioned. Pre-empting another question – in some aircraft (all?), an ILS can be flown with a map shift as the beam is ground referenced. If this reference can be compared with the map, it is a good indicator of a possible map-slip. Conversely if not, it’s a hazard as it might generate a false sense of map accuracy.
The same for being 'visual' downwind, this the essence of a circling approach as 'visual contact' ties the aircraft position to the ground (no map shift), but in poor weather at low altitude the crew might be susceptible to mental map shift;- illusion, wish-think, press-on-itis, or only the first officer in contact (no crosscheck of position).
Even in speculation we require more information – and let’s speculate as it might help the investigators, or at least trigger a much needed response; but of greater importance it should enable us to think, and if applicable be shown to be wrong about these problems - thus we learn.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen a few high energy impact sites recently and a few low every impact site. Rumors site right so I have the right to make my assumption about. Islamabad is pretty flat with no real high rises, an A320 with anywhere near TOGA power at 800 feet would wake up the whole city. Considering people just over a mile and a half away didn’t hear the A320 does support it not being at max thrust.
Last high energy impact site I went to was the PAF F-27 carrying the chief of the air staff, again a CFIT. But of course rumors of it being shot down and deliberate crash and all are around
@ meekal
You may call the things about the multan crash rumors but they are in the incident report. Head over to the CAA and ask for a copy of that report. Then make up your own mind about it. About the Power Lines not being able to flip an F-27. Try it sometime, you'll be surprised. But of course you are entitled to your own opinions
The report of the C-130 incident can be obtained from the MoD, seeing that it was a military airplane with the army chief onboard. Also since you are in the US why don’t you just use the Freedom of Info act and ask for a copy of the report. Its right there
Believe me pax trying to cook on the airplane isn’t that strange. Some old timer in here must have a good story about it. Forget cooking, lit cigarette butts have caused small fires so it’s not that hard to believe. On my way to Jeddah, the avionics of the 777 shorted out because of a power surge. The reason for the surge was overflowing water from the Lav's going below the floor and coming in contact with some badly insulated wiring. The people thought it was wise to shower in the airplane. And this was a Saudi 777
The SID you are talking about is POMAR 1A. You depart R30, climbing right turn to cross the VOR A045 or above, and then track 171 out to pomar. kahuta wouldn’t be an issue on this departure. And correction, those are Prohibited areas not Restricted a total of 4 around OPRN including Kahuta. If something did go wrong, you can be vectored between the presidency and kahuta as there is just enough space for a small corridor.
oh and an airplane will explode regardless of high or low energy so long as there is fuel in the tanks and an ignition source.. And since they carry enough fuel for 2 missed approaches and then a diversion to Lahore, there was at least enough fuel in the tanks for at least 1 hour at cruise.
Anyway since we both have completely different views on the subjects and I do respect your views, let’s put them to rest and not interrupt this thread on Airblue.
Last high energy impact site I went to was the PAF F-27 carrying the chief of the air staff, again a CFIT. But of course rumors of it being shot down and deliberate crash and all are around
@ meekal
You may call the things about the multan crash rumors but they are in the incident report. Head over to the CAA and ask for a copy of that report. Then make up your own mind about it. About the Power Lines not being able to flip an F-27. Try it sometime, you'll be surprised. But of course you are entitled to your own opinions
The report of the C-130 incident can be obtained from the MoD, seeing that it was a military airplane with the army chief onboard. Also since you are in the US why don’t you just use the Freedom of Info act and ask for a copy of the report. Its right there
Believe me pax trying to cook on the airplane isn’t that strange. Some old timer in here must have a good story about it. Forget cooking, lit cigarette butts have caused small fires so it’s not that hard to believe. On my way to Jeddah, the avionics of the 777 shorted out because of a power surge. The reason for the surge was overflowing water from the Lav's going below the floor and coming in contact with some badly insulated wiring. The people thought it was wise to shower in the airplane. And this was a Saudi 777
The SID you are talking about is POMAR 1A. You depart R30, climbing right turn to cross the VOR A045 or above, and then track 171 out to pomar. kahuta wouldn’t be an issue on this departure. And correction, those are Prohibited areas not Restricted a total of 4 around OPRN including Kahuta. If something did go wrong, you can be vectored between the presidency and kahuta as there is just enough space for a small corridor.
oh and an airplane will explode regardless of high or low energy so long as there is fuel in the tanks and an ignition source.. And since they carry enough fuel for 2 missed approaches and then a diversion to Lahore, there was at least enough fuel in the tanks for at least 1 hour at cruise.
Anyway since we both have completely different views on the subjects and I do respect your views, let’s put them to rest and not interrupt this thread on Airblue.
Phantom Driver;
Thanks. What you posted needed saying right from the beginning of this tangential discussion on circling approaches. Airlines today have demonstrated that they are unwilling and/or incapable of teaching and checking such maneuvers and have rightly restricted/prohibited their use.
The A321 flight and nav displays provide a rich visual environment in which may be readily seen the airplane's situation and environment. The technology is easy to use and not that difficult to confirm what should remain a visual approach. Proficiency in autoflight as employed by the Airbus means that crews trained to such a level where both crew coordination and use of all available instrumentation and technologies on board the aircraft should be able to prevent such an accident, but here, did not. Why?
Where is the failure in this accident? Training? Cockpit gradient? Supreme confidence in the left seat, complete and unquestioning compliance in the right? Only the recorders will tell us, but this is another CFIT. Why?
411a is free to call it anything he wishes. The fact remains that few if any airlines operate the way he says his own outfit operates, offshore or no, FAA or 'other'. His entreaties are well understood, but a waste of breath. We are free to lament this degradation as 411a does but "just safe enough" is the reality in today's industry. The industry is as the industry does, nothing more, nothing less. This accident quite likely did not need to occur.
There are many reasons for this state of affairs. They are economic, organizational, and sociological. I, with a number of others, have posted hundreds of discussions on why this is so. The fact remains that the willingness, (on the part of passengers as well as management) to pay for and demand the level of professionalism and highly experienced, skilled crews one needs for airline work has reduced to the point where risk is now meeting capability.
In the eyes of some, this economic "match" is "perfect". How does it look from our point of view?
PEI_3721;
From the beginning, I have wondered about the remark that, "we have the runway in sight" and have considered that in poor vis, the captain was looking left-rear at one of the north-south streets, perhaps "Abdul Rashead Rd", for example. It's not as though it would be the first time a highway was mistaken for a runway at some distance in poor vis. I am well aware this requires other procedural failures, but given the distance north, had they not already occurred? I wouldn't suggest this as what happened of course, but the question must be eventually asked if only to be eliminated.
PJ2
Thanks. What you posted needed saying right from the beginning of this tangential discussion on circling approaches. Airlines today have demonstrated that they are unwilling and/or incapable of teaching and checking such maneuvers and have rightly restricted/prohibited their use.
The A321 flight and nav displays provide a rich visual environment in which may be readily seen the airplane's situation and environment. The technology is easy to use and not that difficult to confirm what should remain a visual approach. Proficiency in autoflight as employed by the Airbus means that crews trained to such a level where both crew coordination and use of all available instrumentation and technologies on board the aircraft should be able to prevent such an accident, but here, did not. Why?
Where is the failure in this accident? Training? Cockpit gradient? Supreme confidence in the left seat, complete and unquestioning compliance in the right? Only the recorders will tell us, but this is another CFIT. Why?
411a is free to call it anything he wishes. The fact remains that few if any airlines operate the way he says his own outfit operates, offshore or no, FAA or 'other'. His entreaties are well understood, but a waste of breath. We are free to lament this degradation as 411a does but "just safe enough" is the reality in today's industry. The industry is as the industry does, nothing more, nothing less. This accident quite likely did not need to occur.
There are many reasons for this state of affairs. They are economic, organizational, and sociological. I, with a number of others, have posted hundreds of discussions on why this is so. The fact remains that the willingness, (on the part of passengers as well as management) to pay for and demand the level of professionalism and highly experienced, skilled crews one needs for airline work has reduced to the point where risk is now meeting capability.
In the eyes of some, this economic "match" is "perfect". How does it look from our point of view?
PEI_3721;
but in poor weather at low altitude the crew might be susceptible to mental map shift;- illusion, wish-think, press-on-itis
PJ2
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pj2:
Excellent analysis!!
From the beginning, I have wondered about the remark that, "we have the runway in sight" and have considered that in poor vis, the captain was looking left-rear at one of the north-south streets, perhaps "Abdul Rashead Rd", for example. It's not as though it would be the first time a highway was mistaken for a runway at some distance in poor vis. I am well aware this requires other procedural failures, but given the distance north, had they not already occurred? I wouldn't suggest this as what happened of course, but the question must be eventually asked if only to be eliminated.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phantom Driver, well said and spot on
One of the hardest tasks for airline pilots is managing risk. What makes it so hard is that we have to put our big egos aside and look at it from a safety standpoint. This is especially crucial in todays world of FDAP and other flight deck data recording programs.
Circling approaches are like engine failures. We practice them in the sim, and should be able to handle them well enough. But, if landing at our destination meant flying a one engine inop approach and our alternate meant landing with all engines - no sensible pilot should continue on to the destination.
There is just too much risk involved in flying a circle in low weather. We've all heard about good landings being preceded by stable approaches. Well, a circle is anything but a stable approach. It is something we do very infrequently, therefore it is very hard to keep it stable. Not to mention that you will most likely be flying manually while trying to keep visual with the airport, often taking configuration changes at non-standard times. Today's airline procedures and cockpits are just not designed to be "circle friendly".
An airliner has no business flying a circling approach in IFR conditions. Circling should be a visual maneuver restricted to high VFR minimums. Yes, a professional pilot should be able to fly a circling approach, but you should stay ahead of the airplane so as to prevent getting yourself into a situation where you have to circle in anger.
Circling approaches are like engine failures. We practice them in the sim, and should be able to handle them well enough. But, if landing at our destination meant flying a one engine inop approach and our alternate meant landing with all engines - no sensible pilot should continue on to the destination.
There is just too much risk involved in flying a circle in low weather. We've all heard about good landings being preceded by stable approaches. Well, a circle is anything but a stable approach. It is something we do very infrequently, therefore it is very hard to keep it stable. Not to mention that you will most likely be flying manually while trying to keep visual with the airport, often taking configuration changes at non-standard times. Today's airline procedures and cockpits are just not designed to be "circle friendly".
An airliner has no business flying a circling approach in IFR conditions. Circling should be a visual maneuver restricted to high VFR minimums. Yes, a professional pilot should be able to fly a circling approach, but you should stay ahead of the airplane so as to prevent getting yourself into a situation where you have to circle in anger.