A319 CDG go-around nearly goes down Sept 2009
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Effin' Limbo
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First and foremost I apologize to all the senior colleagues for rearing up my head, being a just an MD-80 SFO, and being mostly a lurker on this forum. I read the posts here regularly, trying to learn from the mistakes others make but this thread is really starting to miss the point IMHO.
I truly do not understand this Bus vs Boeing discussion developing - the AF guys departed all procedures and common sense, and would have, in my opinion, have done the same, had the airplane in question been a C172. Full use of automation in marginal weather is, at least for me, common sense. I handfly every approach below 10000ft, when the airport environment is calm and the weather is fine, with fatigue within reasonable limits. Adding workload at CDG is just poor judgment. Especially since a possible GA will mean most probably not flying the published procedure, but being vectored half a dozen times within a few minutes, and handed off to several different frequencies, as we have all been in the past. Secondly, Boeing, Airbus, or my relic-class MD, a GA is a GA, throttles in the firewall / GA detent, pitch up. TOGA-tap is just...silly. GAs ate not meant for passenger comfort, but for getting out of a bad place, and fast.
Fly it automatic, fly manually, but fly it. Pitch down and 70ft clearance is not an Airbus issue - that's a very serious proficiency issue.
Just my 2c. Ready for my whipping now.
I truly do not understand this Bus vs Boeing discussion developing - the AF guys departed all procedures and common sense, and would have, in my opinion, have done the same, had the airplane in question been a C172. Full use of automation in marginal weather is, at least for me, common sense. I handfly every approach below 10000ft, when the airport environment is calm and the weather is fine, with fatigue within reasonable limits. Adding workload at CDG is just poor judgment. Especially since a possible GA will mean most probably not flying the published procedure, but being vectored half a dozen times within a few minutes, and handed off to several different frequencies, as we have all been in the past. Secondly, Boeing, Airbus, or my relic-class MD, a GA is a GA, throttles in the firewall / GA detent, pitch up. TOGA-tap is just...silly. GAs ate not meant for passenger comfort, but for getting out of a bad place, and fast.
Fly it automatic, fly manually, but fly it. Pitch down and 70ft clearance is not an Airbus issue - that's a very serious proficiency issue.
Just my 2c. Ready for my whipping now.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EGSS
Age: 62
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fly it automatic, fly manually, but fly it. Pitch down and 70ft clearance is not an Airbus issue - that's a very serious proficiency issue."
My kind of SFO.....right seat me anyday
My kind of SFO.....right seat me anyday
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southwest
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the AF particularities is that flying an approach with A/THR engaged is considered as abnormal. Why ?
After the Habsheim disaster, the confidence in the Airbus 320 was “low” among AF pilots.
Despite the fact that the A/THR was one of the most reliable system on this aircraft, some ayatollahs were spreading the idea that this automatism was dangerous and never to be used on landing.
I remember almost killing a captain after using A/THR until the flare.
And now, even if it’s not clearly written in the SOPs, it is well admitted for AF crew that AP OFF means A/THR OFF.
And it’s still difficult to have an FO performed an automatic approach with AP disconnected at MDH if the weather is poor.
After the Habsheim disaster, the confidence in the Airbus 320 was “low” among AF pilots.
Despite the fact that the A/THR was one of the most reliable system on this aircraft, some ayatollahs were spreading the idea that this automatism was dangerous and never to be used on landing.
I remember almost killing a captain after using A/THR until the flare.
And now, even if it’s not clearly written in the SOPs, it is well admitted for AF crew that AP OFF means A/THR OFF.
And it’s still difficult to have an FO performed an automatic approach with AP disconnected at MDH if the weather is poor.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-FORD
I wonder why he wanted a 'smooth' go around at minima.
"The captain explained that a 'smooth' overshoot was linked to the low elevation gain as the missed approach altitude was limited to 2000 feet and to the risk of spatial disorientation. That is why he advanced the thrust levers slowly and believed to be in TOGA"
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOGA
TOGA is required for all go-arounds on the 320/330/340 series. After TOGA has been selected, to cycle the G/A flight phase, one can then go back to the CLB gate for a slower rate of climb. Woe betide those who attempt the soft go-around without TOGA being selected.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prepared?
Quote from post 63
... when flying an approach to weather minimums crews should have briefed both the approach AND potential missed, and that the PF should at least have mentally gone over the missed approach (go around) procedures ..
Uhhm, shouldn't you always brief and be prepared for a missed approach, right down to the moment of touching down successfully in the touchdown zone?
Many posters seem to prepare themselves for a Go Around only when the weather is close to minimums, or are they just a little unclear in conveying their ideas?
... when flying an approach to weather minimums crews should have briefed both the approach AND potential missed, and that the PF should at least have mentally gone over the missed approach (go around) procedures ..
Uhhm, shouldn't you always brief and be prepared for a missed approach, right down to the moment of touching down successfully in the touchdown zone?
Many posters seem to prepare themselves for a Go Around only when the weather is close to minimums, or are they just a little unclear in conveying their ideas?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMS
As an ATCO I have seen the results of the FMS.
I won`t bore you with details but, essentially, the aeroplane ended up where it should not have been. I realised what was happening and, as it was not busy I gently moved the conflicting traffic out of the way...just to see what the clearance buster would actually do.
Eventually I said Kes....XXX what is your position? What is your altitude ?.........What was your clearance?
Oh sorry London, the FMS got it wrong.
Reply: Who is flying this aeroplane.........you or the FMS ?
Dave
I won`t bore you with details but, essentially, the aeroplane ended up where it should not have been. I realised what was happening and, as it was not busy I gently moved the conflicting traffic out of the way...just to see what the clearance buster would actually do.
Eventually I said Kes....XXX what is your position? What is your altitude ?.........What was your clearance?
Oh sorry London, the FMS got it wrong.
Reply: Who is flying this aeroplane.........you or the FMS ?
Dave
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weren't we all taught
"FLY THE B***** AEROPLANE"
"FLY THE B***** AEROPLANE"
I swear, the training from one side of the pond to the other has got to be standardized (or standardised)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots just need to be pilots. Doing a go around is very simple. It shouldn't require training. Taking off, landing and go arounds are so basic no pilot should need any instruction in these areas once he has soloed. Pilots have been doing it just fine for 107 years without special training.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Arearadar, there is nothing wrong with allowing the FMS/FMGC to fly a missed approach. That's why we brief exactly what "the glass" is going to do and compare it to the paper version. Allowing the autos to do it whilst being carefully monitored is probably preferable to trying to handfly the go-around when a) out of practice and b) in busy airspace with a high workload.
What concerns me here is that there is regular evidence of guys just not understanding what their aircraft is about to do and they're left hanging on by the fingernails. This is simply unacceptable from today's crews in the busy airspace we fly in.
Automation complacency? Too lazy to study? Training deficiency? Take your pick.
A4
What concerns me here is that there is regular evidence of guys just not understanding what their aircraft is about to do and they're left hanging on by the fingernails. This is simply unacceptable from today's crews in the busy airspace we fly in.
Automation complacency? Too lazy to study? Training deficiency? Take your pick.
A4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mad house in SPACE LAND
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4
Not hand flying the go around because of a lack of practice ? 
So in what case exactly would you hand fly a go around again given the relatively rare occurence of GA's .... which leads to the said "pilot being out of practice"
Do you mean "let the A/P do it cause you -human- can't" ?
GA is one of the critical manoeuvres that saves your life. You should be able to manually execute it whenever needed. NO reason should excuse a pilot for not being able to do it manually.
For all phases of the flight where ground proximity is a factor, it's the pilot job to be prepared and skilled enough to take over automation immediately when things don't go according to plan
So in what case exactly would you hand fly a go around again given the relatively rare occurence of GA's .... which leads to the said "pilot being out of practice"
Do you mean "let the A/P do it cause you -human- can't" ?
GA is one of the critical manoeuvres that saves your life. You should be able to manually execute it whenever needed. NO reason should excuse a pilot for not being able to do it manually.
For all phases of the flight where ground proximity is a factor, it's the pilot job to be prepared and skilled enough to take over automation immediately when things don't go according to plan
Last edited by Gi Dem Dub; 9th Nov 2010 at 13:36.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
GDD
I think you have mis-interpreted my reply to arearadars post. He alluded to the fact that he has seen totally mismanaged go-arounds where the aircraft heads skyward straight through it's missed approach altitude which he put down to "the FMS". The FMS cannot "think" - it will do what it's told to do.
The point I was trying to get across is that, provided the missed approach coding in the FMS has been checked against the plate and the correct MA altitude set in the FCU/MCP then "the FMS" should make the MA a straightforward event - be it AP flown or manually flown (follow the FD's). The initial part of the GA should, of course, present NO problems to ANY pilot on the line but once safely in the climb with the gear up, what's wrong with engaging the AP? What are you trying to prove by hand flying the whole thing?
In busy airspace (e.g. CDG) it's better to let the autos fly the aircraft whilst you monitor...... Why load your colleague up even more than necessary but having him have to monitor you as well as clean up, RT, c/lists etc
There is repeated evidence that GA's are screwed up because some guys out there do not understand what their aircraft is about to do (or is doing). Couple that with trying to handfly and, with some guys, you have the potential for a total breakdown of SA with workload going through the roof...... Level bust...... Flap overspeed etc. How else would you describe the A319 GA which initiated this thread? A total breakdown of technical and non-technical skills.
I'm an advocate of keeping the basic handling skills in tune but there is a time and a place. Many airlines have a pretty restrictive automation policy which can lead to the erosion of these skills...... which has the potential to be counter productive when you actually need them at short notice.
Hope that clears things a bit for you,
A4
I think you have mis-interpreted my reply to arearadars post. He alluded to the fact that he has seen totally mismanaged go-arounds where the aircraft heads skyward straight through it's missed approach altitude which he put down to "the FMS". The FMS cannot "think" - it will do what it's told to do.
The point I was trying to get across is that, provided the missed approach coding in the FMS has been checked against the plate and the correct MA altitude set in the FCU/MCP then "the FMS" should make the MA a straightforward event - be it AP flown or manually flown (follow the FD's). The initial part of the GA should, of course, present NO problems to ANY pilot on the line but once safely in the climb with the gear up, what's wrong with engaging the AP? What are you trying to prove by hand flying the whole thing?
In busy airspace (e.g. CDG) it's better to let the autos fly the aircraft whilst you monitor...... Why load your colleague up even more than necessary but having him have to monitor you as well as clean up, RT, c/lists etc
There is repeated evidence that GA's are screwed up because some guys out there do not understand what their aircraft is about to do (or is doing). Couple that with trying to handfly and, with some guys, you have the potential for a total breakdown of SA with workload going through the roof...... Level bust...... Flap overspeed etc. How else would you describe the A319 GA which initiated this thread? A total breakdown of technical and non-technical skills.
I'm an advocate of keeping the basic handling skills in tune but there is a time and a place. Many airlines have a pretty restrictive automation policy which can lead to the erosion of these skills...... which has the potential to be counter productive when you actually need them at short notice.
Hope that clears things a bit for you,
A4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mad house in SPACE LAND
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4,
I understood your point and globally agreed with it. I am not an anti automation pilot.
My comment was focused on your mention of "lack of practice" (amongst other valid reasons) as a reason for giving priority to automation. It's simply wrong. I'll leave it to your jugdment to figure out where this kind of logic can lead us if pushed far enough.
And I did not imply that hand flying ability was about trying to "prove" anything. It's merely a case of being skilled enough to take over automation at the right time and with confidence when the AP tend to deviate from the expected plan for whatever reason.
Indeed automation can fail.
Or, can be mis-used. You quote some of the possible reasons:
"Automation complacency? Too lazy to study? Training deficiency? Take your pick."
Why focusing on the "blame" mindset thus forgetting other possible factors such as fatigue or simple mistake due to our human nature ? These automation interfaces can involve a number of parameters each of which being a potencial source of entry error leading to an unwanted behavior of your aeroplane. So error will always bite you one day or another and it's not necessarily a case of poor training or lazyness.
That's why a pilot has to be able to rely on solid handflying skills as an ultimate life insurance
I understood your point and globally agreed with it. I am not an anti automation pilot.
My comment was focused on your mention of "lack of practice" (amongst other valid reasons) as a reason for giving priority to automation. It's simply wrong. I'll leave it to your jugdment to figure out where this kind of logic can lead us if pushed far enough.
And I did not imply that hand flying ability was about trying to "prove" anything. It's merely a case of being skilled enough to take over automation at the right time and with confidence when the AP tend to deviate from the expected plan for whatever reason.
Indeed automation can fail.
Or, can be mis-used. You quote some of the possible reasons:
"Automation complacency? Too lazy to study? Training deficiency? Take your pick."
Why focusing on the "blame" mindset thus forgetting other possible factors such as fatigue or simple mistake due to our human nature ? These automation interfaces can involve a number of parameters each of which being a potencial source of entry error leading to an unwanted behavior of your aeroplane. So error will always bite you one day or another and it's not necessarily a case of poor training or lazyness.
That's why a pilot has to be able to rely on solid handflying skills as an ultimate life insurance
A4
Well said.
In busy airspace (e.g. CDG) it's better to let the autos fly the aircraft whilst you monitor...... Why load your colleague up even more than necessary but having him have to monitor you as well as clean up, RT, c/lists etc
There is repeated evidence that GA's are screwed up because some guys out there do not understand what their aircraft is about to do (or is doing). Couple that with trying to handfly and, with some guys, you have the potential for a total breakdown of SA with workload going through the roof...... Level bust...... Flap overspeed etc. How else would you describe the A319 GA which initiated this thread? A total breakdown of technical and non-technical skills.
I'm an advocate of keeping the basic handling skills in tune but there is a time and a place. Many airlines have a pretty restrictive automation policy which can lead to the erosion of these skills...... which has the potential to be counter productive when you actually need them at short notice.
There is repeated evidence that GA's are screwed up because some guys out there do not understand what their aircraft is about to do (or is doing). Couple that with trying to handfly and, with some guys, you have the potential for a total breakdown of SA with workload going through the roof...... Level bust...... Flap overspeed etc. How else would you describe the A319 GA which initiated this thread? A total breakdown of technical and non-technical skills.
I'm an advocate of keeping the basic handling skills in tune but there is a time and a place. Many airlines have a pretty restrictive automation policy which can lead to the erosion of these skills...... which has the potential to be counter productive when you actually need them at short notice.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well said and Sharpclassic spot on, there's a time and place, unfortunately where I'm at, the cadets seem to be trained to switch off the automatics at 1000 FT on every approach. 
