Sleepy pilot caused Indian passenger plane crash
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe, but I don't think it matters. In fact I think the whole cancelling of reverse and attempting to go is a complete red herring.
In my mind, the accident is secured at this point.
As they arrive at the end of the runway, there is a cliff edge. Visually you are left with only one option, which is to try and fly again. In fact, it may have looked like they were going to fly anyway, so you might as well try doing that with thrust on.
The reversers were only cancelled at the runway end just before the cliff, as a last ditch option*. The accident had already happened, so who did it doesn't really matter. All they did was change the "crash configuration".
* see page 169/175
- The captain elects to make a landing which was so unstable as to be lethal.
- He adds thrust just before touchdown (possible in response the the GPWS).
- He floats horribly (due to the automatic moving of the flaps back to 40), and still doesn't go around.
- Having landed, he fails to stand on the brakes, and fails to give it max reverse.
- They reach the end of the runway, turning slightly left, at around 80-90 knots.
In my mind, the accident is secured at this point.
As they arrive at the end of the runway, there is a cliff edge. Visually you are left with only one option, which is to try and fly again. In fact, it may have looked like they were going to fly anyway, so you might as well try doing that with thrust on.
The reversers were only cancelled at the runway end just before the cliff, as a last ditch option*. The accident had already happened, so who did it doesn't really matter. All they did was change the "crash configuration".
* see page 169/175
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you. He got 
all help from his F/O,. A F/O that was "ready for a command". I will say no more as the poor guy has paid the ultimate price and is not here to defend himself.
This is what the accident report has not covered due to "national pride" among other things. We all know what the hell happened. Now let us know why it probably happened. I have a fair idea and so does the poster above.
I would think it safer to pair 2 expats together if there are problems in some circumstances. However as an Indian must be aboard all flights on an Indian registered aircraft that will never happen. This tragedy may have been averted but for another senseless rule.
all help from his F/O,. A F/O that was "ready for a command". I will say no more as the poor guy has paid the ultimate price and is not here to defend himself.This is what the accident report has not covered due to "national pride" among other things. We all know what the hell happened. Now let us know why it probably happened. I have a fair idea and so does the poster above.
I would think it safer to pair 2 expats together if there are problems in some circumstances. However as an Indian must be aboard all flights on an Indian registered aircraft that will never happen. This tragedy may have been averted but for another senseless rule.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FO was ready for command, there would have been no accident, only a go-around, which was apparently "illegal" in India at the time..(since changed)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: here and there
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pearls of wisdom
doubleu anchor said
So let me get this right.....according to you , if there was an expat F/O on this flight , you are 100% sure he would take over the controls from the land -at-any -cost captain and that's the end. I think you're missing the point, the issue isn't the natioanality as you insinuate repeatedly in your posts, it's CRM, company culture and adherence to SOP's....
.the company and it's flight safety has a lot to answer to and that's it. By your twisted logic , if we apply nationality rule to accident/incidents in India, then all expat captains will have to leave...let's not make it an expats vs. Indian issue here , sorry but there seems to be an agenda creeping into your posts...you need help mate.
Ironbutt....man, I'm pretty sure a go-around was not illegal , by your definition of illegal , DGCA prohibiting a go-around doesn't make sense.Maybe you can substantiate that with some evidence.....? If you mean, company harrasment on accomplishment of go-around, that's another issue ...again poor flight safety culture and company related....
take care and masalama.
I would think it safer to pair 2 expats together if there are problems in some circumstances. However as an Indian must be aboard all flights on an Indian registered aircraft that will never happen. This tragedy may have been averted but for another senseless rule.
.the company and it's flight safety has a lot to answer to and that's it. By your twisted logic , if we apply nationality rule to accident/incidents in India, then all expat captains will have to leave...let's not make it an expats vs. Indian issue here , sorry but there seems to be an agenda creeping into your posts...you need help mate.
Ironbutt....man, I'm pretty sure a go-around was not illegal , by your definition of illegal , DGCA prohibiting a go-around doesn't make sense.Maybe you can substantiate that with some evidence.....? If you mean, company harrasment on accomplishment of go-around, that's another issue ...again poor flight safety culture and company related....
take care and masalama.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a thread drift, but I read that it has been made "LEGAL" for hospitals to accept accident victims WITHOUT POLICE REPORT
I heard enough reports out of India, where accident victims had to be driven 50 kilometer to a hospital with a cop, to sign the victim in, instead of a better equipped hospital mere walking distance, as the latter had not been covered by Police ..
And they had to pass a law to enforce that it is ok for non-police hospitals to attend to accident victims ..
Same was for GA !! until they had to change it ..
I heard enough reports out of India, where accident victims had to be driven 50 kilometer to a hospital with a cop, to sign the victim in, instead of a better equipped hospital mere walking distance, as the latter had not been covered by Police ..
And they had to pass a law to enforce that it is ok for non-police hospitals to attend to accident victims ..
Same was for GA !! until they had to change it ..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 45
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Masalama, the latest DGCA circular lets it be kown that they dont really want an FO to takeover from the Captain.
It says they *can* force a go-around then gives at least 15 reasons why they should not.... Hardly empowering
PT6A
It says they *can* force a go-around then gives at least 15 reasons why they should not.... Hardly empowering
PT6A
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: here and there
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT-6A
PT-6A ...this is from the DGCA Operations Circular 15/2010 regarding unstabilized approaches dated 05th Aug 2010. Are you referring to this one or any other newer circular in particular. It states :
For those interested, the circulars are available at AIR TRANSPOR CIRCULARS
These are fairly standard and straight-forward , self-explanatory but the question is are the companies doing enough to address the situation in the cock-pit ? Flight Safety , training and management need to take some action to ensure that another mangalore doesn't happen ....
take care, fly safe, masalama.
- The following steps are recommended progressively if flight safety continues to be threatened.
1. First call – “Approach not stabilized.” 2. Second Call - If insufficient, incorrect or no response from flying
pilot, loudly say “Go around Captain”. 3. If no response from Captain, the pilot monitoring/ PNF shall
announce, loudly “My controls Captain” and transmit to ATC “Go Around” and immediately initiate appropriate go around procedure safely with all available automation.
For those interested, the circulars are available at AIR TRANSPOR CIRCULARS
These are fairly standard and straight-forward , self-explanatory but the question is are the companies doing enough to address the situation in the cock-pit ? Flight Safety , training and management need to take some action to ensure that another mangalore doesn't happen ....
take care, fly safe, masalama.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 45
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
masalama,
Post the rest of the circular.... that then goes onto state all the reasons why an FO should not take over control. (the link you provided does not seem to list the circular at all)
How can an Indian FO be expected to take over when things go bad, after all they are not allowed to take off or land... except when with a Captain with special training / TRI/E in other words they are not qualified to sit in an operating crew member seat.... at best they are a radio operator.
Why does the DGCA not get rid of this foolish rule?
PT6A
Post the rest of the circular.... that then goes onto state all the reasons why an FO should not take over control. (the link you provided does not seem to list the circular at all)
How can an Indian FO be expected to take over when things go bad, after all they are not allowed to take off or land... except when with a Captain with special training / TRI/E in other words they are not qualified to sit in an operating crew member seat.... at best they are a radio operator.
Why does the DGCA not get rid of this foolish rule?
PT6A
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://dgca.nic.in/circular/Ops15_2010.pdf
The action to take over controls by the PNF
should only be in the case of total / subtle incapacitation.
should only be in the case of total / subtle incapacitation.
