Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Mercenary Pilot
"IMHO in that scenario, I would have thought someone to have said ether "My controls" or "Land".
Also, if they had seen the runway during a missed approach on the first or second attempt, I'd have expected them to have taken successive approaches to the same runway?"
Mercenary Pilot,
If this is how you oporate, you are lucky we aren't reading about you as a statistic!
Once either of you have called "Go Around" that's what you should be doing, without exception, unless it's phisicaly not an option, and the odd glimpse of tarmac is no reason to keep having a go.
"IMHO in that scenario, I would have thought someone to have said ether "My controls" or "Land".
Also, if they had seen the runway during a missed approach on the first or second attempt, I'd have expected them to have taken successive approaches to the same runway?"
Mercenary Pilot,
If this is how you oporate, you are lucky we aren't reading about you as a statistic!
Once either of you have called "Go Around" that's what you should be doing, without exception, unless it's phisicaly not an option, and the odd glimpse of tarmac is no reason to keep having a go.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALLSOUT, have you actually read the rest of the thread or indeed the report?
Nobody did call 'Go-around', the PNF called "minimas, ok continue" and the PF called "okay". No company I've ever worked at would call "continue" Its ether "Land" or "Go-Around". The debate I was taking up with sevenstrokeroll was that I don't think they ever saw the runway because they said "continue". I would guess that that meant 'Nothing yet seen but lets keep going anyway' to which the PF responded with "okay".
Also, If I had seen the runway during an approach after going around then I would consider making another approach to that runway (as long as the RVR was above minima of course). However, the point I was making about this accident was that they didn't do that, they kept trying different ends until they crashed.
Nobody did call 'Go-around', the PNF called "minimas, ok continue" and the PF called "okay". No company I've ever worked at would call "continue" Its ether "Land" or "Go-Around". The debate I was taking up with sevenstrokeroll was that I don't think they ever saw the runway because they said "continue". I would guess that that meant 'Nothing yet seen but lets keep going anyway' to which the PF responded with "okay".
Also, If I had seen the runway during an approach after going around then I would consider making another approach to that runway (as long as the RVR was above minima of course). However, the point I was making about this accident was that they didn't do that, they kept trying different ends until they crashed.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercenary Pilot,
Just a quick one - at my company the response at the PM's "Decide." call can be "Go-around, flaps <X>." or "Continue.". The rationale behind using the word 'continue' rather than 'land' being that a go-around may still be required (a baulked landing) after passing through minimums. Maybe they think the 'land' response may influence the flying pilot to fixate on landing - who knows. Anyway, the point is that some operators do use the word as part of SOPs.
Cheers,
B&S
Just a quick one - at my company the response at the PM's "Decide." call can be "Go-around, flaps <X>." or "Continue.". The rationale behind using the word 'continue' rather than 'land' being that a go-around may still be required (a baulked landing) after passing through minimums. Maybe they think the 'land' response may influence the flying pilot to fixate on landing - who knows. Anyway, the point is that some operators do use the word as part of SOPs.
Cheers,
B&S
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't going to bring this up in case it clouded things, but it does get a bit 'hazy' around the g/a call - PF is supposedly (starts out as, anyway) the co-pilot, so PNF (Captain) calls 'g/a' (at 100'), to which PF responds 'g/a' - but descent continues.
Anyone recall the ?Britannia? 757 (Genoa?) where a g/a was commenced but Captain took control on seeing the runway during and they broke the a/c on landing?
Anyone recall the ?Britannia? 757 (Genoa?) where a g/a was commenced but Captain took control on seeing the runway during and they broke the a/c on landing?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 6 of the report
T-4seconds
PNF - 'Go-around'
T-4seconds
PNF - 'Go-around'
But it does seem very odd to me that the PNF made both the 'Minima' and the 'Continue' call.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sloppy joe
if you get a job with a cut rate airline, its to build flying time, not as a career end.
so, if you are fired for following regulations, you should get money for salary loss and airplane time for the loss of flying time, which is the ONLY reason someone would take a job like this.
if you get a job with a cut rate airline, its to build flying time, not as a career end.
so, if you are fired for following regulations, you should get money for salary loss and airplane time for the loss of flying time, which is the ONLY reason someone would take a job like this.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi mercenary pilot
the deal about '
CONTINUE
well, as I mentioned eons ago, at DH there are three things to do...go around if you see NOTHING, Land if you see the runway, and, here is the kicker: if the only thing you do see is the rabbit, sequenced flashers (all the same thing), in the US you can go to TDZE plus 100 feet based on the above sighting only...if at TDZE plus 100' you don't have the rest of the stuff (I'm not going to list the nearly dozen things) then you GO AROUND.
so, I am thinking that the captain/ PNF saw the sequenced flashers and continued.
?
the deal about '
CONTINUE
well, as I mentioned eons ago, at DH there are three things to do...go around if you see NOTHING, Land if you see the runway, and, here is the kicker: if the only thing you do see is the rabbit, sequenced flashers (all the same thing), in the US you can go to TDZE plus 100 feet based on the above sighting only...if at TDZE plus 100' you don't have the rest of the stuff (I'm not going to list the nearly dozen things) then you GO AROUND.
so, I am thinking that the captain/ PNF saw the sequenced flashers and continued.
?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fraggle Rock
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St Alled has it right.
Serious stuff but it needs to be said.
The crew in the Cork accident broke the rules big time, but why?.
Maybe because of the pressure they were put under to get the job done.
This kind of pressure will lead to accidents and incidents, like the one we saw in Cork, like the time an aircraft blew over in the wind whilst taxiing out at IOM, like the one where an aircraft flew all the way from BHD to IOM with the baggage door completely open, like the one where an aircraft taxied out and took off with it's wing completely covered in thick frost (despite being advised by ATC), like the one where an aircraft made an approach in a very low cloud base, made a dirty dive and burst all of it's tyres on touchdown at the IOM. These are all reported and recorded incidents. There are more.
Unfortunately, I doubt very much that the crews who are put under such pressures by the ticket seller will speak out and tell the whole story, this through fear of retribution and loss of employment.
Unless they do, however, the effectiveness of the investigation will be diminished and nothing will change. The next accident will be just around the corner.
Serious stuff but it needs to be said.
The crew in the Cork accident broke the rules big time, but why?.
Maybe because of the pressure they were put under to get the job done.
This kind of pressure will lead to accidents and incidents, like the one we saw in Cork, like the time an aircraft blew over in the wind whilst taxiing out at IOM, like the one where an aircraft flew all the way from BHD to IOM with the baggage door completely open, like the one where an aircraft taxied out and took off with it's wing completely covered in thick frost (despite being advised by ATC), like the one where an aircraft made an approach in a very low cloud base, made a dirty dive and burst all of it's tyres on touchdown at the IOM. These are all reported and recorded incidents. There are more.
Unfortunately, I doubt very much that the crews who are put under such pressures by the ticket seller will speak out and tell the whole story, this through fear of retribution and loss of employment.
Unless they do, however, the effectiveness of the investigation will be diminished and nothing will change. The next accident will be just around the corner.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall recovery technique
Dear Pumpkinpilot:
My point is that JAR states "with minimum height loss".
This implies using power in the stall recovery which is not from an aerodynamic perspective the right thing to do when you have gone beyond the critical angle of attack for the wing.
How does a glider recover from a stall?
NASA tested a B757 at 41,000 feet and applied full power in the stall - the RoD was 2000 fpm!
Colgan Q400: 2300ft, gear down, flaps 10 deg, stick shaker activated and AP was disengaged. Power was increased to 75% TQ. Crew pulled 25lb on yoke, aircraft pitched UP 31 deg. Followed by 45 deg nose down and 45 deg bank to left before 105 deg right. RoD 9600 fpm last 800 feet to impact.
Adding power at stall warning with prop a/c leads to prop disc loading that is assymetric which leads to nose pitch UP and yawing moment - hence spin entry.
The Priority is to unstall wing then add power (20% above stall speed for JAR25 test flying).
My point is that JAR states "with minimum height loss".
This implies using power in the stall recovery which is not from an aerodynamic perspective the right thing to do when you have gone beyond the critical angle of attack for the wing.
How does a glider recover from a stall?
NASA tested a B757 at 41,000 feet and applied full power in the stall - the RoD was 2000 fpm!
Colgan Q400: 2300ft, gear down, flaps 10 deg, stick shaker activated and AP was disengaged. Power was increased to 75% TQ. Crew pulled 25lb on yoke, aircraft pitched UP 31 deg. Followed by 45 deg nose down and 45 deg bank to left before 105 deg right. RoD 9600 fpm last 800 feet to impact.
Adding power at stall warning with prop a/c leads to prop disc loading that is assymetric which leads to nose pitch UP and yawing moment - hence spin entry.
The Priority is to unstall wing then add power (20% above stall speed for JAR25 test flying).
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sevenstrokeroll,
No one would ever be fired for following regulations, that is what guys need to start to understand. No company (in a developed country) could fire someone for not even attempting an approach in these conditions and going straight for the alternate, it would never stand up in court and they know it, there are weather reports to back them up, there are regulations to back them up. The problem is one of inexperienced guys, I expect even the captain had less than 2000 hours and yes that is inexperienced to be a captain or an FO in my opinion. You want to impress and get the job done, you are pressured but don't yet realize that it is something that you can say no to without consequence.
To anyone reading this who is in an airline or flying in any capacity and is inexperienced or pressured. If it is obviously wrong don't do it, even if you make a bad call and divert when not needed you still will not be fired if you can justify your thinking. If you get that, what are we doing feeling, in your gut, SPEAK UP, I expect the FO did have that feeling but he is now dead along with six others as he did not say "going around, we need to divert to XXXX" he said "okay". If you have had that feeling in the past and went along with things this could be you we are writing about but you got lucky. I have and I got lucky but now understand it is not worth it. You are not paid any where near enough to go beyond the regulations to get the job done, you are never paid enough to do that. There can be no action taken against you for sticking to the rules and if you know of guys who bend them bring them up on it, talk to them, make them understand that it makes it harder for everyone if they push it more than they should as it then brings undue pressure on others.
No one would ever be fired for following regulations, that is what guys need to start to understand. No company (in a developed country) could fire someone for not even attempting an approach in these conditions and going straight for the alternate, it would never stand up in court and they know it, there are weather reports to back them up, there are regulations to back them up. The problem is one of inexperienced guys, I expect even the captain had less than 2000 hours and yes that is inexperienced to be a captain or an FO in my opinion. You want to impress and get the job done, you are pressured but don't yet realize that it is something that you can say no to without consequence.
To anyone reading this who is in an airline or flying in any capacity and is inexperienced or pressured. If it is obviously wrong don't do it, even if you make a bad call and divert when not needed you still will not be fired if you can justify your thinking. If you get that, what are we doing feeling, in your gut, SPEAK UP, I expect the FO did have that feeling but he is now dead along with six others as he did not say "going around, we need to divert to XXXX" he said "okay". If you have had that feeling in the past and went along with things this could be you we are writing about but you got lucky. I have and I got lucky but now understand it is not worth it. You are not paid any where near enough to go beyond the regulations to get the job done, you are never paid enough to do that. There can be no action taken against you for sticking to the rules and if you know of guys who bend them bring them up on it, talk to them, make them understand that it makes it harder for everyone if they push it more than they should as it then brings undue pressure on others.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sloppyjoe
I will let others answer the idea that you won't be fired for following regulations.
but I've seen it happen and some people don't have the money to fight it out in court.
I will let others answer the idea that you won't be fired for following regulations.
but I've seen it happen and some people don't have the money to fight it out in court.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would not need to go to court if you were in BALPA for example. YOU WILL NOT BE FIRED for sticking to the regulations as long as you fly in a descent country. You think the CAA would have an issue with someone saying they were fired as they went to the alternate when it was foggy? No operator in the UK would dare to fire anyone, even an FO with 250 hours if they made a decision based on regulations. It is not worth it, what are you trying to prove by pushing the limits? That you may end up killing people is all I can think of.
The FO in this case had only just started working there so it is understandable that he did not speak up as he is a product of the 200 hour airline pilot now course and had absolutely no real world experience, he just trusted his instructor and that is probably what killed him and 5 others as he saw the captain, even an inexperienced one as the instructor. I expect the captain was also a 200 hour airline pilot wonder when he joined but he should have known better as had at least been around a bit longer. Yes maybe it is a bit bad taste to speak about a dead pilot like this but his actions caused the deaths of passengers, his cowboy attitude killed peoples sons, daughters, fathers, mothers. Don't say "okay" say what the
are you thinking we need to go to XXXX even if you have only been with the company for one day. In this case I am sure the captain was thinking the same but didn't want to admit it, if he had the FO saying we need to divert I am sure he would have. The actions of the crew killed these people. If they had diverted maybe they would have had a chat with the chief pilot, this guy would be an experienced pilot I hope, if it was foggy there would have been no questions it would have probably been a pat on the back for doing their job. They would both still be flying and the people they killed would be with their families.
Yeah don't talk about it yourself let other people who have operated in the UK talk about how they were fired for not landing in fog!!!!! I bet it has never happened.
The FO in this case had only just started working there so it is understandable that he did not speak up as he is a product of the 200 hour airline pilot now course and had absolutely no real world experience, he just trusted his instructor and that is probably what killed him and 5 others as he saw the captain, even an inexperienced one as the instructor. I expect the captain was also a 200 hour airline pilot wonder when he joined but he should have known better as had at least been around a bit longer. Yes maybe it is a bit bad taste to speak about a dead pilot like this but his actions caused the deaths of passengers, his cowboy attitude killed peoples sons, daughters, fathers, mothers. Don't say "okay" say what the
are you thinking we need to go to XXXX even if you have only been with the company for one day. In this case I am sure the captain was thinking the same but didn't want to admit it, if he had the FO saying we need to divert I am sure he would have. The actions of the crew killed these people. If they had diverted maybe they would have had a chat with the chief pilot, this guy would be an experienced pilot I hope, if it was foggy there would have been no questions it would have probably been a pat on the back for doing their job. They would both still be flying and the people they killed would be with their families.Yeah don't talk about it yourself let other people who have operated in the UK talk about how they were fired for not landing in fog!!!!! I bet it has never happened.
Last edited by SloppyJoe; 23rd Mar 2011 at 21:30.
`sloppy joe
unless thing have changed you are WRONG.
If I quote you chapter and verse about what has gone on in europe the post will be removed.
I know of pilots sacked for refusing to break the law.
I have made complaints of illegal and dangerous practices -most were ignored.
I had a friend who night stopped due crew fatigue. He was pressurized to file a report so that the company could sack the skipper. Ended up with a court settlement for slander. The authority did Zero.
Another chief training captain informed a union chief that they he was training on a foreign reg. aircraft without a license - lost his training appointment.
There are sadly many examples.............
unless thing have changed you are WRONG.
If I quote you chapter and verse about what has gone on in europe the post will be removed.
I know of pilots sacked for refusing to break the law.
I have made complaints of illegal and dangerous practices -most were ignored.
I had a friend who night stopped due crew fatigue. He was pressurized to file a report so that the company could sack the skipper. Ended up with a court settlement for slander. The authority did Zero.
Another chief training captain informed a union chief that they he was training on a foreign reg. aircraft without a license - lost his training appointment.
There are sadly many examples.............
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sloppyjoe
we are not talking about a first class airline with representation for the pilots by BALPA
we are talking about , at best , a third rate pseudo airline.
have you ever had anyone write up a mechanical problem, only to find the page removed from the log book the next day? AND NO REPAIRS?
I have.
we are not talking about a first class airline with representation for the pilots by BALPA
we are talking about , at best , a third rate pseudo airline.
have you ever had anyone write up a mechanical problem, only to find the page removed from the log book the next day? AND NO REPAIRS?
I have.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly in the UK but is there not a confidential reporting system? If there is not there should be and any time anything remotely concerning happens either the FO or CN should be able to file a report to the CAA.
I expect that if they get enough reports about an operator things will move forwards as what could they say if there had been X number of reports about Manx2 but they did nothing and now there is a crash?
If there is not a reporting system in place just write a letter to the CAA. Even if you put your details down no action would be taken against you.
It really is not that hard to prevent things like this.
I expect that if they get enough reports about an operator things will move forwards as what could they say if there had been X number of reports about Manx2 but they did nothing and now there is a crash?
If there is not a reporting system in place just write a letter to the CAA. Even if you put your details down no action would be taken against you.
It really is not that hard to prevent things like this.
Last edited by SloppyJoe; 23rd Mar 2011 at 21:54.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blind Pew,
I'm with you all the way on this. I can think of many examples of crews being coerced into illogical scenarios. Some, indeed by more "reputable" carriers.
Worst case (now long ago) was an SC-7 cargo operator. 12500lb gross be damned - they regularly flew (Part23) aircraft at 18000lb plus.
I spoke to a pilot more recently who had flown for them - complain and you were straight out of the door.
I made the point earlier about this type of operation generating a lethal subculture. Ignored.
But nonetheless the boy racer, gung ho attitude is manifest in so many areas. In those so young and inexperienced I can almost hear the boasts of how we got in.............
There's NOBODY looking over their shoulders. This operation allows so much to slip through the net.
I'm with you all the way on this. I can think of many examples of crews being coerced into illogical scenarios. Some, indeed by more "reputable" carriers.
Worst case (now long ago) was an SC-7 cargo operator. 12500lb gross be damned - they regularly flew (Part23) aircraft at 18000lb plus.
I spoke to a pilot more recently who had flown for them - complain and you were straight out of the door.
I made the point earlier about this type of operation generating a lethal subculture. Ignored.
But nonetheless the boy racer, gung ho attitude is manifest in so many areas. In those so young and inexperienced I can almost hear the boasts of how we got in.............
There's NOBODY looking over their shoulders. This operation allows so much to slip through the net.