Air India Express' landing woes continue..

[FBW390]

"point out that the last big crash happened with a foreigner at the controls : "yes, they will always forgot that in this Mangalore accident, the FO made two calls where the captain didn't answer nor correct; so technically he was incapacitated! Then the job of the FO was to take the controls and either correct fast or go-around! He did nothing and they crashed!

[Slickster]

Why would anyone even dream of trying to autoland a B737 in those conditions? The system is basically designed for foggy (read still air) conditions.

Never mind being way beyond the autoland system's capabilities (15kt crosswind, 25kt headwind), I find it amazing that any 737 pilot would even attempt an autoland in such weather. If that is what some people do, it is testament to Boeing that there are not more crashes, and an even worse testament to some people's lack of faith in their own abilities as a pilot.

[lederhosen]

Just to be fair there are 737s with fail operational autopilots capable of 25 knot crosswinds. However as this incident demonstrates and we all seem to agree the autoland system is not ideal for this kind of situation. Its misuse and also misunderstanding the fuel situation suggest the crew were out of their depth.

The Boeing flight crew training manual provides a guideline that up to 40 knots steady crosswind for manual landing is allowable subject to company limits. The guidance on gusts is slightly less clear. They do not change the limits but make things more difficult. So basically it is up to your own judgement regarding the gusts and indeed your own experience and state of health, tiredness etc.

[Akali Dal]

Lonewolf_50; wow! First a lame attempt at high sounding " non sequitur ", then some colourful flying fart with another equally lame attempt at some high minded semblance of being " non-racist ". A tad touchy, my dear spin doctor.

[Tee Emm]

Don't blame only the captain. We are suppose to be a team

My understanding was the captain cocked up the crosswind landings. As he has the legal responsibility for the safety of the operation AND he was the handling pilot, then why blame any other crew member just because you are sorry for the captain who was clearly out of his depth.

The so called team concept has nothing to do with one man's failure to meet the demands of his profession. If he was physically frightened of coping with strong crosswinds he should have the balls and conscience to remove himself from flying as a captain until he was re-trained to acceptable standards. A first officer should be capable of conducting crosswind landings without drama up to the crosswind limit. After all he holds the legal appointment of second in command which means he should have the same skills as a captain.

Of course it is well known that many first officers (new graduates from flying schools) are incapable of landing safely in max limit crosswinds. In that case they should not be occupying the position of second in command. Airlines pay lip service in the simulator to these cadets in order to get a cheap bum in the RH seat. But that does not excuse the lack of regular simulator training of these pilots on manoeuvres such as strong crosswinds.

The team concept is vastly overdone to the point where captains are pilloried for not carrying out a vote between "team" members before he makes up his mind what to do.

[boogie-nicey]

"Wanton copy of the capitalist model foisted upon the Mother India" and you'd prefer to return India back to the isolationist days of navel gazing socialism? Countries around the world follow, adopt, subscribe to and believe in Capitalism but somehow still maintain standards. The issue of competency and standards has nothing to do with capitalism so in the best traditions of India please stop blaming everyone and everything else for your own shortcomings.

The issues you highlighted about airliners/crews in other countries having 'a bit of a bad day' will be addressed by investigation through the regulatory system. They will then be distributed through to the affected parties so as to maintain a high degree of safety.

Sorry for the rant .....

[Fulcrum_vol]

Would it be fair to dig deep on this one?

Could this be an ugly result that we are seeing, stemming from an unattractive profession reputation? Talented, aspiring youngsters being turned away by reputation and recommendation of parents to pursue safer avenues with much better returns. -> causing significantly poorer selection pools.

There are other jobs with high education costs, no guarantees, long hours and low pay to start, but few of them have such demanding standards whether it's physical/medical, psychological or even from a risk/responsibility point of view. In my opinion.

I've met, perhaps too many pilots in flight training who's philosophy of pursuing the career is that of another trucker/lorry driver. Flight schools need to make money as well. There is a known dynamic of international students in Canada, who's parents encouraged them to pursue just that- a good paying "truck-driver-like" job.

... you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.. true?

[totempole]

The so called team concept has nothing to do with one man's failure to meet the demands of his profession. If he was physically frightened of coping with strong crosswinds he should have the balls and conscience to remove himself from flying as a captain until he was re-trained to acceptable standards. A first officer should be capable of conducting crosswind landings without drama up to the crosswind limit. After all he holds the legal appointment of second in command which means he should have the same skills as a captain.

Of course it is well known that many first officers (new graduates from flying schools) are incapable of landing safely in max limit crosswinds. In that case they should not be occupying the position of second in command. Airlines pay lip service in the simulator to these cadets in order to get a cheap bum in the RH seat. But that does not excuse the lack of regular simulator training of these pilots on manoeuvres such as strong crosswinds

The captain should have gone to an alternate with less crosswinds. I agree that he should ask for retraining at tackling limiting crosswinds.

However, landing at max crosswind limits with gusts is extremely dicey at best. Remember, the airline must set the limits for an average pilot, not aces or test pilots. The landings at max Boeing limits od max demonstrated limits were done by test/certification pilots

[jackharr]

"A new captain? One that came up through the ranks and wasn't allowed to handle the aircraft as an FO?"

I always made damn sure that FOs I worked with handled in ALL weather situations - after all, I would quite likely be their passengers one day.

Jack

[fireflybob]

However, landing at max crosswind limits with gusts is extremely dicey at best.

I beg to disagree - what is dicey is having relatively inexperienced captains who have not been well trained and practised in limit crosswind landings.

Aircraft commanders should be able to land in limiting crosswinds.

[Denti]

Indeed, however if that quoted article is correct the wind was 10kts over the company wind limit. And the captain apparently was not trained to cope with it in line with that limit.

[Capt Apache]

When Italy lost to Slovakia, in one of the biggest upsets in FIFA 2010, their coach Marcello Lipi said,

" I take responsibility,I take full responsibility.If a professional team comes to such an important match with fear in it's heart and terror in it thighs such that it cannot play to its full potential, then it can only be the coach's fault.Only the coach must be held responsible."

I wish the trainers at Air India had a conscience like Lipi's.I don't blame the pilot.Of course I am skeptical of any report on aviation in India.

[fmgc]

Aircraft commanders should be able to land in limiting crosswinds.

There are so many variables that this comment is redundant. Sometimes you could be landing somewhere with a 15kt x-wind and the direction and local topography make it rough as old boots and not possible to land.

I am not the best handling pilot in the world but I do like to think that I am a good Captain.

A Captain should be aware of his/her own limitations and if he/she attempts an approach but can't get in he/she should then consider a diversion, even if everybody else is managing to land. There should be no pressure on him/her to land and no admonishment for diverting.

IT IS THE ONLY WAY IN A SAFETY CULTURE.

[fatbus]

every capt must be able to handle the A/C to the limits or he/she should not be a capt.
This latest with AI just confirms that one should reconsider ever booking a flt with them.

[fmgc]

My point being that there are 30kt x-winds and there are 30kt x-winds, and naer the twain shall meet!

Also if you limit an FO's x-wind limits how is he suddenly able to handle and max x-wind as soon as he is the the LHS?

[fireflybob]

A Captain should be aware of his/her own limitations and if he/she attempts an approach but can't get in he/she should then consider a diversion, even if everybody else is managing to land. There should be no pressure on him/her to land and no admonishment for diverting.

fmgc, I would have no argument with that statement at all. That is a different matter.

And, of course, pilots should operate within the prescribed Company limits.

But what I was trying to say is that I find it very worrying if aircraft commanders are not proficient at landing in limiting crosswinds.

My first airline job was with BOAC as a fledgling Second Officer on the Boeing 707 which was a very demanding aircraft in a crosswind (the -436 had no series yaw damper so take offs and landing were conducted with the yaw damper disengaged.

Part of the Command training was to take an actually aircraft and find somewhere where the crosswind was on limits, fly there and then practice Crosswind take offs and landings until the training captain was happy that you could confidently do it! (This would probably not be approved of in todays culture but often the training was conducted when the crosswind component was a trifle beyond the limit).

A lot of crosswind training seems to be done in the simulator these days but there is nothing quite like doing it on the aircraft.

If the facts as we know them on this incident are correct, the proof is in the pudding because, in extremis, there may be situations when you have to land - ok, yes I agree, a crew should never get into that situation but, in this case, they perceived that they did not have the fuel to divert safely and therefore apparently had no other options.

The landings at max Boeing limits od max demonstrated limits were done by test/certification pilots

That does not mean that the values are necessarily limiting - merely the highest values that were demonstrated during certification of the a/c.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50; wow! First a lame attempt at high sounding " non sequitur ", then some colourful flying fart with another equally lame attempt at some high minded semblance of being " non-racist ". A tad touchy, my dear spin doctor.

I don't understand people who post idiotic things like the bolded part. That's an interesting way for you to attempt name calling, and most dishonest, not to mention wrong. You seem to have me confused with people who wish to turn this discussion into a "West versus Third World" discussion. I am not one such, and I encourage you to not be one such either.

Your efforts at mind reading fail, as does your reading comprehension.

What has bickering about stereotypes to do with this accident? Nothing. Nor does macro level tripe about economic systems, which is what I pointed out as a non sequitur initially: it does not follow. Look it up. If you and I were talking about how to deal with wind shear, a comment on how to making a good bowl of pasta or fried rice applies to wind shear in the terminal phase would also be a non sequitur: it does not follow.

Back to the issue of flying an aircraft within its limitations: it isn't about ecnomic systems, or where you were born. It has to do with flying.

Please note the title of this forum, which has to do with pilots, and flying, professionally. <========== That last word is important to millions of passengers per day.

Back to the event of interest, which seems to be something all pilots have an interest in: landing.

[Farrell]

Three pages of almost pure conjecture with a few solid posts.
All seems ops normal, I suppose.

The article in the Times of India and the follow-ups by the other rags are grossly inaccurate.

Here's what we know for sure (the rest is just gossip).

The aircraft made two unsuccessful attempts to land.
The crew decided to divert to Abu Dhabi. No great drama there. MCT was an option, but Abu Dhabi is what was decided. (Even Thumreit or Marmul would have done in a push!)

After about thirty minutes, the crew decided to return to Salalah and burst three tyres on the landing.

Statements about erroneous inputs into the FMC, landing below minimum reserve, pilot abilities and other comments at this stage are unfounded. We simply do not know what happened for now.

The main question for most out here is: Why the return to Salalah? Until all the details come back, we just have to sit and wait to find out, if ever, what happened.

Farrell

[captjns]

Yeah... just because an unqualified captain with training difficulties, who could not first of all manage the situation, changing his decisions many times placed his passengers and crew in danger may be an acceptable level of performance amongst his peers. We can all be thankful that there was no smoking hole left in the desert because of this fiasco. IMHO nepotism got him on the property and pushed through training despite his poor performance during training.


The captain is part of the problem. The training and checking system not limited to AI is also the problem.


Isn’t it a shame that the “good old boys” network is alive and well among every airline on the planet.


The man does not belong in the cockpit. I'm sure he would be an OK guy to down a King Fisher, er pardon the pun, at the pub.

[Lonewolf_50]

captjns:

Do you know the Captain personally?

Question for risk management considerations on the airline's reported decision for restricting the flight envelope:

What effect on their operating costs does restricting cross wind landings to 25 kts have on the number of go arounds, or diversions (with attendant fuel costs and how to get pax to original destination costs)?

Put another way, what sort of data would you look at to estimate the number of flying days, and nights, which show that, at the airports this airline flies into, they can expect a crosswind component of 25 knots or higher? Airports the world over vary in the number of runways and varied orientation available, with designs typically chosen for the prevailing winds and terrain obstacles considered. For single strip runways, your options upon arrival aren't quite as nice as at multiple strip runways (with different orientations).

Let us presume that the analysts in the company arrived at "4.5% (or some other number) of our arrivals are likely to, based on five year historical trends, be made with cross wind components of 25 knots or higher."

Does their decision on risk, which involves runways of varying quality, perhaps avoid a big crash at the cost of a number of go arounds, diversions, or time (and thus fuel and schedule) spent negotiating with various ATC's for a different runway?

I'd be interested to see what went into that decision matrix when they decided to impose the crosswind restriction.