Air Blue crash was caused by Captain

[HarryMann]

Ergonomics... again. Pull to select HDG knob, instead of push as in Boeing... why are these basics not determined to be consistent, its almost as if AB just has to be different, or to be fair, Boeing has to be different, whoever came first.

No, of course it didn't cause this accident, I am just musing on ergonomics and behaviour reversion under stress...

[bubbers44]

Guess circling approaches were easier when I did them 8 years ago. They were quite simple back then. You kept the airport in site and circled. What have they done to make if difficult now?

[Aztec Kid]

While not truly circling approaches, here are two containing the “RF” segments mentioned by aterpster. The first initially overflies the IF for the ILS to 22L at EWR, and breaks off for a landing on 29. The second approach to 29 overflies the FAF for the ILS to 04R.

The DAs for these approaches are lower than the MDAs for the ILS circling approaches.

[BOAC]

Thanks, Zeffy - I had edited my post following your graphic.

Aztec - images not showing for me.

All - this does not really relate to Islamabad where I think we all agree a R12 RNAV approach would have been easy. It is more a ?logical? extension of all the work on curved MLS approaches etc etc into a full RNAV curved 'circle'.

[Aztec Kid]

BOAC,

I hope these links will enable you to view the charts.

Best regards,
The Kid

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1201/00285RRY29.PDF

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1201/00285RRZ29.PDF

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Harry Mann

Pull to select HDG knob, instead of push as in Boeing... why are these basics not determined to be consistent, its almost as if AB just has to be different, or to be fair, Boeing has to be different, whoever came first.

MD 717/MD11 also pulls the HDG knob to engage HDG or TRK mode. Boeing's the odd one out.

[pontifex]

Sunnyjohn,

Not true. Human frailty was discussed in condiderable depth in the MCC course I ran up to about three years ago. The pressures that might bear on a pilots performance such as financial, domestic, work or union related and many others were raised either by myself or my students. It was emphasised that a PNF should always be alert to the posibility of these factors affecting either them or their PF. It actually formed a significant element in my human factors teaching. Don't know how others did/do it, but I am sure it is fully covered. May be different in other parts of the world of course.

[Capn Bloggs]

Aterpster,
Thanks for the chart. Just got back from a trip hence the delay. They would have gone very close to getting away with it had the machine turned in the direction the HDG bug was wound.

RNAV-RNP look like they are fantastic, but that complexity is not needed here. A simple RNAV(GNSS)/RNP APCH-LNAV approach with a 10nm final would have done the trick.

[BOAC]

All this focus on push/pull etc the HDG knob gives me great concern. We have a serviceable aircraft, 2 qualified pilots, and an aircraft that does not do what is being demanded or expected through the automatic flight system.

Let me see - how does it go?

SWITCH IT OFF AND FLY THE ****AEROPLANE!

It would not matter a damn if every AFCS worked exactly the same way all over the world. If pilots cannot undertake this simple act of 'flying' it would make no difference.

Thanks Aztec - they look just as I envisaged.

[Sunnyjohn]

PONTIFEX

Not true. Human frailty was discussed in condiderable depth in the MCC course I ran up to about three years ago.

Thanks for this. I hoped this would be the case. How well do you think folk would recall such training?

[BOAC]

Sunny - this goes well past CRM issues. What we appear to have had here is a complete collapse in the survival instinct from the F/O. I cannot understand it and from my (Western) military experience I cannot envisage any current or ex-miltary pilot allowing him or herself to be wiped across a hillside just because they were 'upset'.

I do not think ANY amount of MCC/CRM/psychology-whatever-you-call-it training would prepare someone for this scenario. Surely it comes down to a basic survival instinct? At what point do you expect 'folk' to recall that?

[bubbers44]

Doing a circling approach doesn't require survival instincts because they should be well instilled long before this if you have flown for a while. Circling approaches are done all the time with no automation at all.

After doing thousands of them with no problem with no automation hope how to use the heading button with automation makes them unsafe is kind of sad. Automation is great if the pilots can fly as well as the automation. If they can't they shouldn't be flying. Did some pilots become monitors of automation and depend on it in the last years?

I hope not but in a lot of cases it has reading here.

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:

RNAV-RNP look like they are fantastic, but that complexity is not needed here. A simple RNAV(GNSS)/RNP APCH-LNAV approach with a 10nm final would have done the trick.

Or even a VOR/DME approach with an arc initial segment that avoids the imperial areas. Then again, the VOR may not be performing well enough these days.

[Ten-miles final]

Preparing for circling on Bus is more demanding procedure than for conventional aircraft as you have to load FMGS with lot of things you've never thought about flying Boeing. Furthermore it requires extra computer manipulation on downwind.
Even if you decide not to use automation at all you'll have to remember reverting to selected speed as groundspeed mini may arrange a surprise for everybody on short final if you remain in managed speed - on Bus pilots switch off autothrust on very-very rare occasions.
Once again - circling on A requires much more mental resources than same approach on B. Here I see the reason for this attempt to put everything in computer and then just look out of window. Perhaps this strategy is feasible but once one small thing in this chain fails all remaining stuff collapse completely.
I'm quite skeptical to admit captain's mental or any other health problem. To my knowledge all described facts may be easy put into well defined CRM aspects. I saw huge amount of similar scenarios in simulators and once - in real life.

[Neptunus Rex]

Ten-miles final

I am sorry, Sir , but you have been misled. From the A320 FCOM, the last input into the FMGS is to 'activate the Secondary Flight Plan' (in order to have Groundspeed Mini for the landing runway) which is done prior to entering the crosswind leg. All subsequent actions are performed by PNF on the glareshield knobs or by PF on the primary controls, eg timing; FDs off; AP off; RW Trk (turning base.)

Pretty similar to any other conventional aircraft, wouldn't you say?

[Ten-miles final]

OK645
If you can't see the runway environment, you can't circle.

Right. But in this approach captain tried to put everything into computer constructing PBDs. Why? Because on A this is state of mind and modus vivendi - to properly program computer and then just check what it's doing. Programming computers takes much time - that what I was trying to say.

Rex
Thank you for comment. I fly A for just a little time and never did circling in real flight on A, only in sim. But what is written in my manual:
‐ Early on downwind : Activate SEC F-PLN

[RunSick]

How is it demanding?

PNF activates secondary flight plan. That´s it.

Also, if you could elaborate a bit more on the "lot of things you´ve never thought about flying Boeing"

[aterpster]

OK465:

The straight final segment is 3NM not 6NM, check your guns. Eh

Fortunately, no one who actually flies RNP AR in the U.S. uses those awful charts like the one Zeffy posted. Instead, they use this chart for RNP RNP Y 16L, which is much more comprehensible:


Index of /RNO

[Ten-miles final]

Runsick

I have to call PNF to activate SEC FPL or at least crosscheck what he is doing, this requires attention.
Many years ago I started with very old turbo-prop with little automation capable only to maintain constant altitude, so making visual approach was very easy - just look outside and fly.
Almost same applies for 737-200. Next one, 737CL offers some opportunities by FMC to facilitate visual approach constructing some reference waypoints, crosstracks etc. This is very useful but involves programming computer first, ant this may be quite time consuming, especially when done by low experienced pilot.
Finally on 320 pushing buttons is unavoidable time investment.
Perhaps it's old discussion, off-top and wasting time to read.
Perhaps I'm only one here experiencing difficulties on transition from B to A.
That fatal approach, as I can understand from report, was not planned nor executed in proper way. And just very small inconsistencies and A features further aggravated situation up to fatal result. IMHO

[golfyankeesierra]

The FPV (Flight path vector) feature, or "bird", on Airbus makes any visual a walk in the park, making A much better suited for circlings then B, IMO.
But true, having to select sec flightplan on downwind is not ideal.