Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Australian Landing Contextualised

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Australian Landing Contextualised

Old 3rd May 2012, 00:13
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,447
Received 228 Likes on 78 Posts
Listen, the cell phone is a bit of a 'red herring' in this whole saga. Fact of the matter is that every now and then a set of circumstances present themselves that lead to a crew becoming distracted and forgetting to carry out normal actions. I seem to remember a story in the press from a couple of years ago regarding a Qantas 767? that ended up doing a missed approach in Sydney because they 'forgot' to put the gear down and got the 'to low gear' warning. Most of these incidents are caused pure and simply by distraction. We are trained to do things in a certain order and at a certain time and it CAN only take a minor distraction at an inappropriate time to get yourself totally out of whack. In this case it was the Captain's attention being taken away doing whatever he was doing with his phone, this led the First Officer to become distracted as well.

I have done it myself once, but not to this degree. We were on a complicated visual manourvre to a very scenic runway surrounded by terrain in Europe. We had always been taught that at 2000' you took Flap 2, Gear Down, Landing checklist. On this particular day I was flying and at 2000' I asked for Flap 2 and at that point the Captain pointed out a very impressive looking house on the side of the hill, it drew our attention outside the flight deck for a couple of seconds but it was enough to interrupt the normal flow. At around 1700' whilst trying to slow up to get Flap 3 out I commented that it was taking longer than normal to slow up, I had that feeling that something was not right and started going through my normal flow of 'right, we have flap, we have gear........ **** no gear!!!' Thankfully it was caught really early, but to this day I still remember it as an example of how quickly things can get out of shape.

In the Jetstar case these two crew had hardly said a word to each other for hours and were NOT providing good support for each other. The phone provided the initial distraction, then the go around altitude provided further distraction. I am sure they got the 'something is wrong' feeling. The biggest worry in this situation is how long it took them just to throw it all away and go around once the too low gear warning went off.

It is quite common for retractable undercarriage aircraft to be landed without the wheels, normally caused by the pilot having been distracted. No one sets out to make these mistakes, but they will ALWAY's happen, it is more important to react appropriately to the mistake, trying to push on and make the landing anyway is not the right response.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 01:24
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Distraction can come in many forms.

A story of how a crew of three very senior captains -- possibly the three most-senior in the system -- and two very senior flight engineers came as close as one would wish landing a 747 gear up.

Pelican's Perch #80: Gear-Up Landing In A 747?
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:54
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The distraction itself is not the problem, but the way he mishandled it. He should have said his "Aw $#1+!" or whatever, and gotten back to flying the airplane.
Intruder is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:52
  #44 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly, but the job of the FO is to take control if the CA is not responding, in this case, he failed.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 4th May 2012, 01:05
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly, but the job of the FO is to take control if the CA is not responding, in this case, he failed.
He failed at both taking control and also trying to get the captain back into the loop
Escape Path is offline  
Old 4th May 2012, 21:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case. However, I can't blame him for being reticent, at least to the point of the GPWS alarm or missed approach altitude, as long as the airplane was otherwise stable.
Intruder is offline  
Old 5th May 2012, 00:35
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Africa
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case. However, I can't blame him for being reticent, at least to the point of the GPWS alarm or missed approach altitude, as long as the airplane was otherwise stable.
Wow, if it had been a co-pilot from the third world, there would have been deafening condemnation. Hypocrites you guys, aren't you? There would have been clarion calls for both pilots to be summarily sacked. Sheesh, what double standards!
kinteafrokunta is offline  
Old 5th May 2012, 20:31
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case.
He didn't get the captain's attention back into the situation, he didn't do anything actually, regarding that matter. He also didn't successfully regain control of the airplane timely: Given the case he had tried to take control, he failed to have to airplane properly configured to land, not just the gear, but the whole lot: flaps, autobrakes, spoilers (as per the report) and both also failed to fly the go-around in a proper way; there was nothing but chaos from the point they discovered the gear wasn't down all the way up to almost the missed approach altitude.

FO was PF by the way. He didn't fail at trying, he and the captain failed altogether at conducting proper CRM
Escape Path is offline  
Old 6th May 2012, 20:31
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where/when did the info come out that the FO was PF? I hadn't noticed that in here.
Intruder is offline  
Old 6th May 2012, 22:32
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where/when did the info come out that the FO was PF? I hadn't noticed that in here.
Post #4 has a link to the report:

The ATSB report can be found by following this link.
...adding to the fact that the thread talks about the FO asking the captain to set the missed approach altitude as a sort of a "trigger event", meaning he was PF and captain PM
Escape Path is offline  
Old 7th May 2012, 07:54
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,279
Received 214 Likes on 102 Posts
There,s a lot of reference to the F/O being PF but you have to read the report and not rely on Pprune to tell you. The F/O was PF not PIC. This whole Incident would not have happened if the Captain had been doing his job and monitoring the progress of the flight.
Lookleft is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.