Fatigued crew call pan-pan into MUC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigued crew call pan-pan into MUC
Dead-Tired.eu News - Fatigued Pilots issue Distress Signal on Approach to Munich
Will be interesting to read the report once it comes out.
My initial reaction is good going by the crew - they have detected a threat and proceeded to migitate it, where it would have been "easier" to keep quiet about it
. Laudable indeed.
Will be interesting to read the report once it comes out.
My initial reaction is good going by the crew - they have detected a threat and proceeded to migitate it, where it would have been "easier" to keep quiet about it
. Laudable indeed.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the PAN was declared to get protected areas for an auto land as otherwise that wouldn't have been granted. Standing SOP at that airline is to do an auto land when realizing that the crew is fatigued.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a link on mentioned webpage..
Sicherheitsrisiken im Flugverkehr - WDR 2 Der Sender
Basically, "AB isn't "available" for any comment...."
Sicherheitsrisiken im Flugverkehr - WDR 2 Der Sender
Erstaunlich nur, dass sich Air Berlin gar nicht zu dem Vorfall äußern mag. Eine Mail an die Pressestelle der Fluggesellschaft, in der – wie vorher telefonisch erbeten – einige sachliche Fragen zu dem Vorfall gestellt wurden, bügelte die Pressereferentin Melanie Schyja am 14. Juni 2012 kurz und knapp ab: "Vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage. Für ein Statement stehen wir nicht zur Verfügung. Herzliche Grüße aus der Air Berlin-Pressestelle."
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The moon
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chances are that an aircraft with auto land capability would not be operating at a field where only a VOR approach is available.
Last edited by Johnny Tightlips; 18th Jun 2012 at 11:03.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there actually a section of their ops manual that states an auto land is to be carried out if both pilots are fatigued? Only an airline industry manager, who never flies or has never even held a licence to do so, can come up with such a solution. After all, an auto land always works just fine and requires hardly any concentration or alertness.....
In my previous airline pilots were worked beyond fatigue to the point driving home from the airport was sometimes an unacceptable risk. The management came up with a fatigue reporting system to replace calling in sick, but then of course hired only 200hr cadet co-pilots with £100k of debt on
temporary contracts who were paid by the hour, but only if they showed up for work. Guess how many of them called in fatigued.
And another airline suggests to mitigate fatigue an auto land is accomplished as a "solution". A rostering system that prevents the on-set of fatigue in the first place perhaps?
In my previous airline pilots were worked beyond fatigue to the point driving home from the airport was sometimes an unacceptable risk. The management came up with a fatigue reporting system to replace calling in sick, but then of course hired only 200hr cadet co-pilots with £100k of debt on
temporary contracts who were paid by the hour, but only if they showed up for work. Guess how many of them called in fatigued. And another airline suggests to mitigate fatigue an auto land is accomplished as a "solution". A rostering system that prevents the on-set of fatigue in the first place perhaps?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that keeps me from falling asleep is disconnecting and landin the aircraft manually. The scanning and following of an autoland is more fatigue inducing in my experience, and requires a very clear mind to recognize failures and out of limit situations.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the typical flight duration for this trip is 2 1/4 hrs. If they were fatigued at destination wouldn't they have been sufficiently fatigued at departure to question their crewing of the flight at all?
Don't know about number of sectors, delays, tech trouble......
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chances are that an aircraft with auto land capability would not be operating at a field where only a VOR approach is available
Funny, that. We operate a B773 into Quito after an 11 hr flight.
And there is no autoland possible in Quito as everybody that operates there knows.
Both rwy directions require a visual final approach!
I understand the typical flight duration for this trip is 2 1/4 hrs. If they were fatigued at destination wouldn't they have been sufficiently fatigued at departure to question their crewing of the flight at all?
When starting your last sector you might be feeling ok. That can change after 2 hrs in flight.
Last edited by sleeper; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:06.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very nice SOP , what about if there is a VOR Approach at fatigued destination?
Good job by the crew, wonder what EASAs reaction was when they heard about this...
short flights long nights
I have thought about it, and I have no idea what Jet Jockey means.
OK, OK, enough already!
Now that I think about it I don't even understand my own post!
Woke up from a short night sleep, was still in a daze when I read and wrote my post... Forgive me my fellow PPRuNers!
Now that I think about it I don't even understand my own post!
Woke up from a short night sleep, was still in a daze when I read and wrote my post... Forgive me my fellow PPRuNers!
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:57.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sleeper:
Why do you consider an ILS with a DA of 652 and vis of 3.0 km, a visual approach? Won't that ILS (Rwy 35) support an autoland albeit with those minimums?
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km.
Funny, that. We operate a B773 into Quito after an 11 hr flight.
And there is no autoland possible in Quito as everybody that operates there knows.
Both rwy directions require a visual final approach!
And there is no autoland possible in Quito as everybody that operates there knows.
Both rwy directions require a visual final approach!
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km.
Last edited by aterpster; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:58.
"Why do you consider an ILS with a DA of 652 and vis of 3.0 km, a visual approach? Won't that ILS (Rwy 35) support an autoland albeit with those minimums?
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km."
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km."
I can only assume the high DA for the ILS on 35 is due because of obstacles.
Although you could possibly use the aircraft's auto land feature there I don't think it would be a wise procedure to do so. CAT II and III airports require special features to be certified to those minimums which include protected zones to avoid false signals to be received by the aircraft's onboard equipment especially during an auto land.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you consider an ILS with a DA of 652 and vis of 3.0 km, a visual approach? Won't that ILS (Rwy 35) support an autoland albeit with those minimums?
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km. [
I presume your company isn't qualified to do the two RNP AR IAPs:
Runway 17 508 and 2.6 km.
Runway 35 542 and 3.0 km. [
In reality you would leave the gp at 2 miles and "dive" down to the touchdown zone. I would call that a visual final approach.
As for your other remark,
Yes we are qualified for rnp-ar approaches.
Again these are not approaches you can autoland from. Thus again visual finals with the same dive-down for rwy 35. Don't forget the final approach speed is about 180 groundspeed due to the altitude.
And guy's, I didn't say visual approach. I said visual Final approach.
Last edited by sleeper; 18th Jun 2012 at 13:24.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bogota, Colombia
Age: 34
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes me wonder how many times this happens every day around the world
, difference being that this crew had the guts to actually ''report it''.
As far as an autoland it is a good solution altough a lot of concentration is requiered, and a lot of things can trigger a GA, not something you want being fatigued.
Anyway it would be good if more crews did report this kind of situations, don't you think?
, difference being that this crew had the guts to actually ''report it''.As far as an autoland it is a good solution altough a lot of concentration is requiered, and a lot of things can trigger a GA, not something you want being fatigued.
Anyway it would be good if more crews did report this kind of situations, don't you think?