Runway overrun in thessaloniki
Pilot command to PAX was in English:"Remain seated" so they were not Russian pilots for sure.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...16-2008-a.html
Last edited by JanetFlight; 22nd Jun 2013 at 05:36.
What's interesting is that the video shows partial speedbrake for a while, so there must have been some recognition of the energy state. Unfortunately, it retracts and they continue clean towards their fate.
If they'd deployed full speedbrake, they might have stopped before the end. OK, it would still have been a massively high energy approach and the only sensible option would have been to go-around. Maybe this result was better as it puts the spotlight on this operation and will lead to an investigation, rather than getting away with it. I'd guess AMC don't have any sort of FOQA program...
What's the gear deployment limit on the 737-8? From others' calculations, they must have been pretty close to it (or above).
If they'd deployed full speedbrake, they might have stopped before the end. OK, it would still have been a massively high energy approach and the only sensible option would have been to go-around. Maybe this result was better as it puts the spotlight on this operation and will lead to an investigation, rather than getting away with it. I'd guess AMC don't have any sort of FOQA program...
What's the gear deployment limit on the 737-8? From others' calculations, they must have been pretty close to it (or above).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to STABLE approaches and Go Arounds?
Fullwings - Flap 1 is 250kts, gear 270kts. I also do not understand the speedbrake usage.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway overruns
There seem to be an inordinate amount of runway overruns taking place and this makes me think of my own experience as a glider and power pilot.
In my carreer as a private pilot I have made thousands of landings and touch and goes.
Not one of them resulted in a runway overrun. Why ???
Because, as a glider pilot, I was trained to think of the landing as the only one between success and failure, therefore, it had to be good, every time and under all circumstances !
That requires thinking and an attitude geared to meeting the criteria leading to a good landing....circuit planning, wind, pre-landing preps, base leg and finals at just the right speed and approach angle ! i.e. stabilised. What's the matter with some of our current crop of commercial pilots ! Did they not receive the proper training ? Should they have spent time flying gliders ? Should all pilots flying be required to be exposed to glider flying ? Or, what about teaching power pilots to treat all landings as dead stick ones ?
In my carreer as a private pilot I have made thousands of landings and touch and goes.
Not one of them resulted in a runway overrun. Why ???
Because, as a glider pilot, I was trained to think of the landing as the only one between success and failure, therefore, it had to be good, every time and under all circumstances !
That requires thinking and an attitude geared to meeting the criteria leading to a good landing....circuit planning, wind, pre-landing preps, base leg and finals at just the right speed and approach angle ! i.e. stabilised. What's the matter with some of our current crop of commercial pilots ! Did they not receive the proper training ? Should they have spent time flying gliders ? Should all pilots flying be required to be exposed to glider flying ? Or, what about teaching power pilots to treat all landings as dead stick ones ?
Last edited by Yankee Whisky; 24th Jun 2013 at 00:30.
Why? Pretty simple really. Landing in the right spot on speed requires talent/natural ability, training and experience, some or all of which are increasingly missing in today's aviation scene. Throw in a bit of press-on-itis caused by emphasis on "economy" and this is what you get. 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should they have spent time flying gliders ?
Sometimes 'square pegs' don't fit into 'round holes' and vice versa.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM43; A good point, but cast back just over 4 years ago and a certain PF with
gliding experience, managed to turn an airliner into a gliding brick at FL380.
gliding experience, managed to turn an airliner into a gliding brick at FL380.
Pearson managed all right until the nose gear gave way (he was a glider pilot)
But both pilots kept the aircraft on the runway (such as it was in Bob's case) !
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Managers not Pilots
We live in a politically-correct world.Airlines dont want stick and rudder men anymore.They want flight managers.Full automatics are mandated into the SOP's.Pilots never get the chance to fly the damn thing.The bean counters want free or cheap labor in the right seat and theres a waiting pool of muffins with 200 hours ready and willing to be exploited.The demise of the unions facilitates it all.
So many accidents prove the woeful state of the industry and more are waiting to happen.The AF and Buffalo crash where the pilot pulled instead of pushed,the Congonhas disaster where a pilot didnt notice that one of his engines was in CLIMB THRUST on landing,the Turkish AMS crash where pilots didnt monitor their number one flight parameter(airspeed),the countless overruns from India to Indonesia to Europe.
The way forward is to mandate a return to basics.Replace the flight manager with the traditional pilot,make manual flying with T scan and no FD manadatory,teach pilots to calculate and follow their own profile below 100 without ref to the magenta line or FMC.Teach them to fly again.These skills deteriorate quickly if not used.
Make SOP's and this QAR monitoring programme servants of the flight deck again,not the master.Pilots afraid to fly because of infringing SOP's or being hung out to dry by the QAR monitoring team are counter-productive yet theyre hailed as pro-safety.People cant see the forest for the trees.
When you see the video of this overrun or read the Air India Express accident you wonder just what the hell has happened to the industry.Where are the skills gone?Wheres the judgment gone?Who's teaching these guys to make such basic errors?
So many accidents prove the woeful state of the industry and more are waiting to happen.The AF and Buffalo crash where the pilot pulled instead of pushed,the Congonhas disaster where a pilot didnt notice that one of his engines was in CLIMB THRUST on landing,the Turkish AMS crash where pilots didnt monitor their number one flight parameter(airspeed),the countless overruns from India to Indonesia to Europe.
The way forward is to mandate a return to basics.Replace the flight manager with the traditional pilot,make manual flying with T scan and no FD manadatory,teach pilots to calculate and follow their own profile below 100 without ref to the magenta line or FMC.Teach them to fly again.These skills deteriorate quickly if not used.
Make SOP's and this QAR monitoring programme servants of the flight deck again,not the master.Pilots afraid to fly because of infringing SOP's or being hung out to dry by the QAR monitoring team are counter-productive yet theyre hailed as pro-safety.People cant see the forest for the trees.
When you see the video of this overrun or read the Air India Express accident you wonder just what the hell has happened to the industry.Where are the skills gone?Wheres the judgment gone?Who's teaching these guys to make such basic errors?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture this: You as a professional pilot are sitting at 18F with a great view of the clean wing as you are clearly too close to the ground for that configuration. What do you do? Do you make a fuss like you would if there was contamination left on the wing when starting the pushback or do you just close your eyes and adopt the crash position...?
Difficult isnīt it? Perhaps there is a situation warranting the non-normal configuration? But surely the commander would have informed the passengers of the non-normal situation to prepare the for the possibility of over-run, hot brakes making them stay on the runway after landing, etc etc, or?
Difficult isnīt it? Perhaps there is a situation warranting the non-normal configuration? But surely the commander would have informed the passengers of the non-normal situation to prepare the for the possibility of over-run, hot brakes making them stay on the runway after landing, etc etc, or?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim,
Maybe SOME airlines do not authorize manual flying and raw data, but those with standards DO encourage raw data flying.
Any airline forbidding this in their SOP is a danger in the air. simple as that.
Maybe SOME airlines do not authorize manual flying and raw data, but those with standards DO encourage raw data flying.
Any airline forbidding this in their SOP is a danger in the air. simple as that.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with a previous poster,for I spent the whole of my initial flying career being informed runway behind you was a complete waste of concrete,so always a piano keys touchdown,was the correct recovery.When I had to go back to school and get my licences,it came with quite a shock to find there was a 300 metres sterile touch down area,which was now behind the socalled ILS Touchdown Point.However I was very relieved to find on my Command Training with a full load into Humberside ,it was SOP to deselect the ILS to stop the dreaded "To Low" and flying a nice safe approach and landing.Of course this was only when in full sight of the runway and confirmed able to land!!Again when on a 737,albeit 300 series,the Training Captain decided to have a bet on being able to pull off a landing at BMX 33 with an OM speed of 160Kts,I took him up on it and very red faced he opted to ask for an orbit to try again!!Familiarity tends to breed contempt,but when Manual Flying is now so frowned upon,it seems to me hand flyng should be much more of a priority,both in the Sim and Line Training.In a previous Airline it was the norm on Line Training to fly a visual approach on Finals at 3000 ft 210kts and only when the threshold was on the tip of the nose,reduce everything and stuka it down at 140 Kts and land within the normal touchdown parameters.You had to have a very Pilot Friendly Aircraft to achieve that which the 146 was in those days!!73s have to flown within the confines of a stabilised approach,even older ones.Pilots these days must be rigorously shown the results of not adhering to the appropiate Approach Profile for the Weight and Temperature and Landing Runway Available,so that it is forever hoisted into their skulls.Then these unfortunate incidents that bring us all into disrepute,would not happen.Do they not teach simulated double engine failure glide approaches,and flapless so the youngsters get the feel of such that can happen for real??That is when runway behind you is of NO use at all!!!!!!This relates to a time nearly 25 years ago,when Aircraft on the ground or just out of maintenance were used by Trainers for Training on Type in the air,with a hot shoe shuffle amonst Trainee Crews aboard! .We were given first hand experience of the full flight envelope of the aircraft,not just shown it in the Sim,hence the fact hoisted in the memory banks that 160 kts at the OM with little wind would not make a good recovery in 10 tenths blue!!That fact stuck!That also bred confidence on Type with which subsequent First Officers could be given confidence in handling,which now seems rare!!On the QFIs course we were told"Never Put Your Student In Awe Of His Aeroplane"This might stir some thoughts by some Training Captains that insist in trying to terrorise their captive audience in the Sim!Furthermore the incident at Humberside was 3 reds 1 white which in full visual conditions I would still maintain is fine,if it can reduce brake temps and make a smoother arrival,than a controlled dumping on the ground,followed by max braking and reverse 300 metres in.If you cant produce a spot landing from a visual approach ,and you cant assess high or low key points with an engine out landing,and you should not be in the seat.The early days of the CF Fan Engine 737s the richter scale frequently went past 4.1 ,which was a precautionary shutdown as I remember,and after Kegworth Full Engine out recoveries were taught by other Airlines!
Last edited by FAStoat; 28th Jun 2013 at 20:59.
Fastoat,
Your above post shows extremely poor judgement and a distinct lack of professionalism. It is totally unacceptable to deliberately duck below the glide and by definition ignore the PAPIs and go into the reds just to land short, or to try and make an earlier exit. You either have the required landing distance or you don't.
As for you and a Training Captain having a bet on who can "pull off" a landing from an approach that subsequently caused a go around I am amazed that such attitudes still exist on the flight deck.
Your above post shows extremely poor judgement and a distinct lack of professionalism. It is totally unacceptable to deliberately duck below the glide and by definition ignore the PAPIs and go into the reds just to land short, or to try and make an earlier exit. You either have the required landing distance or you don't.
As for you and a Training Captain having a bet on who can "pull off" a landing from an approach that subsequently caused a go around I am amazed that such attitudes still exist on the flight deck.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: ATLANTIS
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ducking below PAPI and GS normally makes a shallower approach, touching down later and leaving less space to stop...
However, it was not the case here, since the aircraft was never in the landing configuration in the first place.
Flying along the white tower it should have been already in a steady flap 5 transition to flap 15 landing gear down....
I can not understand why they did not abort this approach!
Clearly there is really something wrong with AMC standards and or training!
I wonder what the HCAA is going to do about this?? And finally if it is not time to put this outfit on the EU-Blacklist!
I hope ASTRA very soon quits the wet-lease, before they get in real trouble!
However, it was not the case here, since the aircraft was never in the landing configuration in the first place.
Flying along the white tower it should have been already in a steady flap 5 transition to flap 15 landing gear down....
I can not understand why they did not abort this approach!
Clearly there is really something wrong with AMC standards and or training!
I wonder what the HCAA is going to do about this?? And finally if it is not time to put this outfit on the EU-Blacklist!
I hope ASTRA very soon quits the wet-lease, before they get in real trouble!
Controversial, moi?
I second Airbrake's post above.
Also above Ranamin wrote:
Which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the system is for and is actually complete tosh. I can only speak for my own airline who I believe pioneered the system when I say that no pilot fears infringing SOPs because of the system nor is anyone ever 'hung out to dry by the monitoring team' not least because the only person able to identify and contact a pilot of a flight which was flagged by the system is the BALPA rep!
As an aid to flight safety it has proved invaluable in identifying trends long before they cause an incident. Each month each fleet pilot representative publishes a synopsis of the more notable events for that fleet. If rushed approaches or deep landings feature emphasis will be made on the importance of both stable approaches and landing in the right place. It creates an awareness deigned to avoid just such situations as we saw at Thessonaliki.
Also above Ranamin wrote:
Pilots afraid to fly because of infringing SOP's or being hung out to dry by the QAR monitoring team are counter-productive yet theyre(sic) hailed as pro-safety.
As an aid to flight safety it has proved invaluable in identifying trends long before they cause an incident. Each month each fleet pilot representative publishes a synopsis of the more notable events for that fleet. If rushed approaches or deep landings feature emphasis will be made on the importance of both stable approaches and landing in the right place. It creates an awareness deigned to avoid just such situations as we saw at Thessonaliki.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not honest
Previous poster is disingenuous.QAR abuse and SOP overkill are directly proportionate to automation-reliance and for obvious reasons.The more you hamstring a crew,the less free they will feel to fly and risk losing their job by busting a parameter.Maybe it doesnt happen in BA(although Ive never ever heard a Nigel offer to do a visual to alleviate the queue behind them..why is that I wonder?)but QAR's have been used to punish/intimidate/even fire crews worldwide.
It is actually rampant in Asia.
It is actually rampant in Asia.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: toulouse
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is acceptable to disregards Papi at latest stage
It is totally unacceptable to deliberately duck below the glide and by definition ignore the PAPIs and go into the reds just to land short, or to try and make an earlier exit. You either have the required landing distance or you don't.
if you go all the way down 2 whites 2 reds, you will land beyond aiming point most of the time. So the point you are targeting 120nm away, the point to where is ending your descent profile may be missed and all your landing calculations a bit useless.
a good landing is on speed, aiming point, centreline, in g factor.
I don t mean that you need to dive 4 reds, i just mean put your aircraft on hte aiming point
Last edited by tony montana; 29th Jun 2013 at 10:59.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
PAPI's can be set for different eye heights - a B747 isnt going to see the same as a Citation. They are useful as a guide from someway out but <250' they can become misleading. What they are useful for though is that they are ABEAM the aiming point so provided you keep that aiming point in the same place in your windscreen then you should arrive at the threshold at the correct height (50'AGL) ready to commence your flare.
This is basic stuff - people that chase the PAPI's <300' are setting themselves up for a fall - just keep it stable, with minimal control inputs. A GLANCE in at the V/S should CONFIRM that ROD is on target - don't try to chase or "set" V/S!
Sorry for the thread creep.
A4
This is basic stuff - people that chase the PAPI's <300' are setting themselves up for a fall - just keep it stable, with minimal control inputs. A GLANCE in at the V/S should CONFIRM that ROD is on target - don't try to chase or "set" V/S!
Sorry for the thread creep.
A4