Below the GS at SFO again
I did a lot of longhaul flying. In my day, there were three of us on the flight deck; two pilots and a flight engineer. There is no doubt that an eastbound LAX to LGW (for example) was sometimes a bit of a struggle but we coped with the time shift etc and always got the job done.
Then they invented two pilot aeroplanes and got rid of the flight engineer. Unfortunately, they had to replace him with another pilot and he as often as not had four rings on his sleeve so was probably more expensive to employ.
Then it had to be sorted out (by the management) "who did what and when" and so company procedures were set up (think AF447) whereby the captain had to take to the bunks two hours after take-off whether he felt tired or not and a complete roster was set up for when the entire crew had to sleep whether they felt like it or not.
It is simply not possible to sleep when ordered to by company SOPs any more than it is possible to order anyone to have 8 hours good sleep before a flight.
Then some airlines introduced a fourth pilot. Speaking personally, this must be a rostering nightmare.
It seems to me that having four pilots on a heavy crew probably results in all four of them being totally knackered at the end of the flight!
Finally, perhaps I didn't read the preliminary report correctly, but did it not say that the guy in the left seat of the Asiana 777 reported to the airport six hours before departure? Why? I can understand two hours but this chap must have been buggered before he took the park brake off.
Then they invented two pilot aeroplanes and got rid of the flight engineer. Unfortunately, they had to replace him with another pilot and he as often as not had four rings on his sleeve so was probably more expensive to employ.
Then it had to be sorted out (by the management) "who did what and when" and so company procedures were set up (think AF447) whereby the captain had to take to the bunks two hours after take-off whether he felt tired or not and a complete roster was set up for when the entire crew had to sleep whether they felt like it or not.
It is simply not possible to sleep when ordered to by company SOPs any more than it is possible to order anyone to have 8 hours good sleep before a flight.
Then some airlines introduced a fourth pilot. Speaking personally, this must be a rostering nightmare.
It seems to me that having four pilots on a heavy crew probably results in all four of them being totally knackered at the end of the flight!
Finally, perhaps I didn't read the preliminary report correctly, but did it not say that the guy in the left seat of the Asiana 777 reported to the airport six hours before departure? Why? I can understand two hours but this chap must have been buggered before he took the park brake off.
Last edited by JW411; 1st Aug 2013 at 14:27.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that this visual approach stuff is just a red herring. I am wondering if these are cases of instrument approaches(regardless of what the clearance was) that happened to have been flown in visual conditions and errors were made, but the same errors would have happened regardless of the weather.
Similarly, if you know ATC is just ITCHING to give you a visual, when he asks if you have XYZ in sight, say "negative" and if he says, "report it in sight," say, "Roger," and just wait, sooner or later he has to clear for some sort of instrument approach.
But...........proof positive that "new-age-workarounds" ARE the order of the day!
A quite frightening 'epiphany' for those of us in the back rows, frankly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little reminder that Asian airlines employ a lot of western pilots . So that KAL 747 could've been flown by a western pilot. The erring EVA flight could have been flown by a western pilot. My last EVA 77W landing at SFO , the Captain was most definitely western.
Many are inner racists with the Asians can't fly (possibly because they can't drive either) belief. And no doubt there are many Asians who should not be doing either. But don't forget there are many western drivers and pilots who perhaps shouldn't as well.
There are many cases of western pilots who stuffed it up. Just as many as there were asian ones who did the same.
To recap the Asiana crash seems to have been a case which included:
1. Pilots who thought they were able to land on a beautiful windless day onto a long runway visually, but in fact were proven to be unable to do so. Possibly because of:
a. fatigue
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).
2. The EVA crew who were generally agreed to be way too low? We can cut and paste the above from a to f.
But it could be that the pilots of today are often much less capable at hand flying then before and are less able pilots, many of them. Due to lack of proper training and/or lack of practice?
They are becoming like BART train operators who just watch and don't actually operate the trains perhaps.
Many are inner racists with the Asians can't fly (possibly because they can't drive either) belief. And no doubt there are many Asians who should not be doing either. But don't forget there are many western drivers and pilots who perhaps shouldn't as well.
There are many cases of western pilots who stuffed it up. Just as many as there were asian ones who did the same.
To recap the Asiana crash seems to have been a case which included:
1. Pilots who thought they were able to land on a beautiful windless day onto a long runway visually, but in fact were proven to be unable to do so. Possibly because of:
a. fatigue
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).
2. The EVA crew who were generally agreed to be way too low? We can cut and paste the above from a to f.
But it could be that the pilots of today are often much less capable at hand flying then before and are less able pilots, many of them. Due to lack of proper training and/or lack of practice?
They are becoming like BART train operators who just watch and don't actually operate the trains perhaps.
Last edited by armchairpilot94116; 1st Aug 2013 at 16:07.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armchair,
How does one not get trained to do a visual? I thought that was covered in PPL lesson 1?
I can accept that one needs to learn energy management on each new type. That would require some experience. However their problem was not energy management. They failed to look at the runway and the ASI. Planes get vectored in high and fast all the time, without landing short.
The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots. That's the sort of mistake I'd expect a 20hr student pilot to make before solo. Not 20,000 hrs worth of "pilots".
How does one not get trained to do a visual? I thought that was covered in PPL lesson 1?
I can accept that one needs to learn energy management on each new type. That would require some experience. However their problem was not energy management. They failed to look at the runway and the ASI. Planes get vectored in high and fast all the time, without landing short.
The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots. That's the sort of mistake I'd expect a 20hr student pilot to make before solo. Not 20,000 hrs worth of "pilots".
Last edited by Check Airman; 1st Aug 2013 at 17:19.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless."
Well I am not now a private pilot, but when I was I flew out of an airport with a seawall - still do actually - and did not ever hit the thing. When I got my commercial I continued on not hitting it
Well I am not now a private pilot, but when I was I flew out of an airport with a seawall - still do actually - and did not ever hit the thing. When I got my commercial I continued on not hitting it
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sir, I'm assuming that you pretty much have been operating only in domestic setting (let's not count CUN), and not in a wide body aircraft with a worldwide route structure, that's why I made the rebuttal about short haul guys proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual, of course the are!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point was long-haul pilots are liable to be half-awake and need to let otto do the flying.
Seriously - if you really are rusty and half-awake, UNABLE is a magic word to use at least in the USA.
Seriously - if you really are rusty and half-awake, UNABLE is a magic word to use at least in the USA.
Last edited by island_airphoto; 1st Aug 2013 at 19:44.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridge (the original one)
Age: 76
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it doesn't seem extensively automated.
There is no yoke on Airbuses at all, they used sidesticks and there is quite a bit of handflying in this clip. If I understand it right, they disable the autothrottle and handfly power towards the end of the approach.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
There is no yoke on Airbuses at all, they used sidesticks and there is quite a bit of handflying in this clip. If I understand it right, they disable the autothrottle and handfly power towards the end of the approach.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally Posted by Check Airman and your armchair mate
The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots.
They had probably done the absolute minimum hours as a bugsmasher pilot. A Cessna visual is nothing like a 777 visual. Of course the principles are the same, but then so is your Corolla and an F1.
They need far more sim training/line experience doing visual approaches or they get banned for these operators.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All ATP and lower check rides require the pilot to do a precision approach, a non precision approach and a visual approach with no electronic guidance. Anybody that can't fails. This is of course at least one with an engine out. At least one engine out ILS is always hand flown in our country along with the visual approach. We do this to make our aviation safe with qualified crews.
We should not exempt foreign airlines because they can't meet these minimal standards. Every pilot flying an airplane should be able to do this easily.
The FAA requiring foreign carriers to not do visual approaches is unfair to the airlines that meet these standards but how do we determine which airlines can and which can't?
We have been shown which can't but I know of a lot of foreign carriers that can meet these standards easily.
We should not exempt foreign airlines because they can't meet these minimal standards. Every pilot flying an airplane should be able to do this easily.
The FAA requiring foreign carriers to not do visual approaches is unfair to the airlines that meet these standards but how do we determine which airlines can and which can't?
We have been shown which can't but I know of a lot of foreign carriers that can meet these standards easily.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs:7972327
Originally Posted by Check Airman and your armchair mate
The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots.
They had probably done the absolute minimum hours as a bugsmasher pilot. A Cessna visual is nothing like a 777 visual. Of course the principles are the same, but then so is your Corolla and an F1.
They need far more sim training/line experience doing visual approaches or they get banned for these operators.
I don't know how the airline training is at fault when an airline pilot can't recognize and recover from a low and slow situation. At a bare minimum, they had the following tools at their disposal:
PAPI
DME
FMS distance
FPA
Altimeter
ASI trend vector
With the information they had available, 100hr pilot would probably experience information overload. Are people suggesting that a VISUAL approach is a difficult task with all that information?
We've all been unstable on final before. We've also all been low and slow at some point. I'm not knocking them for that. What's unacceptable is their inability to recognize and recover from the situation in an airplane with all the bells and whistles functioning normally.
I don't know how the airline training is at fault when an airline pilot can't recognize and recover from a low and slow situation.
You hit the nail on the head when you said:
The rest (meaning Vis Apps) were on the line.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Unsettled
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. fatigue
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).
Punitive action or negative training leads to pilots sticking to the SOP for dear life in fear of being blamed or punished for any potential error that could be traced back to not following the SOP 100%.
Your point e. is major contributor. If pilots ignore that and the OFDM shows they disconnected at 10,000 feet and ended up in a go-around the blame will be put squarely on them. Maybe all the way up to demotion or dismissal.
In my opinion this is always overlooked. People make mistakes because they try to stick to SOP's up to the point where they enter a situation where the SOP can no longer save you.
I've seen negative training in all layers of my flight career and it is slowly destroying good pilots everywhere.
With the information they had available, 100hr pilot would probably experience information overload. Are people suggesting that a VISUAL approach is a difficult task with all that information?
At the end of the day it would be a walk in the park if they ( visuals) were practiced every now and again. If the pilots regularly had to arrange a message from their brain to be sent to the hand that's on the thrust levers that would become instinctive as well. Constant use of automatics removes the instinctive element that those of us who hand fly have.
Last edited by framer; 2nd Aug 2013 at 10:15.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have operated into SFO many times from Seoul when with SQ and usually with just one Captain and two F/O's and with the other Captain who is required for the return sector ( because of the winds ) sitting in First Class enjoying his meals and Champagne. Sometimes that was me other times it was the other Captain.
The two F/O's took turns in the bunk but I if the operating Captain had to sit there the whole flight.
Why I hear you ask was the other Captain not sharing the flying as he was on board?? Simple because if not operating he would be on 50% Flight Pay so SQ saves a few bucks.
The two F/O's took turns in the bunk but I if the operating Captain had to sit there the whole flight.
Why I hear you ask was the other Captain not sharing the flying as he was on board?? Simple because if not operating he would be on 50% Flight Pay so SQ saves a few bucks.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 37
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
millerscourt,
I am just an interested observer of this thread, but your post was so intriguing to me that I had to comment. I hope you don't mind.
You say that the other Captain, who would be required for the return sector would be in First "enjoying means and Champagne". Wouldn't it be prudent for that Captain, even if not part of the operating crew, to abstain from the alcohol? The logic of this to me seems to be that even though he wasn't operating, if anything did occur, I imagine that the operating crew would value his input up front. And also, that he himself having a vested interest in the safe conduct of the flight, would want to be in a position to do that. Or have I just missed some sarcasm?
I want to add again that I am an interested observer and I am not, nor ever will be a qualified pilot.
Thanks.
I am just an interested observer of this thread, but your post was so intriguing to me that I had to comment. I hope you don't mind.
You say that the other Captain, who would be required for the return sector would be in First "enjoying means and Champagne". Wouldn't it be prudent for that Captain, even if not part of the operating crew, to abstain from the alcohol? The logic of this to me seems to be that even though he wasn't operating, if anything did occur, I imagine that the operating crew would value his input up front. And also, that he himself having a vested interest in the safe conduct of the flight, would want to be in a position to do that. Or have I just missed some sarcasm?
I want to add again that I am an interested observer and I am not, nor ever will be a qualified pilot.
Thanks.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donīt know if they calculated manually, ever thought about that they simply mixed up 3 degrees GS with 3%? Would fit quite well:
regular GS at 3,8NM= 1.200 ft agl
3% GS = 693 ft agl
regular GS at 3,8NM= 1.200 ft agl
3% GS = 693 ft agl
Last edited by MissedApp; 2nd Aug 2013 at 15:20.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CXHep
Aircraft these days are designed as two crew so only two crew are required ie a Captain and a First Officer.
Extra crew are only required for those flights over a certain length of time.
The extra Captain was a passenger the same as everyone else on board. No doubt in an emergency he might be required to have an input as in the DC10 crash some years ago but that would be unofficial.
Most flights under 12 hours only have two crew so they have to be capable of sorting things out themselves.
I believe in this SFO incident there were four crew in the cockpit as was the case with an EK A340 at Melbourne some years ago so extra numbers do not always equate to extra safety.
Aircraft these days are designed as two crew so only two crew are required ie a Captain and a First Officer.
Extra crew are only required for those flights over a certain length of time.
The extra Captain was a passenger the same as everyone else on board. No doubt in an emergency he might be required to have an input as in the DC10 crash some years ago but that would be unofficial.
Most flights under 12 hours only have two crew so they have to be capable of sorting things out themselves.
I believe in this SFO incident there were four crew in the cockpit as was the case with an EK A340 at Melbourne some years ago so extra numbers do not always equate to extra safety.