Below the GS at SFO again

[RAT 5]

Now I admit I know nothing of the required training or checking of a cruise ship/tanker skipper when being up-graded to command; but I suspect there are some very interesting practical manoeuvres to be assessed. I would expect them to be assessed docking a large boat with difficult tide & wind elements and perhaps at night. All good mark 1 eyeball stuff with a 'touch' for the task. If I was a CP/DFO etc. I would like to think my captains could be put 30nm out on finals, visual, 7000', 250kts being kind I'd allow a DME and I'd expect them to make a CDA to land. I'd also expect them to be overhead 4000' 210kts and make a visual descending circuit with no PAPI's etc.again as CDA. If you can't do the most basic of manoeuvres I don't want you in command of one of my a/c: you are not a true pilot.
Many years ago I knew of such CP/DFO's. I never rose to the lofty heights, preferring training, but I loved working for those guys. Those days are long gone. WHY? Someone quoted the analogy of the trainee track driver and reversing an 'artic' into the loading bay at night after the auto-parking system was u/s. Spot on. Some else quoted that the automatics are there to reduce workload not replace you. Spot on.
It's sad when I met some cadets, privileged, going to the national airline flight school. I sensed their motivation as not for flying, but easy bucks at an early age; a guaranteed easy-ish life with bigger bucks and a luscious pension quite early in life. They would be great SOP disciples, flashing fingers on the CDU, charmers of the cabin crew and pax, and good ambassadors for the company. Pilots when the chips were down; suspect. It made me question the selection criteria. When I read the parameters on an application form for a national legacy carrier it makes me cringe. They're are asking for the wrong people.
NASA says modern pilots are finding difficulties in adapting to being monitors of automatics. One answer might be to change the type of person sitting up front. It is not necessary to be a university wizz-kid, super people manager, to be a pilot. There are much more basic elements required. Have they lost the plot? The training/checking standards need re-assessing, but perhaps there is more to consider.

[junebug172]

Monitoring automation is easy. It's when it fails or does something you don't expect that the trouble starts.

[RAT 5]

Monitoring automation is easy. It's when it fails or does something you don't expect that the trouble starts.

Firstly, NASA disagrees with the first comment, so they are researching other solutions, but perhaps in the wrong direction: the second brings me back to the requirements of basic training, both simulator & LT. Simulator should focus on learning to FLY the BEAST and a bit of operating; LT should be focused on OPERATING the BEAST and consolidating some of the flying skills.

The TQ training and LT training has removed too much of the flying bit and airmanship has all but disappeared. SOP's have replaced airmanship. There needs to be a quantum shift. What will be the motivating factor, and who will bite the bullet?

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by OK

The bridge is the logical landmark to prescribe a recommended altitude on a visual to clear the 1500' top, in this case by at least 400'. It is a convenient guideline.

- thank you for a detailed post. I agree with what you say, but I still feel the restriction on the 'visual' is unnecessary. I asked a similar question of SFO ATC on the ATC forum but received no answer. I cannot see why 400' clearance is required on a visual but not on an RNAV. The 'assessed' collision risk must be the same, surely?

The RNAV plots 1800 at 5.5 from touchdown, (the bridge is around 5, so logically about 1650 at the bridge) but the visual for some reason asks for 1900 at the bridge. Why?

I actually think the charts are bizarre. A 2.85 slope (RNAV) crosses DUYET (given as 5.7 from threshold) while the ILS (3 degrees) crosses DUYET INT at 1800' at 5.5 miles from touchdown, so one assumes DUYET and DUYET INT are not the same point. Just to make it real fun, the visual suggests I-SFO (loc/DME) for vertical guidance (at 3 degrees, which 1900 isn't) and then charts SFO DME.....

Was there some sort of 'recreational' event going on when these were drawn up? San Franciso, and all that.........................

[olasek]

for some reason asks for 1900 at the bridge. Why?

Simple - it is done for noise abatement.
The idea is that if you fly in visual conditions you can endure slightly steeper approach and reduce noise footprint.

[BOAC]

Not what the chart says!

[RAT 5]

Simple - it is done for noise abatement.

If you fly an idle thrust CDA low noise, low fuel, low drag what difference does a hundred feet make. Red herring.

[OK465]

A 2.85 slope (RNAV) crosses DUYET (given as 5.7 from threshold) while the ILS (3 degrees) crosses DUYET INT at 1800' at 5.5 miles from touchdown,

I noticed this also.

If you look at the chart Amendment dates, perhaps the RNAV distance has been updated for the new threshold and the ILS hasn't since it won't be serviceable until 22 Aug.

The 1900' doesn't bother me....but I'm not easily bothered.

[BOAC]

OK - Close, but no cigar...... runway lengths unchanged?

The 1900' doesn't bother me....but I'm not easily bothered.

- me neither, except for 'why'?

[bugg smasher]

BOAC, if you examine the VFR sectional chart for the area, you will see San Carlos airport just to the south of the San Mateo bridge. It is a reasonably busy general aviation strip, its traffic pattern altitude is listed as 805' MSL.

1900' puts you a rounded-up 1000' above the San Carlos traffic pattern, which complies with the 3-mile lateral/1000' vertical approach separation criteria.

[White None]

NASA wrong!

Thanks Junebug for your:-

Monitoring automation is easy

Now that you've explained it, no doubt NASA will publish your studies? OR maybe you mean ... WATCHING automation is easy, which is of course the whole point

[aviatorhi]

I'm gonna say the 90 degree right turn requires more coordination than the 20 degree left turn.

[olasek]

This is not about the number of degrees, it is about how much space/time you have left. A 10 degree turn in this case would not be much easier. If you were a real pilot you would appreciate the difficulty.

[bubbers44]

Unforturnately real pilots are retiring now.

[westhawk]

Every generation has said that Bubbers!

I started out in a /A Westwind and flew via airways, NDB and VOR NPAs by the "dive and drive" method but never got to fly a four course approach. Then I flew glass and GPS with direct anywhere and approaches with baro VNAV. We flew into some pretty fun mountain airports along with the routine ones and often enough in some interesting conditions. Never boring and every flight a new adventure. When you're long gone my generation will be saying the same as you and then it'll be my turn. Then the next guys. Keeps going, progress I guess...

[T-21]

All this about certain heights over bridges increasing the workload. On a visual approach fundamental piloting skills No.1 Am I going to make the runway touch down point ? check height/speed, keep checking back to gliding days. Simples

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by bugg smasher

which complies with the 3-mile lateral/1000' vertical approach separation

- yes, but what happens to that on an RNAV-visual?

[White None]

Lotta talk about bridges on plates various. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I absolutely acknowledge that I may be), but unless at SFO you are specifically told to fly the Quiet Bridge, (Night) or the Tip Toe, there's no actual legal procedural requirement to adhere to any height. Clearly the three times table approach is what one should then do and I've only been "Cleared for the Visual" from a position approximating a decent descent profile but I really think the guys with Micrometers, Slide Rules and Whizzwheels are acting on a false assumption. I Viz approached to 28L a week after Asiana and the ATIS just said Expect Viz Appr RWY 28L/R, none of the CVAs mentioned, although I have on occasion seen/heard it. Thoughts?

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by OK465

From 1900' this equates to about a 3.4 degree approach slope, not some unmanageable 'dive' that Bloggs equated it to. Your folks and others do this every week at San Diego....with a 3.5 degree PAPI.

Don't misquote me: I didn't say it was unmanageable. If you have the skills and training, it would be perfectly manageable. You aces can't understand what may have been going through their heads, can you? Bla Bla bla much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth useless Asians etc etc etc but not much "gee, maybe there were factors which made this hard for them... ".

One possibility is that, if they were using a 3 x profile (or had set up a 3° visual slope in their FMS) then come up to the bridge/5, 5.4-whatever nm and remembered they'd have to maintain 1900ft until passing the bridge, they would naturally have to reduce the descent rate until passing it, therefore going high. 3.4° (OK465's number) is at least 3 whites on the PAPI, going into 4 if they didn't immediately clip that 1900ft step. Is it any wonder they ended up low at 3.8nm, trying to correct back to two whites?

The relevance of San Diego's 3.5° PAPI to an EVA crew would be what exactly? I used to do 400ft/nm NPAs in a jet. Do I get a medal too?

I stand to be corrected on this (I'm on the other side of the world) but another possible factor is the sun. If they approached at 2100 PDT, the sun at that time was about... 3.8° above the horizon bearing 278°. They would have been battling to see much at all on final, let alone the runway or the PAPI.

Bugg, thank you for your kind comments. I've probably done more visual approaches than you've had breakfasts. And I don't own MS Flight Sim.

[BARKINGMAD]

RECRUITING

RAT5 posting 121 and later, I totally agree!

Would there be a connection between some of our current woes regarding pilot suitability and that awful day when HR (Human Remains) took over the selection of aircrew, having wrested control away from those who knew something about the profession.

The inmates are running the asylum, and even wore news is that they've got the keys to the pharmacy?!!

Any chance of reversing this awful trend and how do we regain control over what types will function in the flight decks of the future?