Below the GS at SFO again
Ban? Rubbish.
- yes, but what happens to that on an RNAV-visua
Bans? What bans? You guys ever heard of sub-editors?
The article said:
the FAA is assigning alternate instrument approaches to all foreign carriers
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA tightened up on "foreign" carriers another notch, no longer allowing them to land alongside another plane at KSFO "to minimize distractions during a critical phase of flight."
FAA puts more restrictions on foreign jets at SFO
FAA puts more restrictions on foreign jets at SFO
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last the FAA are getting it, something SFO ATC and you guys who fly in there regularly don't:
If you send a couple of pilots in a widebody across the Pacific for 13 hours being rattled to death by turbulence so you can't sleep, then send them in high on the glide at 90 deg to the runway, head to head with a puddle jumper for 28R and say cleared the visual 28L, stay behind the learjet 2 miles in front, what's going to happen?
999 times out of 1000, the pilot will get a bit hot and sweaty - it's his first visual for 2 years and only his 20th landing in the last 12 months but he'll get the job done with a landing we can all walk away from. Once in a hundred there'll be a few more holes in the cheese (1st time into SFO / minimal hours on type etc) and he won't. It's the sort of challenge I'd relish at the end of a 2 hour daylight sector but at the end of a long haul it's a significant threat.
SFO have been carrying on business as usual so the regulator have had to step in, it's about time IMHO.
If you send a couple of pilots in a widebody across the Pacific for 13 hours being rattled to death by turbulence so you can't sleep, then send them in high on the glide at 90 deg to the runway, head to head with a puddle jumper for 28R and say cleared the visual 28L, stay behind the learjet 2 miles in front, what's going to happen?
999 times out of 1000, the pilot will get a bit hot and sweaty - it's his first visual for 2 years and only his 20th landing in the last 12 months but he'll get the job done with a landing we can all walk away from. Once in a hundred there'll be a few more holes in the cheese (1st time into SFO / minimal hours on type etc) and he won't. It's the sort of challenge I'd relish at the end of a 2 hour daylight sector but at the end of a long haul it's a significant threat.
SFO have been carrying on business as usual so the regulator have had to step in, it's about time IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this misunderstood PC at work, applying the changes to all foreign airlines? I am sure there are plenty of foreign airlines that have no issues at all with those visual approaches.
Some maybe more sensible ways to still be PC:
- apply the restrictions per airline bases on statistics of past landings
- apply the restrictions on all flights from east Asia (including US carriers) based on the notion that it must be early morning for the pilots' body clocks (whereas it would be around midnight for flights coming in from Europe)
Some maybe more sensible ways to still be PC:
- apply the restrictions per airline bases on statistics of past landings
- apply the restrictions on all flights from east Asia (including US carriers) based on the notion that it must be early morning for the pilots' body clocks (whereas it would be around midnight for flights coming in from Europe)
Is it true that at one stage, certain carriers were only permitted to land in continental USA if they had a western pilot on the crew? Or is this a myth?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading some commentary on our union board about the differences in cockpit culture between USA and some other countries, it is clear the difficulties with the visual approaches are the result of that very cockpit culture.
I read from a colleague in Japan, that visual approaches are not issued over there: rather, a visual approach is an FMC procedure that is required to be flown with remarkable precision - on the magenta line, that is. 1500AGL on downwind. Flaps must be at 15 and gear down at the midpoint. Flaps 30 when abeam the end, and clock is started. Base turn not started until 35 seconds on the clock. Do not descend below 1500 or the calculation changes. Turn trend indicator must align with the extended centerline. At that point, one can finally look outside and make adjustments.
Reading this stuff, it is no surprise then that these folks have a difficult time here in the US with, "Cleared for the visual, maintain 170 or greater to 5 miles, call tower at the marker, see ya."
It appears that the training there tends to focus more on automation, whereas here we are conditioned from day one to "fly the plane" with automation as a good backup. My personal opinion is that some of these foreign airlines are hiring very young/inexperienced cadets and believe that using the automation makes up for the inexperience... Whereas your typical US major airline candidate already has thousands of hours of airline/military/civilian flying.
That said, I must point out that, despite our training differences, we've had more than our share of pilot error botched approaches/landings/CFIT accidents even with all the experience and "hands-on" philosophy. Hence my constant signature line, It can happen to any of us!
I read from a colleague in Japan, that visual approaches are not issued over there: rather, a visual approach is an FMC procedure that is required to be flown with remarkable precision - on the magenta line, that is. 1500AGL on downwind. Flaps must be at 15 and gear down at the midpoint. Flaps 30 when abeam the end, and clock is started. Base turn not started until 35 seconds on the clock. Do not descend below 1500 or the calculation changes. Turn trend indicator must align with the extended centerline. At that point, one can finally look outside and make adjustments.
Reading this stuff, it is no surprise then that these folks have a difficult time here in the US with, "Cleared for the visual, maintain 170 or greater to 5 miles, call tower at the marker, see ya."
It appears that the training there tends to focus more on automation, whereas here we are conditioned from day one to "fly the plane" with automation as a good backup. My personal opinion is that some of these foreign airlines are hiring very young/inexperienced cadets and believe that using the automation makes up for the inexperience... Whereas your typical US major airline candidate already has thousands of hours of airline/military/civilian flying.
That said, I must point out that, despite our training differences, we've had more than our share of pilot error botched approaches/landings/CFIT accidents even with all the experience and "hands-on" philosophy. Hence my constant signature line, It can happen to any of us!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: On the couch
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC can't force a visual on you. You have to have the preceding traffic or, if there is no preceding traffic, the airport in sight. If you don't want a visual, don't say you have it in sight.
It's a lot of fun to play with ATC if you know how. For example, if cleared for a GPS approach, and it offends you as a professional because you know it is only because you're a foreign airline, simply accept the GPS approach but fly the final approach visually. There's no way ATC will be any the wiser.
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.
Another thing, if cleared for a visual, there's nothing that says you can't use an approach in your box.
I understand getting all sweaty if you're running out of gas or there's a whole bunch of bad weather all around or something, but sweating because of a clearance??? I don't get it.
If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
It's a lot of fun to play with ATC if you know how. For example, if cleared for a GPS approach, and it offends you as a professional because you know it is only because you're a foreign airline, simply accept the GPS approach but fly the final approach visually. There's no way ATC will be any the wiser.
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.
Another thing, if cleared for a visual, there's nothing that says you can't use an approach in your box.
I understand getting all sweaty if you're running out of gas or there's a whole bunch of bad weather all around or something, but sweating because of a clearance??? I don't get it.
If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
Unforturnately real pilots are retiring now.
in a wide body, pulled the power to idle at FL350 and energy managed with a beautiful pass down 7 mile beach until finally adding power to stabilize on the glide path at 1000 afl ( any legal sedatives for you automation lovers reading this? ), and also doing the same with a 777 with the FD, AP or AT.
There is a problem maintaining VFR bfm skills with many wide body crews. Many obviously operate only to places like LHR, JFK or NRT where hand flying is basically very tough to practice safely outside short final. Despite my rant above, I surely never practiced hand flying in the hold at Ockham after being awake all night with a Speedbird heavy above and a Virgin heavy below.
Dunno what the course of action should be in the future,but the status quo much be changed.
Last edited by WhatsaLizad?; 31st Jul 2013 at 15:40.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEAWALL
# 144
" Coming in too low and slow and clipping the main gear on the seawall at the runway threshold ..."
Not yet the official report, but...
Just how frangible is the seawall at SFO ?
IIRC most runways do not have (or need) a seawall but tend to have a flat surface (which one ought not to land on).
Tidal and storm surges ? Someone more local must have information.
IF the aircraft had been "...Too slow..." then the rear fuselage would have hit a "solid ?" seawall, not one which might have been designed to collapse.
( In 1954 a Constellation hit the seawall at Kallang. I expect that there have been others, elsewhere.( Crew fatigue was a factor, then.) And a little earlier it was usual to have a rather primitive version of a PAPI set up for each night-flying detail when using just goose-neck flares.)
" Coming in too low and slow and clipping the main gear on the seawall at the runway threshold ..."
Not yet the official report, but...
Just how frangible is the seawall at SFO ?
IIRC most runways do not have (or need) a seawall but tend to have a flat surface (which one ought not to land on).
Tidal and storm surges ? Someone more local must have information.
IF the aircraft had been "...Too slow..." then the rear fuselage would have hit a "solid ?" seawall, not one which might have been designed to collapse.
( In 1954 a Constellation hit the seawall at Kallang. I expect that there have been others, elsewhere.( Crew fatigue was a factor, then.) And a little earlier it was usual to have a rather primitive version of a PAPI set up for each night-flying detail when using just goose-neck flares.)
Last edited by Linktrained; 31st Jul 2013 at 17:11.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linktrained, not a pilot, but I've landed at SFO many times (live there). Seawall is probably not really descriptive, as I do not believe it is a wall that rises above the plane of the runway. Rather, it is a sloped edge down to the water with large rocks that essentially prevents erosion of the area due to wave motion in the bay. The bay, being sheltered, does not really ever get high waves, but it can get pretty choppy when the wind picks up and the tide is in.
You can see it pretty clearly in this Google Maps image: http://goo.gl/maps/j26Rq
You can see it pretty clearly in this Google Maps image: http://goo.gl/maps/j26Rq
Last edited by Mark in CA; 31st Jul 2013 at 17:39.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7700:
I agree, I fly for an Asian carrier, and ours tries to teach visual approaches using HDG Select and VS mode while on autopilot. They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS!
I agree, I fly for an Asian carrier, and ours tries to teach visual approaches using HDG Select and VS mode while on autopilot. They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS!
Perhaps that is what these crews were looking for - the big red 'reset to 10nm' button.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: toulouse
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly the a/c
we are pilot, so we fly the a/c, anybody unable to do visual, or that doesn t know his pitch attitude, scan, attitude vs distance and visual reference should consider himself unfit to fly.
CFIT is a great threat on the industry but now we have cavok CFIT or CFIT marginally avoid...i give you a advice
look outside what s going on, so easy. I recently had to recover situation because FO doesn t look outside.
no children of magenta, no FD monkeys, fly the a/c everything off every time wx, workload permits on SID, STAR ETC... then the day you will really need it, you will be confident on your skills
if the other pilot say than A/P will do a better job than you... may be but you can tell him that it doesn t mean you are doing a good and safe job.
what will think passengers our passengers if they know thate pratically the pilots at the front don t know how to fly the a/c.
it is everyday challenge to all of us to force us to challenge our hand flying skills, if you don t practice you losose your skills
a pilot is a pilot, it s what we are, it s what we like , let s keep it like this
and please look outside check inside when you are visual
CFIT is a great threat on the industry but now we have cavok CFIT or CFIT marginally avoid...i give you a advice
look outside what s going on, so easy. I recently had to recover situation because FO doesn t look outside.no children of magenta, no FD monkeys, fly the a/c everything off every time wx, workload permits on SID, STAR ETC... then the day you will really need it, you will be confident on your skills
if the other pilot say than A/P will do a better job than you... may be but you can tell him that it doesn t mean you are doing a good and safe job.
what will think passengers our passengers if they know thate pratically the pilots at the front don t know how to fly the a/c.
it is everyday challenge to all of us to force us to challenge our hand flying skills, if you don t practice you losose your skills
a pilot is a pilot, it s what we are, it s what we like , let s keep it like this
and please look outside check inside when you are visual
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up north
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver
UK low standard airlines?
Given your location I wonder to whom you are referring and with what authority!
Maybe you should start a new thread or a fight behind the hangar.
UK low standard airlines?
Given your location I wonder to whom you are referring and with what authority!
Maybe you should start a new thread or a fight behind the hangar.
Last edited by MANTHRUST; 31st Jul 2013 at 20:12.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good practice, in my opinion anyways, at least several times a month, disconnect the AP/AT and fly the approach full manual. I find if I don't do that, the airspeed indicator gradually falls out of my scan, exactly because the auto throttles do such a good job of maintaining it. Human nature, what doesn't need attention, doesn't get it, we form very lazy habits, and do so quickly.
It's clearly a case, especially for the Airbus folks, of taking control of the airplane back from the automatics, and religiously maintaining that proficiency. As trite as this may sound, and as often as you've heard it, it does need repeating; if you don't fly the airplane, it will end up flying you.
To places that have recently been in the news.
Those of you who fly for the Asian carriers, is that even allowed?
It's clearly a case, especially for the Airbus folks, of taking control of the airplane back from the automatics, and religiously maintaining that proficiency. As trite as this may sound, and as often as you've heard it, it does need repeating; if you don't fly the airplane, it will end up flying you.
To places that have recently been in the news.
Those of you who fly for the Asian carriers, is that even allowed?
So fed up with the garbage and excuses written on this crash...
At last the FAA are getting it, something SFO ATC and you guys who fly in there regularly don't:
If you send a couple of pilots in a widebody across the Pacific for 13 hours being rattled to death by turbulence so you can't sleep, then send them in high on the glide at 90 deg to the runway, head to head with a puddle jumper for 28R and say cleared the visual 28L, stay behind the learjet 2 miles in front, what's going to happen?
999 times out of 1000, the pilot will get a bit hot and sweaty - it's his first visual for 2 years and only his 20th landing in the last 12 months but he'll get the job done with a landing we can all walk away from. Once in a hundred there'll be a few more holes in the cheese (1st time into SFO / minimal hours on type etc) and he won't. It's the sort of challenge I'd relish at the end of a 2 hour daylight sector but at the end of a long haul it's a significant threat.
SFO have been carrying on business as usual so the regulator have had to step in, it's about time IMHO.
If you send a couple of pilots in a widebody across the Pacific for 13 hours being rattled to death by turbulence so you can't sleep, then send them in high on the glide at 90 deg to the runway, head to head with a puddle jumper for 28R and say cleared the visual 28L, stay behind the learjet 2 miles in front, what's going to happen?
999 times out of 1000, the pilot will get a bit hot and sweaty - it's his first visual for 2 years and only his 20th landing in the last 12 months but he'll get the job done with a landing we can all walk away from. Once in a hundred there'll be a few more holes in the cheese (1st time into SFO / minimal hours on type etc) and he won't. It's the sort of challenge I'd relish at the end of a 2 hour daylight sector but at the end of a long haul it's a significant threat.
SFO have been carrying on business as usual so the regulator have had to step in, it's about time IMHO.
The facts are they crashed a perfectly serviceable aircraft short of the runway on a beautiful VFR day.
I do not blame the airport authorities and/or their controllers on the way they manage their traffic in and out of the airport.
I will agree that many factors are probably involved in the crash but most if not all of them are pilot related.
Maybe we can include the “Asian Culture” as a role in the accident (not the first time). Maybe fatigued played a role in the accident although there were two crews aboard for this flight. Maybe we can blame Asiana the company in the way they train their pilot. Maybe we can blame Asiana’s SOPs for not being thorough or stringent enough.
Companies that I flew for had restrictions on new crews (whether co-pilot or captains). You needed a certain amount of hours on type in the aircraft before you were released from line indoc.
You needed a certain amount of time and takeoffs before being able to conduct low RVR takeoffs and the same applied to lower than CAT 1 minimums. Perhaps Asiana should also have a minimum hours on type prior to accepting visual approaches.
In the end the buck stops here… It is the pilot’s decision to accept any kind of approach and in accepting a visual you have to understand the rules that go along with it.
If this new captain on type did not feel right or felt he was under pressure by accepting a visual in SFO and continued on what seems to be an unstable approach with perhaps some of the electronics not properly set up (auto throttles) then it proves he wasn’t ready to man the ship as a captain.
And what are we to say about the training captain in the right seat who let the situation go way beyond acceptable. The same can be said about the third pilot in the jump seat. In both cases was that the “Asian Culture” thing going on?
Regardless if a pilot(s) cannot fly on a beautiful VFR day a B777 to a runway with a functioning LOC and PAPI, then perhaps he should not be flying at all.
At any time prior to the approach clearance if he felt uncomfortable with a visual approach or even after they had accepted it he could have done a G/A and ask for radar vectors back in using an instrument approach (The RNAV GPS approach was available).
Less than 10 days prior to the crash I flew into SFO under similar conditions (not as nice). The choices were a visual to both 28s, a LOC only with PAPIs or the RNAV GPS (LPV) approaches.
In the end because I had only been to SFO a couple of times I told the PNF that I wanted the RNAV GPS (LPV) approach… It was a command decision which I thought was the safe way to go to have vertical and lateral guidance.
To this day I don’t understand why a new and low time pilot on type would not want and ask for a stable type approach like a RNAV GPS (LPV) approach to runway 28L… To me it shows poor command decision.
My only 2 cents I intend to say on this subject and crash.
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 1st Aug 2013 at 01:34.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(The RNAV GPS LPV approach was available).
But your other points are right on the mark - it is not airport's business to anticipate poorly trained crews who can't execute simplest visual approach. If a crew accepts an approach - it means they accept responsibility to execute it.