Iberia: A-321 210kts at 3.8nms ......
Good read but you are wasting your time. The Magenta Line kids do not understand anything that is not strictly in accordance with their SOPs.
I really do not know how I survived half a century of flying without so much as scratching the paint of a wingtip. I simply do not know how I did it. In my defence, a few learned aviators had written "Above the Average" in my logbook over the years so perhaps that was it.
When I retired seven years ago the kids could not even deal with a runway change without getting themselves into the FMC.
It is just so very, very sad.
I really do not know how I survived half a century of flying without so much as scratching the paint of a wingtip. I simply do not know how I did it. In my defence, a few learned aviators had written "Above the Average" in my logbook over the years so perhaps that was it.
When I retired seven years ago the kids could not even deal with a runway change without getting themselves into the FMC.
It is just so very, very sad.
JW, capt, some odd numbers...
Yes, yes, and yes...sad- they don't know what they are missing, sad - they don't know what they were missing, sad - you don't know what you are missing...
Now did I tell you the story about Noah?
Yes, yes, and yes...sad- they don't know what they are missing, sad - they don't know what they were missing, sad - you don't know what you are missing...
Now did I tell you the story about Noah?
Yet again, the sages refuse to acknowledge that if the accident rate the industry "enjoyed" during their hayday were to exist today, we'd be cleaning up a smoking hole every three days. Improved technologies, strong SOPs and better training are largely the reason why that rate has been slashed so significantly. Are things today perfect? Not hardly, there is still much to do. But rolling back to the clock to the days of proving our manhood and making it up as we go along is not the way forward. If it were, things would never have changed in the first place.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milano
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210 kts at 3.8 nm from threshold ??? Fiuuuu...
And they lost the separation with a 757 ??? Fiuu
I don't understand what was the reason to go so fast!
And they lost the separation with a 757 ??? Fiuu
I don't understand what was the reason to go so fast!
Last edited by furball_t; 16th Sep 2013 at 19:22.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish
Bravo he managed to save 100kg of fuel by spooling up at 10ft agl. But statistics prove most runway excursions start with an unstabilised approach. If this story ended with an excursion, I suspect the word skill would be replaced with the word reckless in this thread. And by the way, the insurance would not have paid for it either, given the failure to adhere to SOPs. The crew and their families would also be held financially liable.
Stabilised means in the landing configuration, on the right vertical and horizontal profile, with engines above idle and checklists complete. This was not the case at 500ft. 150kt in an A320 series is not stabilised. Adding 10kt to Vapp just so you avoid a speed QAR does not count either. There is no way this guy was stabilised by 500ft. Indeed many airlines have abandoned the 500ft rule, since if you screw up and accidentally select F1 instead of F3 at Vapp and 600ft it becomes ugly.
To me this would count as a violation of SOPs, and just cause to identify the crew and fire them both. Airbus has created SOPs to save passenger lives. This crew decided they knew better than Airbus. I hope IB safety dept picked this up and dealt with it accordingly. If not, we can look forward to an IB hull loss in future.
And for the "old farts", please remember that in your day you had to be near the top of your class in school to be a Captain. You were paid for your intelligence and skill, and ticket prices were therefore higher. These days the aircraft has been simplified so anyone anywhere can fly it safely. Accordingly, the available pool of (non rock star) pilots is much bigger, they get paid much less, and ticket prices are much lower. So although there are some very smart pilots still, most of the smart people work in banks. The average pilot today follows SOPs which are designed to keep him/her safe.
Stabilised means in the landing configuration, on the right vertical and horizontal profile, with engines above idle and checklists complete. This was not the case at 500ft. 150kt in an A320 series is not stabilised. Adding 10kt to Vapp just so you avoid a speed QAR does not count either. There is no way this guy was stabilised by 500ft. Indeed many airlines have abandoned the 500ft rule, since if you screw up and accidentally select F1 instead of F3 at Vapp and 600ft it becomes ugly.
To me this would count as a violation of SOPs, and just cause to identify the crew and fire them both. Airbus has created SOPs to save passenger lives. This crew decided they knew better than Airbus. I hope IB safety dept picked this up and dealt with it accordingly. If not, we can look forward to an IB hull loss in future.
And for the "old farts", please remember that in your day you had to be near the top of your class in school to be a Captain. You were paid for your intelligence and skill, and ticket prices were therefore higher. These days the aircraft has been simplified so anyone anywhere can fly it safely. Accordingly, the available pool of (non rock star) pilots is much bigger, they get paid much less, and ticket prices are much lower. So although there are some very smart pilots still, most of the smart people work in banks. The average pilot today follows SOPs which are designed to keep him/her safe.
Last edited by Arrowhead; 29th Aug 2013 at 01:26.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.O:
Actually the main reason safety improved in aviation is that the engines stopped failing or catch fire. SOPs are a big tale, they are not significantly improving your chance to survive, good engines do. 100 years of aviation are here to prove it. SOPs (and QAR) became a kind of religion, because they appeared at the same time we were able to produce engines that wouldn't catch fire every now and then. A religion, and a way for the managment to be control freak on their pilots in a field they don't understand: flight.
SOPs are here to decrease our pilot skills, especially when SOPs (and QARs) encourage the use of auto-pilot, SOPs are the devil modern pilots have sold their soul to while there are no serious study showing SOPs are helping for a large part in safety.
More and more crashes are the only result, nowadays, of unskilled pilots. How to be able to respect SOPs in abnormal situation if you never went out of it in normal condition? This is misunderstanding human being, its nature, skills, and training-learning curve abilities. What sense does it make to have a QAR for long landing on a 3800 meters long runway when you do it on purpose and exactly know how much runway length remains for you after touching down EXACTLY where you intended to? What if you wanted to give your FO some freedom for him to learn, while being aware that way enough runway was available for a full stop (I am not speaking about a short runway here)? So you take control to avoid a QAR, and general pilot skills and training are decreasing. This is all nonsense. And when the same FO will become captain he will get of the runway end because of a lack of training and REAL LIFE experience, unable to correct or to take the decision to go around, because unable to understand how much runway is needed while flying behind the airplane overwhelmed by the situation. It happens more and more those times. Not a single QAR in your file, but a crash at the end. Really worth it?
Yes on a given day, flying below 10 000 feet with all the automatics/FD switched on, especially in difficult condition such as weather-night-some system failure will help you a great deal. But repeating everyday this scenario in normal condition will decrease your skills and at the end will make of you a possible threat. And that's precisely what SOPs are encouraging.
Yet again, the sages refuse to acknowledge that if the accident rate the industry "enjoyed" during their hayday were to exist today, we'd be cleaning up a smoking hole every three days. Improved technologies, strong SOPs and better training are largely the reason why that rate has been slashed so significantly. Are things today perfect? Not hardly, there is still much to do. But rolling back to the clock to the days of proving our manhood and making it up as we go along is not the way forward. If it were, things would never have changed in the first place.
SOPs are here to decrease our pilot skills, especially when SOPs (and QARs) encourage the use of auto-pilot, SOPs are the devil modern pilots have sold their soul to while there are no serious study showing SOPs are helping for a large part in safety.
More and more crashes are the only result, nowadays, of unskilled pilots. How to be able to respect SOPs in abnormal situation if you never went out of it in normal condition? This is misunderstanding human being, its nature, skills, and training-learning curve abilities. What sense does it make to have a QAR for long landing on a 3800 meters long runway when you do it on purpose and exactly know how much runway length remains for you after touching down EXACTLY where you intended to? What if you wanted to give your FO some freedom for him to learn, while being aware that way enough runway was available for a full stop (I am not speaking about a short runway here)? So you take control to avoid a QAR, and general pilot skills and training are decreasing. This is all nonsense. And when the same FO will become captain he will get of the runway end because of a lack of training and REAL LIFE experience, unable to correct or to take the decision to go around, because unable to understand how much runway is needed while flying behind the airplane overwhelmed by the situation. It happens more and more those times. Not a single QAR in your file, but a crash at the end. Really worth it?
Yes on a given day, flying below 10 000 feet with all the automatics/FD switched on, especially in difficult condition such as weather-night-some system failure will help you a great deal. But repeating everyday this scenario in normal condition will decrease your skills and at the end will make of you a possible threat. And that's precisely what SOPs are encouraging.
Last edited by KAG; 29th Aug 2013 at 03:57.
Well said KAG.....
Technology has reduced the accident rate but we are still killing far to many because many pilots can't be as@ed to extend their knowledge base beyond the minimum and rely on SOP which don't always work.
Lowest common denominator ...nowt to do with cheap fares but about self preservation, laziness and arrogance - look at the Big airline and air chance cockups over the last decade or so...
I would suggest that the pay to fly guys have more motivation than those who have been handed the career on a plate....
Standing by for incoming...
Technology has reduced the accident rate but we are still killing far to many because many pilots can't be as@ed to extend their knowledge base beyond the minimum and rely on SOP which don't always work.
Lowest common denominator ...nowt to do with cheap fares but about self preservation, laziness and arrogance - look at the Big airline and air chance cockups over the last decade or so...
I would suggest that the pay to fly guys have more motivation than those who have been handed the career on a plate....
Standing by for incoming...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still not getting it hu? SOPs are a fact in today's aviation (and for very good reasons!!) and we are paid to follow them.
Could we fly approaches that did not follow our SOPs? Sure! No problem! Question is - Why the h_ll would we?! Can you explain that to me?
Should we also take off and fly the entire flight with the gear down? In the early days we had commercial flights (still do!) with non retractable gear! Never mind the fact that we are supposed to put them up after take off, worked then, works now, right? Continue an approach in track and vs when the ILS fails in CATIII conditions? Because we are all great aviators and can follow a track and vs right? I mean, in theory we should hit the runway at some stage, right?
This has nothing to do with ability or skills to do circling approaches, high speed approaches and all those other maneuvers requiring exceptional aviators
that you old school guys are preaching about.
Purple Pitot - I'll give you one thing though, a lot of pilots do get very lazy with all the automation available to them. Is that a "main killer"? No. Is it a result of SOPs? No.
As you old school aviators are not ready to take my word for it, have you bothered reading the documents I linked to in previous post about stabilized vs non stabilized approaches and their relationship to hard landings, deep landings, runway overruns etc etc. ?? Guess not....?
Could we fly approaches that did not follow our SOPs? Sure! No problem! Question is - Why the h_ll would we?! Can you explain that to me?
Should we also take off and fly the entire flight with the gear down? In the early days we had commercial flights (still do!) with non retractable gear! Never mind the fact that we are supposed to put them up after take off, worked then, works now, right? Continue an approach in track and vs when the ILS fails in CATIII conditions? Because we are all great aviators and can follow a track and vs right? I mean, in theory we should hit the runway at some stage, right?
This has nothing to do with ability or skills to do circling approaches, high speed approaches and all those other maneuvers requiring exceptional aviators
that you old school guys are preaching about. Purple Pitot - I'll give you one thing though, a lot of pilots do get very lazy with all the automation available to them. Is that a "main killer"? No. Is it a result of SOPs? No.
As you old school aviators are not ready to take my word for it, have you bothered reading the documents I linked to in previous post about stabilized vs non stabilized approaches and their relationship to hard landings, deep landings, runway overruns etc etc. ?? Guess not....?
Last edited by CaptainProp; 29th Aug 2013 at 09:24.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thank you Blind Pew, I initially thought I would be hunted down and burnt like a witch who is telling to the official religion earth is not flat writting my post, but I am pleased to see there is some room for discussion here.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we examine the direct & indirect causes of recent accidents, loss of situational awareness (perhaps caused at least partially by lack of much recent hand-flying ) features very heavily.
Thinking of Turkish in AMS/AF over the Atlantic / Asiana in SF . . if these guys were in the habit of sometimes disconnecting everything & flying (airspace & weather permitting) a bit of raw data in all phases of flt, these accidents would be less likely.
This "engage at 1000' disengage at 500' " mentality is great for freeing up some brain capacity for monitoring, but it doesn't half erode the hand/eye coordination that we are supposed to possess when the sh1t hits the fan.
A few raw data ILS's on the nice days just before the PC are a stark reminder of how difficult it gets if we allow a skill to deteriorate.
Whilst I agree that a 500'/1000' gate will save more incidents than it causes, it is nice to have had the skills in the past to have perhaps safely operated outside that cosy envelope.
Visuals at night rolling wings level below 300' may sound cowboyish, but it is very satisfying to have (had
) that level of coordination before OFDM put a stop to it. Makes a visual into the setting sun on 22 at Nice less of a toil than I found it recently too.
Perhaps years of pushing it a little are also beneficial when it comes to deciding if a particular approach is "on" or not. Many times my colleagues are absolutely adamant that it won't work, only to be proved wrong at 500'/1000'. It is by no means that I am smarter than them, merely that having seen what is & isn't possible, from the era when we were free to find out for ourselves, I have perhaps developed a more enhanced perception of what the machine is really capable of.
I am all for SOP's to protect us from ourselves, but still advocate that thinking (& operating) outside the box, when treated as a skill to fall back on, rather than as an everyday modus operandi, can save our sorry asses when we do have to use it. Airline training Dept's also need to waken up to the fact that they are breeding a generation of systems operators for whom a simple visual is rapidly becoming a "non-normal" & that just ain't right.
Ref Iberia, whilst decelerating approaches are perhaps SOP, I would imagine respecting some stabilisation gate is also in there. Whether they did respect that or not isn't the root cause of this ( & indeed could have exacerbated it if they had performed a GA from low level) lack of SA from the Tower would be 1st on my list.
Thinking of Turkish in AMS/AF over the Atlantic / Asiana in SF . . if these guys were in the habit of sometimes disconnecting everything & flying (airspace & weather permitting) a bit of raw data in all phases of flt, these accidents would be less likely.
This "engage at 1000' disengage at 500' " mentality is great for freeing up some brain capacity for monitoring, but it doesn't half erode the hand/eye coordination that we are supposed to possess when the sh1t hits the fan.
A few raw data ILS's on the nice days just before the PC are a stark reminder of how difficult it gets if we allow a skill to deteriorate.
Whilst I agree that a 500'/1000' gate will save more incidents than it causes, it is nice to have had the skills in the past to have perhaps safely operated outside that cosy envelope.
Visuals at night rolling wings level below 300' may sound cowboyish, but it is very satisfying to have (had
) that level of coordination before OFDM put a stop to it. Makes a visual into the setting sun on 22 at Nice less of a toil than I found it recently too.Perhaps years of pushing it a little are also beneficial when it comes to deciding if a particular approach is "on" or not. Many times my colleagues are absolutely adamant that it won't work, only to be proved wrong at 500'/1000'. It is by no means that I am smarter than them, merely that having seen what is & isn't possible, from the era when we were free to find out for ourselves, I have perhaps developed a more enhanced perception of what the machine is really capable of.
I am all for SOP's to protect us from ourselves, but still advocate that thinking (& operating) outside the box, when treated as a skill to fall back on, rather than as an everyday modus operandi, can save our sorry asses when we do have to use it. Airline training Dept's also need to waken up to the fact that they are breeding a generation of systems operators for whom a simple visual is rapidly becoming a "non-normal" & that just ain't right.
Ref Iberia, whilst decelerating approaches are perhaps SOP, I would imagine respecting some stabilisation gate is also in there. Whether they did respect that or not isn't the root cause of this ( & indeed could have exacerbated it if they had performed a GA from low level) lack of SA from the Tower would be 1st on my list.
Last edited by captplaystation; 29th Aug 2013 at 11:45.
We have to thank a lot of our colleagues who gave their time beyond the call of duty to the union tech committes as well as the clued up tech pilots.
In the 70s we had lots of overruns ...a vc10 in BKK...fungus during the monsoon season, Athens ...rubber deposits and drizzle...Bilbao...standing water...as in EDI
The 70s saw 12 recuts or retreads as standard...many pages of carry forwards.
Concorde started the chain of tyre development...which still isn't 100% as demonstrated in formula 1.
These guys legacy included....
Tyre construction, rubber compounds, tread patterns, grooving of runways, better drainage, pourous Tarmac, carbon brakes, better antiskid, reliable braking systems, better manufacturing techniques as well as materials. Longer runways, slower landing speeds, better approach aids, runway distance markings, braking coefficient reporting.......and I haven't touched on winter ops or training...
As to SOP..I always did a check on short finals...gear,flaps, speed, thrust, attitude ..surface wind....landing clearance..is runway clear...if in Madrid is the bloke on the runway going to get airborne..if he doesn't can I land and stop or should I go around and if I do what do I do...gink right so that I can see him...rather than pulling the nose up ....wake turbulence....
Not forgetting is my colleague happy by keeping him/her in the loop..
If it all looks right at 100 ft then I'm happy..what happened one minute ago doesn't matter.
This incident appears to have happened because the controller made an incorrect judgement call...simples...and witnessed many times especially in Spain.
In the 70s we had lots of overruns ...a vc10 in BKK...fungus during the monsoon season, Athens ...rubber deposits and drizzle...Bilbao...standing water...as in EDI
The 70s saw 12 recuts or retreads as standard...many pages of carry forwards.
Concorde started the chain of tyre development...which still isn't 100% as demonstrated in formula 1.
These guys legacy included....
Tyre construction, rubber compounds, tread patterns, grooving of runways, better drainage, pourous Tarmac, carbon brakes, better antiskid, reliable braking systems, better manufacturing techniques as well as materials. Longer runways, slower landing speeds, better approach aids, runway distance markings, braking coefficient reporting.......and I haven't touched on winter ops or training...
As to SOP..I always did a check on short finals...gear,flaps, speed, thrust, attitude ..surface wind....landing clearance..is runway clear...if in Madrid is the bloke on the runway going to get airborne..if he doesn't can I land and stop or should I go around and if I do what do I do...gink right so that I can see him...rather than pulling the nose up ....wake turbulence....
Not forgetting is my colleague happy by keeping him/her in the loop..
If it all looks right at 100 ft then I'm happy..what happened one minute ago doesn't matter.
This incident appears to have happened because the controller made an incorrect judgement call...simples...and witnessed many times especially in Spain.
Cats...used to do the same on good days until I found out that certain countries mixed VFR and IFR traffic and didn't give separation...so hand flying was left to crap days, turbulence. ...etc...the worse the weather the better the challenge and often better landings...it was the light wind days where I needed to blame the auto land...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let's acknowledge each other's experience...
we, in many ways are the result of our environment. we could not choose the era in which we started flying.
i perhaps am in between the dinosaur and magenta category; more correctly, a dinosaur who flies the NG aircraft. both eras have their good points and weak spots.
i can read a post from some one like blind pew and fully respect the abilities that were tested in the fire, and learned from the old school of flying and fully accept the fact that i would struggle in those situations. but rather than taking it personal, i take it on, admire the skills that were required then, do a bit of reading and review and put them in the back burner for when all the compooters might fail.
i can equally respect the younger generation and the way they are required to fly.
it is sad that it does seem to be human nature for the old to scoff at the young and the young to scoff at the old. both can be equally right about the required method of flying in their respective eras.
i think that younger pilots have much to learn from the old school pilots and old pilots have a few things to learn from the young.
respect
i perhaps am in between the dinosaur and magenta category; more correctly, a dinosaur who flies the NG aircraft. both eras have their good points and weak spots.
i can read a post from some one like blind pew and fully respect the abilities that were tested in the fire, and learned from the old school of flying and fully accept the fact that i would struggle in those situations. but rather than taking it personal, i take it on, admire the skills that were required then, do a bit of reading and review and put them in the back burner for when all the compooters might fail.
i can equally respect the younger generation and the way they are required to fly.
it is sad that it does seem to be human nature for the old to scoff at the young and the young to scoff at the old. both can be equally right about the required method of flying in their respective eras.
i think that younger pilots have much to learn from the old school pilots and old pilots have a few things to learn from the young.
respect
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really! Airbus gives the pilot a choice of a stabilized or a decelerated approach. I always preferred the decelerated approach as it uses less fuel and is much easier on the passengers (less noise). Now it is quite obvious that some pilots don't have the necessary skills to do the decelerated approach. They feel intimidated by them and don't seem to possess the confidence to execute them. Than does not mean that they cannot be done by those who feel OK doing them. Remember that Airbus does give you the choice and some of us like doing them.
Thanks,
Thermostat
Thanks,
Thermostat
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrowhead,
A heavy 321 can indeed have a Vapp of 150knots. When landing at MLW F3 that is indeed your Vapp... Been there, got that t-shirt (in a stable way though!)
A heavy 321 can indeed have a Vapp of 150knots. When landing at MLW F3 that is indeed your Vapp... Been there, got that t-shirt (in a stable way though!)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All been done before guys and gals. Why increase the risk of an expensive and inconvenient missed approach to save a matter of seconds by coming in like a bat out of hell.
You really need to try and be stabilised at 1500 FT. Aim for that, as others have pointed out you have leeway. If you make a habit of "showing off", one day you will arrive really fast, when you are tied at the end of a long day, for e.g. If it goes pear shaped it could set off a chain of events that could risk all. Also I like to have the engines spoiled up. Being clever, you risk touching down with no power or very little, therefore very little control. open the throttles and nothing happens. This was very important consideration on the early turbo jets, of course.
"Aviation is a highly developed science, so don't pioneer".
You really need to try and be stabilised at 1500 FT. Aim for that, as others have pointed out you have leeway. If you make a habit of "showing off", one day you will arrive really fast, when you are tied at the end of a long day, for e.g. If it goes pear shaped it could set off a chain of events that could risk all. Also I like to have the engines spoiled up. Being clever, you risk touching down with no power or very little, therefore very little control. open the throttles and nothing happens. This was very important consideration on the early turbo jets, of course.
"Aviation is a highly developed science, so don't pioneer".