"2010 JFK A380 go-around incident highlights need for change"
No, it has always been thus at JFK. The G/A when I was based there had a 1,000 foot stop height because of the conflicting traffic above. We are talking about 30 years ago in my case and I suspect that it has been so ever since.
So, any professional aviator heading for JFK simply MUST include in the let-down brief that the G/A restriction is a measly 1,000 ft.
Believe me, if you are flying a DC-10 then you need to think ahead. Hitting the TOGA button would probably be a very bad idea!
Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
So, any professional aviator heading for JFK simply MUST include in the let-down brief that the G/A restriction is a measly 1,000 ft.
Believe me, if you are flying a DC-10 then you need to think ahead. Hitting the TOGA button would probably be a very bad idea!
Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Firefly Bob
My last operator specified that a low altitude off a GA was a potential threat and this was to be highlighted in the Descent/Approach Brief.
My last operator specified that a low altitude off a GA was a potential threat and this was to be highlighted in the Descent/Approach Brief.
Last edited by sheppey; 4th Sep 2013 at 11:33.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLIMBING & DESCENDING 1 & 2?
I recall from a very dim and distant past, my QFI teaching me and allowing me to practise, the black art of hand-flying climbing/descending 1,000ft including turns, until I was proficient and able to go on to more interesting things like turning upside down, deliberately, and then restoring the world to blue side up, brown down..........................
Perhaps a go-around from an approach should not ALWAYS be regarded as a full or even part TOGA balls-out manoeuvre if ground or aircraft ahead contact is not a factor.
Maybe a brief for a possible DISCONTINUED APPROACH by restoring the aircraft in a dignified and less panic-stricken method back to a higher altitude or even stabilised at the breakoff altitude, in the appropriate configuration. And the automatics might need to be switched out of the loop.
But then that may require sim training which would cost money and there's not a lot of that around as the airlines get that warm wet feeling publicising how many zillions they've invested this year in new shiny planes?
That darkened room beckons, but I have to go practise most of the flying training syllabus for real, with punters aboard, later this evening..................
Perhaps a go-around from an approach should not ALWAYS be regarded as a full or even part TOGA balls-out manoeuvre if ground or aircraft ahead contact is not a factor.
Maybe a brief for a possible DISCONTINUED APPROACH by restoring the aircraft in a dignified and less panic-stricken method back to a higher altitude or even stabilised at the breakoff altitude, in the appropriate configuration. And the automatics might need to be switched out of the loop.
But then that may require sim training which would cost money and there's not a lot of that around as the airlines get that warm wet feeling publicising how many zillions they've invested this year in new shiny planes?
That darkened room beckons, but I have to go practise most of the flying training syllabus for real, with punters aboard, later this evening..................
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since go arounds are simply going from a descent profile to a climb profile why even bother with GA and scaring everybody? I never used it but my check airman did once at LAX and he busted the 2,000 ft level off and was over 300 knots trying to use automation on take off. I told him to level off and disconnect AP and AT. He did and I was on my 767 FO initial check out. Basic flying skills are important no matter what the new school is teaching. We are pilots, not high speed computer operators. Do not let yourself lose your basic flying skills ever.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots have lost the most fundamental ability of automation:
Inputs via: Ears , Eyes, butt etc
Hard Disk, CDU: Own Brain
Tools: Control Wheel,Joke(duno if is spelled correctly sorry), Thurst levers.
Out put via : Left hand, right hand, left hand , right hand...
Sad and Scary... So many airframes lost lately due to poor piloting skills!!
Inputs via: Ears , Eyes, butt etc
Hard Disk, CDU: Own Brain
Tools: Control Wheel,Joke(duno if is spelled correctly sorry), Thurst levers.
Out put via : Left hand, right hand, left hand , right hand...
Sad and Scary... So many airframes lost lately due to poor piloting skills!!
Last edited by VONKLUFFEN; 5th Sep 2013 at 08:37.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENERGY MANAGEMENT YET AGAIN?
Nice one VONKLUFFEN!
An old RAF Central Flying School sage summed it up as
Throttles (T/Ls) control energy input
&
Elevators exchange energy.
Simples or what?!
Alas their Airships would not consider introducing this concept to the basic flying training syllabus so it died on the vine!
An old RAF Central Flying School sage summed it up as
Throttles (T/Ls) control energy input
&
Elevators exchange energy.
Simples or what?!
Alas their Airships would not consider introducing this concept to the basic flying training syllabus so it died on the vine!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milano
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Anyway, Airbus don't have an automatic flap retraction system in case of overspeed ?
From the report
Quote:
The speed exceeded the VFE for CONF 2 by about 12 knots. The overspeed warning (CRC) triggered at VFE+4 kt. The flaps started to retract, ordered by the FLAP LOAD RELIEF protection.
Anyway, Airbus don't have an automatic flap retraction system in case of overspeed ?
From the report
Quote:
The speed exceeded the VFE for CONF 2 by about 12 knots. The overspeed warning (CRC) triggered at VFE+4 kt. The flaps started to retract, ordered by the FLAP LOAD RELIEF protection.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Fly the Plane
Just joined what has been an insightful thread and after reading this and other automation/airmanship debates I am left with one stark question - do we need to be thankful QF32 wasn't "AF32", as the outcome may have been somewhat different??
Fundamentally it should be the humans controlling the jet - using the automation to ease workload. The day a pilot loses control to the automation it's time to step out of the cockpit and find a desk somewhere.
Surely at landing weights when GA is called (especially on an unstable approach - rather than a late runway incursion) it should be a case of changing pitch, adding some power (not all of it!), gear up on positive climb and fly to the desired height, by hand - rather than it seems pushing some buttons and seeing what might happen.
Like I said - fly the plane!!
Fundamentally it should be the humans controlling the jet - using the automation to ease workload. The day a pilot loses control to the automation it's time to step out of the cockpit and find a desk somewhere.
Surely at landing weights when GA is called (especially on an unstable approach - rather than a late runway incursion) it should be a case of changing pitch, adding some power (not all of it!), gear up on positive climb and fly to the desired height, by hand - rather than it seems pushing some buttons and seeing what might happen.
Like I said - fly the plane!!
adding some power (not all of it!)
In an Airbus the thrust levers have to go to the TOGA position to cycle through to the Go Around phase of predictions and to string together the track or nav required after the GA. They do not have to remain in that position. So yes full power has to be, at least briefly, selected.
I understand from a recent company problem that Boeing have a requirement for something not dissimilar (but not the same.)
