“They’d all be walking, talking and alive if they went around”...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic flying skills normally take care of all of these accidents. They seem to be missing in all of these accidents.
SOP's are usually designed to take care of the pilots that have problems with basic flying skills and need to go to SOP's to survive.
SOP's are usually designed to take care of the pilots that have problems with basic flying skills and need to go to SOP's to survive.
Since when did Bloomberg become an authority on Aviation ? What idiots. 
According to them any crash in the US is a disparagement of American carriers in general.
Asiana is not American btw.
Unfortunately Southwest is doing it's usual thing and is a black mark on the record as they have been for some time.
UPS was tragic and the jury is still out, they are a top notch operation.
According to them any crash in the US is a disparagement of American carriers in general.
Asiana is not American btw.
Unfortunately Southwest is doing it's usual thing and is a black mark on the record as they have been for some time.
UPS was tragic and the jury is still out, they are a top notch operation.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both UPS and Southwest have excellent pilots. Name one airline that hasn't had an incident because of pilot error. Yes, we may have gone through our careers accident free but no matter how careful you are a bit of luck is involved too. I know that so don't put down pilots that had their luck run out once. Some day it may happen to you if you fly long enough.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexander
I am concerned about a GA flown due to environmental reasons or operational reasons eg Rwy engaged and not unstable approaches. Most (not all,granted) GAs that I have flown at my present operator have started a paper chase involving phone calls, unnecessary comments on safety reports and a general feeling that somehow the missed approach was avoidable.
The unintended consequence of this is that I am more determined to get the aircraft on the ground than I should be, because I feel that I don't wish to have my ability called into question.
This is due to the Safety Department requiring a safety report for any GA flown below 1000' regardless of the reason eg. ATC instructions. The report is then always passed on to the line management for comment, this is where the process becomes intimidatory and undermines the professionalism of the crew, because the line management feel the need to obtain additional information even if the safety report already contains all the required information.
As Basil notes a GA is a normal manoeuvre and should only be the subject of a safety report if it is flown due to a non normal situation. To carry out an investigation for every missed approach undermines the judgement of the crew.
This would lead to the assumption that any GA flown from below 1000' is a non normal situation due to the unnecessary (IMO) follow up required.
The unintended consequence of this is that I am more determined to get the aircraft on the ground than I should be, because I feel that I don't wish to have my ability called into question.
This is due to the Safety Department requiring a safety report for any GA flown below 1000' regardless of the reason eg. ATC instructions. The report is then always passed on to the line management for comment, this is where the process becomes intimidatory and undermines the professionalism of the crew, because the line management feel the need to obtain additional information even if the safety report already contains all the required information.
As Basil notes a GA is a normal manoeuvre and should only be the subject of a safety report if it is flown due to a non normal situation. To carry out an investigation for every missed approach undermines the judgement of the crew.
This would lead to the assumption that any GA flown from below 1000' is a non normal situation due to the unnecessary (IMO) follow up required.
Last edited by Alycidon; 7th Sep 2013 at 11:37.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44
Although First part of your post 36 may be true(I say that because the inquiry is not over yet) the second part is simply outrageous. No human being is gifted with any instinct to survive in the air otherwise your semi circular canals won't be playing the tricks they play and you would not need any instruments to fly. No hot shot pilot just because he can do a visual approach has overcome basic limitations of the specie,you are included. Only Birds don't have SOPs they have instinct.
Although First part of your post 36 may be true(I say that because the inquiry is not over yet) the second part is simply outrageous. No human being is gifted with any instinct to survive in the air otherwise your semi circular canals won't be playing the tricks they play and you would not need any instruments to fly. No hot shot pilot just because he can do a visual approach has overcome basic limitations of the specie,you are included. Only Birds don't have SOPs they have instinct.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are unstable approaches and there are "unstable approaches".
Major speed, configuration and flight path deviations are unstable approaches.
Being interrupted in reading the landing checklist by ATC calling "cleared to land" and there after hearing "1000" is in my opinion not a cause for a go around. Being 10 kts too fast and having the thrust at idle in 1000' isn't a reason either, IF you can see you will have the engines spooled at e.g. 900'.
Most airlines grade unstable approaches and only severe deviations will be punished. I.e. correct thrust set in 900' would be noted in some statistics, but the flight crew will never hear anything for it. Not having the gear extended in 900 feet would be cause for an interview.
I assume that is what is meant in the article with:
That is where airmanship comes in... or actually just common sense. If a captain can't tell the difference between not having completed the landing checklist in 1000', hearing a "sink rate" warning or racing down the glideslope with 210 kts, something is wrong.
Major speed, configuration and flight path deviations are unstable approaches.
Being interrupted in reading the landing checklist by ATC calling "cleared to land" and there after hearing "1000" is in my opinion not a cause for a go around. Being 10 kts too fast and having the thrust at idle in 1000' isn't a reason either, IF you can see you will have the engines spooled at e.g. 900'.
Most airlines grade unstable approaches and only severe deviations will be punished. I.e. correct thrust set in 900' would be noted in some statistics, but the flight crew will never hear anything for it. Not having the gear extended in 900 feet would be cause for an interview.
I assume that is what is meant in the article with:
In some cases, rules may be overly rigid, akin to imposing a highway speed limit that is so low drivers routinely exceed it, Quevedo said. Violating the rules has become so ingrained that airlines don’t enforce them and pilots don’t recognize when they are taking unnecessary risks, he said.
Originally Posted by Jazz
May I respectfully suggest that the failure to make a go-around decision, and the failure to realise you're in the position that requires such a decision, are two separate problems and need to be treated that way?
Flying for a very well known British airline, I went around (my decision) from my first base training approach in the B747 Classic. The BTC, one of our more intimidating gentlemen, was more ecstatic with joy than he would have been had I gently put it right on the spot first time. 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major kudos to the crew of SQ062 going into IAH yesterday. Apparently, they found themselves unstabilized and went around. We were right behind them on their second approach to 8L while we were going to 8R. All kidding aside, serious attaboys to those gentlemen for not trying to salvage a crappy approach.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowboy ATC? Call it what you want. ATC in the US is outstanding, with a few exceptions. NY airports being the biggest exception. It simply sucks. 98% of the bad things that ATC did to me in the last 18 years was done at JFK, La Garbage, or EWR. The controllers in NY are rude, arrogant, pr%cks.
I have been to almost every major airport in Europe as well and the ATC is anywhere between just as good as the US, or at worst, just slightly behind. Listening to french on CDG tower makes me have less situational awareness.
Clearing several aircraft in sequence is a defensive measure. If KAL checks in, the tower controller might have to talk very slow and carefully, and an aircraft might go around for lack of landing clearance.
Many big airports in the US are so busy that we have huge sequences of aircraft in exactly 1 minute trail. 2.5 nm. It works extremely well. I have landed at O'hare more than any other airport in my career. I have never went around there, for any reason.
In contrast, I went around half a dozen times in 3 years in NYC, all of which was the controllers fault.
So what is "cowboy ATC", anyway. I have heard SW being told to keep their speed at a "Texas 250" by Dallas approach. LMAO
I have been to almost every major airport in Europe as well and the ATC is anywhere between just as good as the US, or at worst, just slightly behind. Listening to french on CDG tower makes me have less situational awareness.
Clearing several aircraft in sequence is a defensive measure. If KAL checks in, the tower controller might have to talk very slow and carefully, and an aircraft might go around for lack of landing clearance.
Many big airports in the US are so busy that we have huge sequences of aircraft in exactly 1 minute trail. 2.5 nm. It works extremely well. I have landed at O'hare more than any other airport in my career. I have never went around there, for any reason.
In contrast, I went around half a dozen times in 3 years in NYC, all of which was the controllers fault.
So what is "cowboy ATC", anyway. I have heard SW being told to keep their speed at a "Texas 250" by Dallas approach. LMAO
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vilas, yes I have had vertigo in a Lear Jet descending from FL 410 and overcame the urge to let the semi circular canals take over my judgement but didn't because I knew the instruments were telling me the truth and my buddy who was hand flying screwed up. That was before my airline career so no SOP's had ever entered my mind. With 6,000 hrs of no SOP's with zero problems entered the airline world and with 23,000 hrs at retirement decided SOP's were for a large group of pilots with differing degrees of ability so all could fly safely. I know this is going to irritate a lot of folks but that is what SOP's are for.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they went around they wouldn't have crashed? If they hadn't taken off they wouldn't have crashed either. If they hadn't screwed up they wouldn't have needed to go-around and wouldn't have crashed either.
A half dozen g/a's in NYC alone? Two g/a's in 20+ yrs of NYC flying, both preceeding landing a/c's fault.
And giving landing clearance before the other a/c has cleared the runway is dangerous? A major PITA is being at 200-300' in LHR, with no landing clearance, and someone starts talking with the controller. I'd prefer to have the landing clearance sooner while shouldering the responsibility to ensure the runway is clear.
A half dozen g/a's in NYC alone? Two g/a's in 20+ yrs of NYC flying, both preceeding landing a/c's fault.
And giving landing clearance before the other a/c has cleared the runway is dangerous? A major PITA is being at 200-300' in LHR, with no landing clearance, and someone starts talking with the controller. I'd prefer to have the landing clearance sooner while shouldering the responsibility to ensure the runway is clear.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. Last minute clearances to land are distracting. I have gone around in a 4 engine jet with a clearance to land because the runway was not clear because I wasn't comfortable with the prior aircraft clearing the runway in time. I just told the tower I was going around because I wanted to be sure of a full runway since it was only 5700 ft long. SNA No big deal, also before SOP's
I'd prefer to have the landing clearance sooner while shouldering the responsibility to ensure the runway is clear.
Remember mil "Land - one on."?
Only the taxpayers' money if a brake failure required one to take the scenic route
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught, ney it was drilled into me, years ago that "if there's doubt there is NO doubt." SOP's about G/A gates etc. are for those who have not had the pain of the drilling nor taken on board the message. I fail to understand anyone going through the 'will we, wont we' debate at <200' and not aborting the landing. Surely they would not, I hope, hesitate to abort the takeoff, so what's the difference? If it ain't going to work then try again! QED. There's so much data and examples of it not going to plan that I can not understand the psyche of those who throw history out of the window. It is an industry where we learn from other's mistakes. Could it be that, as one NTSB investigator has commented, pilots are 'mission orientated' and press-onitis is a 'complete the mission-itis. Sadly, they do not complete the mission as planned. WHY? oh why?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first airline I flew with SOP's were about what my first 6,000 hrs were. When we got merged with a mega airline things changed so every pilot had to fly the same way. We all did it because it was required. I then chose airports that the standard SOP's didn't work so could fly my way. TGU or MHTG made my last six years a lot of fun without having to deal with SOP's. Yes, landing at MIA we did but that was never my leg because of captain only landings at TGU. I didn't bid the 777 because it flew to boring places mostly all nighters to stay in the 757 flying to fun airports.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All walking
The advice from Airbus is at
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...APPR-SEQ01.pdf
In particular, the extract
II Statistical Data (Source: Flight Safety Foundation Flight Safety Digest Volume 17 & 18 – November 1998 / February 1999).Continuing an unstabilized approach is a causal factor in 40 % of all approach-and-landing accidents.
Factors Involved in Unstabilised Approaches are dealt withe in para Vlll.
I wonder which of these were common in this instance.
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...APPR-SEQ01.pdf
In particular, the extract
II Statistical Data (Source: Flight Safety Foundation Flight Safety Digest Volume 17 & 18 – November 1998 / February 1999).
Factors Involved in Unstabilised Approaches are dealt withe in para Vlll.
I wonder which of these were common in this instance.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44 - times move on and what was acceptable once is no longer. It is perhaps no coincidence that during your extensive flying career safety has improved significantly due to a combination of better and more reliable aircraft, the advent of CRM, key technology advances (fly by wire, EGPWS, TCAS, GPS navigation etc), flight data monitoring and more prescriptive SOPs. I personally embrace all these changes as positive improvements. The environments where SOPs are optional do not fill me with confidence.