“They’d all be walking, talking and alive if they went around”...
The Cooler King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“They’d all be walking, talking and alive if they went around”...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashes that occur during approach or touchdown are the world’s leading category of aviation mishaps and deaths, according to data compiled by Chicago-based manufacturer Boeing Co. (BA) The biggest risk factor for such accidents is failing to approach a runway at the proper speed, altitude and heading, known as an unstabilized approach.
Last edited by CaptainProp; 6th Sep 2013 at 08:03.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested in the view expressed in the article that some rules are so rigid that airlines do not enforce them. That may be the case in the States, although I am surprised to hear it, but it is absolutely not the case in Europe. With the notable exception of Air France who have a safety culture and record that is an embarrassment to modern aviation, I cannot think of any Western European airline where that would apply. I work for easyJet, one of two large low cost companies there, and I can promise you that the rules are rigidly applied. If you break the stabilized approach criteria and continue to land you will have a personal interview with someone very important and probably have remedial training. If you do it a second time, your chances of keeping your job are very slim indeed. Everyone knows the score and there is absolutely no turning of blind eyes when the rules are broken. May I humbly suggest, that is how it should be?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with ADM.
Have been with EZY for 7 years, 6 of them as an FO and never has a Captain attempted to disregard the stable criteria.
Now a Captain myself and I wouldn't dream of continuing if I wasn't stable. Even if I thought it was safe to do so the flight data monitoring is too good, they'd know about it before I got back to the crew room and it would not be tolerated. Of course, if I'm on fire or on my last tea spoon full of fuel that would be a different matter.
Have been with EZY for 7 years, 6 of them as an FO and never has a Captain attempted to disregard the stable criteria.
Now a Captain myself and I wouldn't dream of continuing if I wasn't stable. Even if I thought it was safe to do so the flight data monitoring is too good, they'd know about it before I got back to the crew room and it would not be tolerated. Of course, if I'm on fire or on my last tea spoon full of fuel that would be a different matter.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Provided that unlike present times, a go-around must be intended as normal maneuver that any member of any crew, in any part of the world must be fully trained and ready to perform without hesitation at any moment of the approach.
What about:
Allowing the fleet manager to read the flight recorders, with no coupling to the names of the crew members involved (if there are not serious and/or recidivists offenders) and their regular publication and commentary in the various meetings of examiners, instructors, commanders, pilots.
Could it be a solution to this old and recurrent problem?
What about:
Allowing the fleet manager to read the flight recorders, with no coupling to the names of the crew members involved (if there are not serious and/or recidivists offenders) and their regular publication and commentary in the various meetings of examiners, instructors, commanders, pilots.
Could it be a solution to this old and recurrent problem?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOVES - FDM is anonymous until you go beyond certain preset limits and get flagged with a red flag(-s). Even then, the company need to go through a FDM group / manager and involve union etc before names are released to management. You can also get called up by the FDM people for minor events as they just want to know what happened. You explain why / how things happened and that's the end of the story.
I guess every company has their own procedures but this is the basic idea anyway.
I guess every company has their own procedures but this is the basic idea anyway.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To CaptainProp
I wrote:
Allowing the fleet manager to read the flight recorders, with no ... names of the crew members (nobody has to know) ... and their regular ... commentary in the various meetings ...
Aristotle says:
Correct those who are in error first time face to face, in front of a witness a second, and the third publicly.
I wrote:
Allowing the fleet manager to read the flight recorders, with no ... names of the crew members (nobody has to know) ... and their regular ... commentary in the various meetings ...
Aristotle says:
Correct those who are in error first time face to face, in front of a witness a second, and the third publicly.
Unrealistic Criteria
At the same time, some pilots said the criteria for a stabilized approach weren’t realistic, Smith said in an interview.
Researchers are attempting to design new standards that require aborting landings only in dangerous situations, improving safety without unnecessarily boosting go-arounds, which can create their own dangers, Quevedo said.
“We should expect that if we have a policy, the people should follow the policy,” he said. “But that being said, we need to make sure that the policy is good before we make people follow it. I don’t think we’re there yet.”
At the same time, some pilots said the criteria for a stabilized approach weren’t realistic, Smith said in an interview.
Researchers are attempting to design new standards that require aborting landings only in dangerous situations, improving safety without unnecessarily boosting go-arounds, which can create their own dangers, Quevedo said.
“We should expect that if we have a policy, the people should follow the policy,” he said. “But that being said, we need to make sure that the policy is good before we make people follow it. I don’t think we’re there yet.”
Given the way ATC tries to manage traffic at some high density airports, there are definite issues with the criteria at some airlines, particularly those that require a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft in both IMC and VMC conditions. I understand the motivation for such policies but they aren't very well thought out if they don't consider all of the operational factors that affect the ability to comply. Until such requirements have been communicated and agreed with ATC providers everywhere, pilots are left with either getting ATC worked up at being unable to fly the controller's desired profile, or management worked up for not being able to fly theirs.
Some will say, "Stuff ATC, fly your profile".
It's not quite that simple. Some crews are allowed to go faster on approach in VMC because they have the 500 ft stabilized criteria and in many cases, ATC sees more of them than they do of the operators that set a higher limit. ATC tends to plan for the majority.
CaptainProp is expounding the principles of an enlightened Flight Data Monitorong Programme. It is the "Gatekeeper" who should be making the calls, not a line ops manager. Giving the latter access to Flight Data is a bit like giving the fox the keys to the chicken coop in flight safety terms. Policing of flight data by managers is a huge barrier to an effective and just safety culture - and should just not happen. The gatekeeper is a member of staff who can be trusted by both the pilots and managers. In my company, he is the head of the safety department who reports directly to the company CEO and bypasses the line managers - bearing in mind the CEO is not a pilot and doesn't get involved with day to day safety issues. In a truley enlightened flight safety culture such as BA's, the gatekeeper is appointed by his/her peers and is a Union member.
Sounds a little odd at first, but if you look at it from a pure safety culture perspective, this is the best way to encourage pilots to report issues which may implicate themselves, but others can learn from. It seems like the principles of the just culture are not yet clear to the Europes' two largest LoCo operators.
Sounds a little odd at first, but if you look at it from a pure safety culture perspective, this is the best way to encourage pilots to report issues which may implicate themselves, but others can learn from. It seems like the principles of the just culture are not yet clear to the Europes' two largest LoCo operators.
The requirement in most airlines to file a report in the event of a go-around is, IMHO, inimical to flight safety.
There was no such requirement in the RAF where a GA was treated as a normal flight manoeuvre.
Requiring a report means that the captain is thinking, at the back of his mind, that a GA report will admit a failing to perform an accurate approach and lead to questioning of his professional ability. I would suggest that the precise opposite is the truth and would laud the pilot who decides it is all too messy and we'll just:
Go around.
Max thrust (but watch that check alt
)
Pos clb
Gear up
Retune (If steam driven)
Flaps up
Oops! 500 to go! (Buggah! Missed the thousand call)
There was no such requirement in the RAF where a GA was treated as a normal flight manoeuvre.
Requiring a report means that the captain is thinking, at the back of his mind, that a GA report will admit a failing to perform an accurate approach and lead to questioning of his professional ability. I would suggest that the precise opposite is the truth and would laud the pilot who decides it is all too messy and we'll just:
Go around.
Max thrust (but watch that check alt
)Pos clb
Gear up
Retune (If steam driven)
Flaps up
Oops! 500 to go! (Buggah! Missed the thousand call)
The requirement to report a go-around is only an impediment to doing go-arounds if the management and training cultures treat the need for a go-around as a sign of weakness.
Back in the day when I was processing ASRs, the boss made sure that my acknowledgement for every report of a go-around due to an unstable approach included a thank you for acting in a safe and responsible manner. Not once were the crew's actions second-guessed. In many cases, their reports prompted us to revise the briefing notes for airports where there was a greater likelihood of an unstable approach.
Back in the day when I was processing ASRs, the boss made sure that my acknowledgement for every report of a go-around due to an unstable approach included a thank you for acting in a safe and responsible manner. Not once were the crew's actions second-guessed. In many cases, their reports prompted us to revise the briefing notes for airports where there was a greater likelihood of an unstable approach.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall that a long time ago in AMI was a fighter wing "PROUD" to make all other pilots say with them : LA QUARTA NON RIATTACCA MAI
That made us, young professional pilots, learn so much!
That made us, young professional pilots, learn so much!
Last edited by DOVES; 6th Sep 2013 at 12:33.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyboyike,
Yes, I think it is partially a US problem. cowboy ATC basically. I see it all the time, mainly at JFK and SFO.
The other bits - fatigue, magenta line/poor scan mentality, yup, a major long haul issue.
But cowboy ATC, you yanks have got that covered nicely.
Yes, I think it is partially a US problem. cowboy ATC basically. I see it all the time, mainly at JFK and SFO.
The other bits - fatigue, magenta line/poor scan mentality, yup, a major long haul issue.
But cowboy ATC, you yanks have got that covered nicely.