Thomas cook b757 incident, what a total mess
As mentioned up-thread it aint that simple.
What if the bunny corpse bounces off the nose wheel and gets sucked into an engine or the bird has flockmates swirling around the touch down zone?
What if the bunny corpse bounces off the nose wheel and gets sucked into an engine or the bird has flockmates swirling around the touch down zone?
It's perverse to order a G/A due to a dead animal when every landing carries a fair risk that there'll be a live bird/fox/bunny on the runway. A live one is far more likely to end up in an engine than a flat one and even then, the risk is financial, not safety, unless you try to go-around into a flock.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rochdale
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the exact same flight two weeks previously. Aircraft went temporarily tech due to a leaky washroom. Two hour delay on take off turned into a 16 hour day. Knackered landing back at Newcastle? You betcha. Could I have done anything different? Yeah, loads. Did I want to get home that night ? Absolutely.
Agree with ZeBedie; GA overkill for a non-theat. A dead cow or horse on the runway, yes but otherwise, pilot discretion.
Doesn't the UK require planning for contingencies eg depressurisation at any point in the flight?
Originally Posted by AAIB Report
The pilots decided to cruise at FL100 but the predicted burn was based on climbing to FL170.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully, I had learned from endless sim sessions not just to be prepared, but to EXPECT a go-around during EVERY approach.
This personal mind-set had developed many moons ago, thanks to one demanding sim instructor. His gig was to fail an engine 15 minutes into the first 2 hrs of the sim session, then we'd be motoring all maneuvers on 3 engines till the end. It was a high octane learning curve.
This personal mind-set had developed many moons ago, thanks to one demanding sim instructor. His gig was to fail an engine 15 minutes into the first 2 hrs of the sim session, then we'd be motoring all maneuvers on 3 engines till the end. It was a high octane learning curve.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs wrote:
Discretion has been removed from ATC at many airports because the airport operator/owner of the runway has decreed it such.
AFR4590 at Paris was probably the starting point for such decrees and airport companies covering themselves against almost every threat, however small.
Agree with ZeBedie; GA overkill for a non-theat. A dead cow or horse on the runway, yes but otherwise, pilot discretion.
AFR4590 at Paris was probably the starting point for such decrees and airport companies covering themselves against almost every threat, however small.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never ceases to amaze me how the 'blame everyone else but me' brigade thinks.
A crew stuffs up a go-around for a number of reasons, but hey, it's ATC's fault for sending them around!
It is immaterial why ATC sent them around. They did & that's it. The issue here is the poor handling of the go-around & what could be done to try to prevent a re-occurrence.
A crew stuffs up a go-around for a number of reasons, but hey, it's ATC's fault for sending them around!
It is immaterial why ATC sent them around. They did & that's it. The issue here is the poor handling of the go-around & what could be done to try to prevent a re-occurrence.
Two different subjects being discussed.......animals/birds on airfields and what to do about them........flying the aeroplane following an unusual event.
What the two subjects have in common is the tendency towards using SOPs and the lack of freedom and to some extent the ability, to use discretion.
This problem starts at the airside gatewith the security guys and pervades the whole system right through to the flightdeck?
What the two subjects have in common is the tendency towards using SOPs and the lack of freedom and to some extent the ability, to use discretion.
This problem starts at the airside gatewith the security guys and pervades the whole system right through to the flightdeck?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a "bread and butter" run, but that doesn't make it any easier.
Why are we so fast in disregarding fatigue or tiredness?
I know how I feel after 13-14 hours. My performance feel like it is similar to what it would be after 2-3 pints. If I had a bad nights sleep before the flight and no nap in flight, I feel even worse.
What about subtle incapacitation?
When was the last time we got checked for signs of Alzheimer?
I have discussed this with our trainers. They admit we have pilots who fail or struggle in the sim, no matter how much they read and prepare. The information will not stick, and the affected pilots are quietly taken off the roster.
These (very few) guys would probably perform OK in normal ops, but would most likely struggle if anything out of the ordinary happened.
Now we can fly until 65, and they are working to remove that limit too.
The medical examination is still eyes, ears and heart. No brain.
Why are we so fast in disregarding fatigue or tiredness?
I know how I feel after 13-14 hours. My performance feel like it is similar to what it would be after 2-3 pints. If I had a bad nights sleep before the flight and no nap in flight, I feel even worse.
What about subtle incapacitation?
When was the last time we got checked for signs of Alzheimer?
I have discussed this with our trainers. They admit we have pilots who fail or struggle in the sim, no matter how much they read and prepare. The information will not stick, and the affected pilots are quietly taken off the roster.
These (very few) guys would probably perform OK in normal ops, but would most likely struggle if anything out of the ordinary happened.
Now we can fly until 65, and they are working to remove that limit too.
The medical examination is still eyes, ears and heart. No brain.
Very little seems to have been said about the role the FO played in this incident.
I have said this previously but de facto this seems to be very much a case of subtle pilot incapacitation (or target fixation as others have mentioned).
The FO is the last line of defence in these situations.
I know it's a hard call for an FO to intervene but from the evidence presented he would have been quite justified in doing so.
I have said this previously but de facto this seems to be very much a case of subtle pilot incapacitation (or target fixation as others have mentioned).
The FO is the last line of defence in these situations.
I know it's a hard call for an FO to intervene but from the evidence presented he would have been quite justified in doing so.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent thread and very informative and useful discussion development. All agreed that the holes nearly lined up completely. I too am interested in the subsequent handling of the incident by TC. What happened to the pilots involved ? Also, why was the Loc overshot in the first place ? Loc armed ? App armed ? etc.
In perspective, might have been an isolated incident for TC. Big company and what have they done to safeguard a further lapse ?
Fully agree with all posters regarding the good ole days where we were trained to fly. Automation was introduced in stages and welcomed as an aid to off-load manual. But, if the autofunctions failed or complicated the issue, we just knocked it all out and handflew with absolutely no problems.
Differing management styles also have erased our handling skills. I can see the point. A bit. Discussion with a Chief Pilot led him to ask me to consider the fact that the company had invested very heavily in full automation in order to increase aircraft efficiency and, therefore, the philosophy was to encourage full use of that facility and to discourage handflying. I responded by asking him why then, did we have to demonstrate full handflying capability in the recurrent checks ? His response was that they allowed for degraded skills in the checks ! Not kidding. Good grief.
Same company, P2 handling, CAVOK, no wind, hardly any one else at the departure airfield. I asked him if he would like to handfly all the way to TOC for fun. He denied preferring to stick to company SOP. He later admitted that he doubted his ability to handfly to that level !
My submission is that we have allowed degradation in flying skills by sucking up to the Accountants. Twenty odd years later, here is the result. Near disasters all over the place in conditions that are hardly demanding.
JW411 : Well said. We Babyboomers might be scoffed at but we are around to tell the tale. I always announced the onset of non-normal check-list activity by a comforting, "I have the aeroplane, I have the radio". Trouble is, I think, Airbus and fly-by-wire technology is such that we never, really, have the aeroplane. It still has you ! Well, to a degree but the comfort level in automation remains high and attempts to resolve deteriorating situations through autopilot remains high for the new breed.
The TC Captain was hardly new but a Airbus Vet who referred to type. A trait that surely should have been looked for, even set-up for in his conversion to the Boeing. Mate of mine went the other way, Vet on Boeings and converted to Airbus. Every time he mentioned to the Instructors that "In the Boeing........." he was taken outside and roughed up.
In perspective, might have been an isolated incident for TC. Big company and what have they done to safeguard a further lapse ?
Fully agree with all posters regarding the good ole days where we were trained to fly. Automation was introduced in stages and welcomed as an aid to off-load manual. But, if the autofunctions failed or complicated the issue, we just knocked it all out and handflew with absolutely no problems.
Differing management styles also have erased our handling skills. I can see the point. A bit. Discussion with a Chief Pilot led him to ask me to consider the fact that the company had invested very heavily in full automation in order to increase aircraft efficiency and, therefore, the philosophy was to encourage full use of that facility and to discourage handflying. I responded by asking him why then, did we have to demonstrate full handflying capability in the recurrent checks ? His response was that they allowed for degraded skills in the checks ! Not kidding. Good grief.
Same company, P2 handling, CAVOK, no wind, hardly any one else at the departure airfield. I asked him if he would like to handfly all the way to TOC for fun. He denied preferring to stick to company SOP. He later admitted that he doubted his ability to handfly to that level !
My submission is that we have allowed degradation in flying skills by sucking up to the Accountants. Twenty odd years later, here is the result. Near disasters all over the place in conditions that are hardly demanding.
JW411 : Well said. We Babyboomers might be scoffed at but we are around to tell the tale. I always announced the onset of non-normal check-list activity by a comforting, "I have the aeroplane, I have the radio". Trouble is, I think, Airbus and fly-by-wire technology is such that we never, really, have the aeroplane. It still has you ! Well, to a degree but the comfort level in automation remains high and attempts to resolve deteriorating situations through autopilot remains high for the new breed.
The TC Captain was hardly new but a Airbus Vet who referred to type. A trait that surely should have been looked for, even set-up for in his conversion to the Boeing. Mate of mine went the other way, Vet on Boeings and converted to Airbus. Every time he mentioned to the Instructors that "In the Boeing........." he was taken outside and roughed up.
Trouble is, I think, Airbus and fly-by-wire technology is such that we never, really, have the aeroplane. It still has you ! Well, to a degree but the comfort level in automation remains high and attempts to resolve deteriorating situations through autopilot remains high for the new breed.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discretion has been removed from ATC at many airports because the airport operator/owner of the runway has decreed it such.
Fireflybob - It think it fairer if we look at the crew as a team of two rather than two individuals. As a team they failed to perform and part of the solution is to train as teams. In my own company I can think of many F/O's who might find this scenario challenging but can think of many more (the greater majority) who would normally be able to sort a situation like this out.
Fireflybob - It think it fairer if we look at the crew as a team of two rather than two individuals. As a team they failed to perform and part of the solution is to train as teams. In my own company I can think of many F/O's who might find this scenario challenging but can think of many more (the greater majority) who would normally be able to sort a situation like this out.
But, to an extent, good teams need to have an effective leader.
Also I would suggest that in this case the FO intervening would have been a case of good teamwork.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly bob has it quite right. Ultimately it was a team event and a team fail. But the Captain was the team leader and he failed at that too. He seemed to be just along for the ride and quite clearly had questionable competency issues for whatever reasons. I can't buy that a straightforward go around was so grossly mismanaged because it was of a "startle factor". On any approach you should be primed to go around, just as any take off you should be ready an emergency either side of V1. Complacency and competency are the greatest threats to ourselves. And it was the correct call by ATC.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: england
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some sharp cookies on this thread.
It's bleedin obvious that the pilots cocked up the GA and the resulting issues so well done for all the smart arse 'they were incompetent' posts, brilliant deduction Sherlock.
WHY did it happen?
Both pilots are experienced, have achieved at least minimum 'company standard' on every sim/line check but they still cocked it up. If it's a training issue then this company would have suffered with similar (although perhaps not as critical) cock ups but they don't.
The bottom line is the two pilots aren't usually incompetent so why were they on this particular day. Until that is answered then you or me or any of us could find ourselves in the same boat no matter how many times we've manually flown a raw data approach ffs!
It's bleedin obvious that the pilots cocked up the GA and the resulting issues so well done for all the smart arse 'they were incompetent' posts, brilliant deduction Sherlock.
WHY did it happen?
Both pilots are experienced, have achieved at least minimum 'company standard' on every sim/line check but they still cocked it up. If it's a training issue then this company would have suffered with similar (although perhaps not as critical) cock ups but they don't.
The bottom line is the two pilots aren't usually incompetent so why were they on this particular day. Until that is answered then you or me or any of us could find ourselves in the same boat no matter how many times we've manually flown a raw data approach ffs!
When humans become "maxed out" (target fixation?) the first sense which the brain "deletes" is hearing.
In this situation the PM can say what he likes but the PF won't be aware of what he is saying.
A "pattern interrupt" is required in the form of a physical intervention e.g. shaking the PF on the shoulder and/or taking over control.
In this situation the PM can say what he likes but the PF won't be aware of what he is saying.
A "pattern interrupt" is required in the form of a physical intervention e.g. shaking the PF on the shoulder and/or taking over control.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fred,
They didn't just cock up the GA around. They didn't manage a resulting simple problem. They flew poorly. They created additional warnings. They missed checklist items. The cocked up performance. They mis calculated fuel. They incorrectly managed fuel. They created a situation requiring a MayDay call. The landing sounded ok though.
I am always against the mob mentality here but this was not one error. There were two professional, trained crew there. I agree though the why and what next is the most important aspect.
They didn't just cock up the GA around. They didn't manage a resulting simple problem. They flew poorly. They created additional warnings. They missed checklist items. The cocked up performance. They mis calculated fuel. They incorrectly managed fuel. They created a situation requiring a MayDay call. The landing sounded ok though.
I am always against the mob mentality here but this was not one error. There were two professional, trained crew there. I agree though the why and what next is the most important aspect.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: england
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, that's what I said?
Why did two 'at least company standard' pilots become incompetent enough to make such a balls of it?
If it's training or over reliance on automation then is it just luck that there aren't more incidents?
If that's the case I'll just get myself a rabbits foot, a four leaf clover and a horse shoe for my flight case, that should do it.
Why did two 'at least company standard' pilots become incompetent enough to make such a balls of it?
If it's training or over reliance on automation then is it just luck that there aren't more incidents?
If that's the case I'll just get myself a rabbits foot, a four leaf clover and a horse shoe for my flight case, that should do it.