Asiana runway excursion in Hiroshima
monitored approach procedures
Centaurus, leadsled, fireflybob, skyhighfallguy etc:
If you are interested in this issue there is a website just being finalised that addresses this. From it you can download among many other documents the original report by Don Carmack of the Air Force IPIS-TR-70-3 LANDING WEATHER MINIMUMS INVESTIGATION from 1972, which as Centaurus says was done with a Sabreliner.
You can find it at Landing in poor visibility. | PICMA . org where there's a link in the page about making visual assessments. There's also a lot of material about CRM related stuff like monitoring, approach management, and cultural issues.
FYI the "funny" linked by leadsled was a fake notice created and put about by some disgruntled pilots as propaganda during a hotly disputed merger.
If you are interested in this issue there is a website just being finalised that addresses this. From it you can download among many other documents the original report by Don Carmack of the Air Force IPIS-TR-70-3 LANDING WEATHER MINIMUMS INVESTIGATION from 1972, which as Centaurus says was done with a Sabreliner.
You can find it at Landing in poor visibility. | PICMA . org where there's a link in the page about making visual assessments. There's also a lot of material about CRM related stuff like monitoring, approach management, and cultural issues.
FYI the "funny" linked by leadsled was a fake notice created and put about by some disgruntled pilots as propaganda during a hotly disputed merger.
Good number of photos showing aircraft and ground damage.
Asiana Airlines Aircraft Skids Off Runway On landing At Hiroshima Airport Photos | Getty Images
...
Asiana Airlines Aircraft Skids Off Runway On landing At Hiroshima Airport Photos | Getty Images
...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyhigh , I didn't say it was never used , I did say generally , but are you saying that the monitored approach where the monitoring pilot takes over the landing on acquiring visual references and the PF then becomes PM is widely used in the US ? And how many airlines do you know use this in the US .
Again Jammed , I speak generally , and I still think that the concept is not widely used outside the UK .
Again Jammed , I speak generally , and I still think that the concept is not widely used outside the UK .
Stone_cold,
for some further information see Usage and experience | PICMA . org
also the information on that site regarding recommendations by NTSB, FSF etc.
for some further information see Usage and experience | PICMA . org
also the information on that site regarding recommendations by NTSB, FSF etc.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many US airlines / regionals do monitored approaches for CAT II landings (requiring transition from approach to landing from a low DH). On approach, the captain will be PM, and near DH the captain will take over as PF and perform the landing while the FO switches role to PM.
However, with the advent of autoland, many operators feel this practice is now outdated. The PF flies (on A/P), the PM monitors -- autoland does the landing. There is no need to switch between PF/PM roles at low DH.
So instead of conducting PMA for CATII, they now require autoland on anything worse than CAT I minima.
However, with the advent of autoland, many operators feel this practice is now outdated. The PF flies (on A/P), the PM monitors -- autoland does the landing. There is no need to switch between PF/PM roles at low DH.
So instead of conducting PMA for CATII, they now require autoland on anything worse than CAT I minima.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still doesn't seem widely used.
2 US carriers , 2 UK . No other "mainland EU ", Middle Eastern or Asian carrier . Don't know about Boeing , but Airbus Low Vis procedures don't change roles .
I did not say that it is not practised at all , for those who wish to read , I said "generally the concept doesn't exist outside of the UK ". If it has been used by a few airlines for many years or is used by 6 airlines worldwide , I think this would suggest that it is not practised " generally "outside of the originators of the concept .
Apologies , some in Canada also .
2 US carriers , 2 UK . No other "mainland EU ", Middle Eastern or Asian carrier . Don't know about Boeing , but Airbus Low Vis procedures don't change roles .
I did not say that it is not practised at all , for those who wish to read , I said "generally the concept doesn't exist outside of the UK ". If it has been used by a few airlines for many years or is used by 6 airlines worldwide , I think this would suggest that it is not practised " generally "outside of the originators of the concept .
Apologies , some in Canada also .
Last edited by Stone_cold; 16th Apr 2015 at 17:34. Reason: to include Canada
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asiana boss apologizes; Downdraft possibility
Full Article | The Japan Times
HIROSHIMA – Asiana Airlines Vice President Akiyoshi Yamamura apologized Thursday to passengers and their families over Tuesdays’s botched landing at Hiroshima Airport.
“I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the passengers, their family members and those involved,” Yamamura told reporters gathered at the airport.
One investigator said Wednesday that a downdraft may have caused the wheels of the airplane to clip a communications array moments before landing and running off the runway, injuring more than 20 passengers.
A downward air current may have caused the Airbus A320 to fly too low on its final approach in low visibility due to fog and rain, said the investigator from the Japan Transport Safety Board.
“I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the passengers, their family members and those involved,” Yamamura told reporters gathered at the airport.
One investigator said Wednesday that a downdraft may have caused the wheels of the airplane to clip a communications array moments before landing and running off the runway, injuring more than 20 passengers.
A downward air current may have caused the Airbus A320 to fly too low on its final approach in low visibility due to fog and rain, said the investigator from the Japan Transport Safety Board.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically, microbursts can be very localized -- as small as 0.5 miles across -- so it's possible to hit a downdraft on final while airport winds are calm.
However without more data I'm skeptical that this is what happened.
However without more data I'm skeptical that this is what happened.
The name of the PF was "Downdraft" then. Not only the landing gear was clipping the structure, the complete tail was dragged through as well. They touched short of the runway, as one of the pictures clearly shows.
The report will be interesting, hope we will see the FDR.
The report will be interesting, hope we will see the FDR.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: hang on let me check
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now they suspended the Hiroshima flights for safety checks whatever that is. Like the problem is the Hiroshima route.
Honestly, it's people's lives we're talking here. Is this for real??
I always find it funny when I hear people say it will take an accident to make things change when we are not happy with aspects of the profession. Well like I said many times before, I see accidents happening, but not many things change apart from the bonuses of the managers and the cost cutting from the companies.
Honestly, it's people's lives we're talking here. Is this for real??
I always find it funny when I hear people say it will take an accident to make things change when we are not happy with aspects of the profession. Well like I said many times before, I see accidents happening, but not many things change apart from the bonuses of the managers and the cost cutting from the companies.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly most of Asia is 30+yrs behind the rest of the civilised world with regard to incident prevention, post accident response/investigation, and general risk management. Regulators and CEOs are more concerned with public image and saving face than they are with attempting to learn from these events in a systematic manner.
Stonecold, you are quite right that monitored approach procedures are NOT used by the majority of airlines. That is exactly the situation the PicMA site is intended to change.
The objective is to make available as much information as possible on the subject, especially from authoritative sources, so that more airlines will use them, and in fact it becomes the default procedure for two-pilot operation, especially in IMC and at night as is suggested by the ICAO/FSF/FAA CFIT training aid and many other sources.
The objective is to make available as much information as possible on the subject, especially from authoritative sources, so that more airlines will use them, and in fact it becomes the default procedure for two-pilot operation, especially in IMC and at night as is suggested by the ICAO/FSF/FAA CFIT training aid and many other sources.
Among the possibilities being discussed by the analysts on J TV was the fact that there is a steep gulley/cliff/valley off the east end of the runway and cold air tends to run off the runway and get pulled down there under normal conditions anyway. Add to that this four-minute window of drastic reduction in visibility from 1,700 meters one moment to 750, then 500-300 meters which occurred without warning and almost within seconds, apparently.
Originally Posted by Slast
that monitored approach procedures are NOT used by the majority of airlines. That is exactly the situation the PicMA site is intended to change.
But now, with the AP doing CDFAs (I am stunned that a first-world operator such as CA apparently has A320s without GPS fitted), IMO there is no longer any need, as Peekay 4 says earlier.
Paxing All Over The World
bringbackthe80s
I suggest that prangs change very little - you have to wait until people die. THEN things change, not always fast but they change.
I always find it funny when I hear people say it will take an accident to make things change when we are not happy with aspects of the profession. Well like I said many times before, I see accidents happening, but not many things change apart from the bonuses of the managers and the cost cutting from the companies.
"No longer any need?"
Hi Capn Bloggs,
"no longer" implies that there used to be problems that the procedure addressed, but they have now gone away. But sadly, that clearly is not the case.
It might be true if the ideal world had been reached, where ALL approaches were low workload, ALL crews had great CRM skills, were trained to the best possible standards, were 100% fit and adequately rested, and never omitted checklists items; where ALL aircraft and airports were equipped with 100% reliable vertical and horizontal guidance allowing the autopilot to remain engaged to touchdown in ALL weather conditions.
But the reality is that most accidents occur when pilots make errors trying to deal with the real, non-ideal world, in which the AP is NOT doing CDFAs and a first-world operator such as CA does have A320s without GPS fitted, CRM training can box-ticking, and working conditions can be c**p.
The majority of all Prune posts are complaints about the inadequacies of the real world, not celebrations of how great things are now we've achieved perfection!
So the question is whether we pilots should actually take precautions by using revised procedures which will provide us with better protection? They may not be 100% perfect but they are freely and readily available to deal with the realities....
IMO there is no longer any need (for the monitored approach procedure)
It might be true if the ideal world had been reached, where ALL approaches were low workload, ALL crews had great CRM skills, were trained to the best possible standards, were 100% fit and adequately rested, and never omitted checklists items; where ALL aircraft and airports were equipped with 100% reliable vertical and horizontal guidance allowing the autopilot to remain engaged to touchdown in ALL weather conditions.
But the reality is that most accidents occur when pilots make errors trying to deal with the real, non-ideal world, in which the AP is NOT doing CDFAs and a first-world operator such as CA does have A320s without GPS fitted, CRM training can box-ticking, and working conditions can be c**p.
The majority of all Prune posts are complaints about the inadequacies of the real world, not celebrations of how great things are now we've achieved perfection!
So the question is whether we pilots should actually take precautions by using revised procedures which will provide us with better protection? They may not be 100% perfect but they are freely and readily available to deal with the realities....