B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
I think it could also stress the point that Capt MAY have been trying to fly the HUD with a set of circumstances / energy vectors / Accelerations, he was not familiar with.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt MAY have been trying to fly the HUD with a set of circumstances / energy vectors / Accelerations, he was not familiar with.
Last edited by porterhouse; 13th Apr 2016 at 18:30.
Worth reading a parallel discussion currently in Tech Log forum and which goes into stab trim operation associated with go-around procedures. In particular the handling of the pitch up that occurs during a go-around in a 737.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/57681...nderstood.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/57681...nderstood.html
I tried timing pitch trim runs yesterday on the ground with flaps extended. 5 seconds of manual pitch trim activation equates to around 25% of the total trim travel or between 4 and 5 units of trim on the scale.
I am making the unverified assumption that the trim rate would be identical in flight with associated aerodynamic loads.
I am making the unverified assumption that the trim rate would be identical in flight with associated aerodynamic loads.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still confused that you have a plane in the meat of it's flight envelope with known attitude and power settings in what should be a stable climb and it all goes to hell within seconds?
The plane is not in a complex environment in a highly automated state where the pilots focus is elsewhere and they are relying on the automatics and have degraded scan and over reliance. It's not AF where the senior pilot was off the flight deck, the least experienced had the controls and poor CRM prevented the more experienced pilot from intervening while he might have been able to recover...
A qualified pilot flying a functioning aircraft manually during a "routine" (in the sense that it was briefed and trained and not an emergency) lost control during what should have been a simple pitch and power maneuver that could be flown my almost any general aviation pilot with suitable training.
By that I mean that if you took a typical 500 hour GA pilot and gave him 40 hours of 737 sim training and 20 hours of manual circuit flying (take off, landings, approach and departure patterns, touch and go circuits etc.)
He would be able to pass an aborted ILS approach at any point it was called by a check airman. Or is this a wrong assumption?
The plane is not in a complex environment in a highly automated state where the pilots focus is elsewhere and they are relying on the automatics and have degraded scan and over reliance. It's not AF where the senior pilot was off the flight deck, the least experienced had the controls and poor CRM prevented the more experienced pilot from intervening while he might have been able to recover...
A qualified pilot flying a functioning aircraft manually during a "routine" (in the sense that it was briefed and trained and not an emergency) lost control during what should have been a simple pitch and power maneuver that could be flown my almost any general aviation pilot with suitable training.
By that I mean that if you took a typical 500 hour GA pilot and gave him 40 hours of 737 sim training and 20 hours of manual circuit flying (take off, landings, approach and departure patterns, touch and go circuits etc.)
He would be able to pass an aborted ILS approach at any point it was called by a check airman. Or is this a wrong assumption?
Depends, has the 500hour GA pilot done two years straight of rosters that don't account for circadian rhythm and expected to do the missed approach at 4am after six hours in the seat?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By that I mean that if you took a typical 500 hour GA pilot and gave him 40 hours of 737 sim training and 20 hours of manual circuit flying (take off, landings, approach and departure patterns, touch and go circuits etc.)
He would be able to pass an aborted ILS approach at any point it was called by a check airman. Or is this a wrong assumption?
SLFinAZ is online now Report Post
He would be able to pass an aborted ILS approach at any point it was called by a check airman. Or is this a wrong assumption?
SLFinAZ is online now Report Post
So much depends on how good the pilot can fly an aircraft manually on instruments. Unfortunately, most airline crews nowadays are almost totally automation orientated or forced into it by company rules that stifle hand flying even under the most benign conditions.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so fast ....
Conventional wisdom was that it took an experienced pilot who had only flown with "steam gauges" about 300 hours to get past that "What is it doing now?" stage with a glass cockpit. "Results may vary," of course. Some guys pick it up right away, but others never do quite catch up to the airplane.
Modern displays can present one hell of a lot of information all at once so that you need to understand what you are looking at and what to pay attention to. These displays can easily overload someone with information, when that might turn out to be part of the problem with what went wrong this time.
Modern displays can present one hell of a lot of information all at once so that you need to understand what you are looking at and what to pay attention to. These displays can easily overload someone with information, when that might turn out to be part of the problem with what went wrong this time.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern displays can present one hell of a lot of information all at once so that you need to understand what you are looking at and what to pay attention to.
Having come from the 'steam gauges' to the screens in mid-80's I understand the problem. The solution was training and guidance of where to look and how to interpret all the data. This was well demonstrated when later I transitioned from an a/c with conventional ASI & fast/slow speed tape on PDF to a no ASI and full speed tape with all the bugs & symbols. I did not fully understand all the great data being shown on the speed tape and how to interpret it. FCom Vol 2 was not the most helpful. A long sector with a knowledgeable trainer solved the problem and opened my eyes to a whole new world.
When I had the chance I tried to spend time with students to explain the hidden delights of EFIS/EICAS. Sadly some were not too interested. They'd learnt what to do in TR with rigid SOP's and full use of automatics, but IMHO had not been taught how to monitor the automatics via the EFIS. Their scan was tunnelled and slow. The root cause of the problem lay in shallow initial training followed up by incomplete and superficial line training.
Lack of time and discretion did not allow the students the chance to do a real raw data sim session as introduction to the a/c. That could have introduced a real scan; indeed would have necessitated it. ROOT CAUSE.
Having come from the 'steam gauges' to the screens in mid-80's I understand the problem. The solution was training and guidance of where to look and how to interpret all the data. This was well demonstrated when later I transitioned from an a/c with conventional ASI & fast/slow speed tape on PDF to a no ASI and full speed tape with all the bugs & symbols. I did not fully understand all the great data being shown on the speed tape and how to interpret it. FCom Vol 2 was not the most helpful. A long sector with a knowledgeable trainer solved the problem and opened my eyes to a whole new world.
When I had the chance I tried to spend time with students to explain the hidden delights of EFIS/EICAS. Sadly some were not too interested. They'd learnt what to do in TR with rigid SOP's and full use of automatics, but IMHO had not been taught how to monitor the automatics via the EFIS. Their scan was tunnelled and slow. The root cause of the problem lay in shallow initial training followed up by incomplete and superficial line training.
Lack of time and discretion did not allow the students the chance to do a real raw data sim session as introduction to the a/c. That could have introduced a real scan; indeed would have necessitated it. ROOT CAUSE.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a lot of old-fashioned flying ability that has gone lost, particularly because a lot of the younger generation are "direct entry," never putting in those long hours doing flight instruction, and poling some bug-smasher with no autopilot and rudimentary equipment in crappy weather. (This always makes me think of that guy hung in chains who shouts that, by God, it's taught him to respect the Romans!)
On the other hand, a lot of the younger guys are much more at home with all this computerized stuff, so that it's not all negative.
There's a lot of room left for self-improvement, evenings spent looking over training material instead of watching dwarf porn on the pay-per-view, while I think that encouraging hand-flying when conditions permit might be a good idea.
On the other hand, a lot of the younger guys are much more at home with all this computerized stuff, so that it's not all negative.
There's a lot of room left for self-improvement, evenings spent looking over training material instead of watching dwarf porn on the pay-per-view, while I think that encouraging hand-flying when conditions permit might be a good idea.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After that long time in a bumpy, noisy, dark and tight space you are only at a fraction of your normal capacity. We all have our tricks to try to keep up but ultimately, we are not made to handle that amount of information efficiently at that time in the morning at that speed. Scanning slows down significantly and eyelids starts to feel heavier by the hour and the situational awareness declines drastically.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a Crew Scheduling background I studied that F/O's roster:
The amount of duty days and duty hours, I presume, fall within the FTL's ... If they are excessive then it is the FTL's, not the Crew Scheduler nor computer programme, that need changing.
Presuming 2 consecutive days off in 14, 8 days off in 28 then an 11 day roster period, with only one day off, has been 'cut' as 'worst case scenario', as 'scare tactics'.
My only criticisms are:
1. A restricted 'Captain Only' destination has been scheduled as a 12.75 hour night duty, and:
2. The F/O had a 20 hour rest period prior to this night duty.
What would I have done:
1. As a Crew Scheduler:
I'd have scheduled the F/O for little more than minimum rest prior to this duty or I would have brought him in fresh from days off to perform it, and/or:
2. As a Commercial Manager:
I would schedule the route as a daytime duty whereas the crew report for duty at the optimum time of day.
3. As a Flight Operations Inspector:
I would ensure that (1) and/or (2) are acted upon and put in place.
The amount of duty days and duty hours, I presume, fall within the FTL's ... If they are excessive then it is the FTL's, not the Crew Scheduler nor computer programme, that need changing.
Presuming 2 consecutive days off in 14, 8 days off in 28 then an 11 day roster period, with only one day off, has been 'cut' as 'worst case scenario', as 'scare tactics'.
My only criticisms are:
1. A restricted 'Captain Only' destination has been scheduled as a 12.75 hour night duty, and:
2. The F/O had a 20 hour rest period prior to this night duty.
What would I have done:
1. As a Crew Scheduler:
I'd have scheduled the F/O for little more than minimum rest prior to this duty or I would have brought him in fresh from days off to perform it, and/or:
2. As a Commercial Manager:
I would schedule the route as a daytime duty whereas the crew report for duty at the optimum time of day.
3. As a Flight Operations Inspector:
I would ensure that (1) and/or (2) are acted upon and put in place.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From wikipedia article about Somatogravic Illusion
Vestibular/somatogravic illusions
Somatogravic illusions are caused by linear accelerations. These illusions involving the utricle and the saccule of the vestibular system are most likely under conditions with unreliable or unavailable external visual references.
Inversion illusion
An abrupt change from climb to straight-and-level flight can stimulate the otolith organs enough to create the illusion of tumbling backwards, or inversion illusion. The disoriented pilot may push the aircraft abruptly into a nose-low attitude, possibly intensifying this illusion.
Somatogravic illusions are caused by linear accelerations. These illusions involving the utricle and the saccule of the vestibular system are most likely under conditions with unreliable or unavailable external visual references.
Inversion illusion
An abrupt change from climb to straight-and-level flight can stimulate the otolith organs enough to create the illusion of tumbling backwards, or inversion illusion. The disoriented pilot may push the aircraft abruptly into a nose-low attitude, possibly intensifying this illusion.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
The problem is that the operators want less restrictive FTL in order to be "flexible" in contingent situations. This flexibility is then used to its maximum in order to keep the competitive edge and profits to a maximum.
The authorities say it is up to the operators to use common sense but at the same time allowing dangerous rostering just in case, the operators in turn say that the authorities allow dangerous rostering and therefor they have to do it to keep the greenbacks rolling in.
"Legal = Safe"
The problem is that the operators want less restrictive FTL in order to be "flexible" in contingent situations. This flexibility is then used to its maximum in order to keep the competitive edge and profits to a maximum.
The authorities say it is up to the operators to use common sense but at the same time allowing dangerous rostering just in case, the operators in turn say that the authorities allow dangerous rostering and therefor they have to do it to keep the greenbacks rolling in.
"Legal = Safe"
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scanning slows down significantly and eyelids starts to feel heavier by the hour and the situational awareness declines drastically.
Those of more experience realise this is happening and adjust accordingly; i.e. concentrate to concentrate and do things a little more slowly and ensure accuracy. The abrupt agricultural application of flight control and/or power is avoided. There is also the realisation that using the automatics will release some tired capacity to manage the operation: ah, but then you need to have a thorough understanding of the automatics. Back to ROOT Cause.
I feel this debate, coming at the same problem from various directions, is going into never ending circle mode. We can go at it forever; we are in violent agreement about the problem, but perhaps not the solution, although there is much consensus. Trouble is none of us are in a position to change anything at root cause level. (that is I've not read a post from anyone who possesses such powers).
Those of more experience realise this is happening and adjust accordingly; i.e. concentrate to concentrate and do things a little more slowly and ensure accuracy. The abrupt agricultural application of flight control and/or power is avoided. There is also the realisation that using the automatics will release some tired capacity to manage the operation: ah, but then you need to have a thorough understanding of the automatics. Back to ROOT Cause.
I feel this debate, coming at the same problem from various directions, is going into never ending circle mode. We can go at it forever; we are in violent agreement about the problem, but perhaps not the solution, although there is much consensus. Trouble is none of us are in a position to change anything at root cause level. (that is I've not read a post from anyone who possesses such powers).
Trouble is none of us are in a position to change anything at root cause level. (that is I've not read a post from anyone who possesses such powers).
How many Airline Pilots are there world wide ?
If there are 500,000 and 10% all posted an IFALPA designed letter from their local post office to ICAO headquarters on the 1st of June that called for ICAO compliant countries to limit 2 crew graveyard shifts to 11 hours for single sectors and 9 hours for double sectors, at least someone would have to stand in front of the to cameras and say that they will think about it.
Fanciful I know but it would literally save lives if implemented and the Airlines would still make their dough.
that is I've not read a post from anyone who possesses such powers
At present I'm no longer in such a position, but for more than a decade I did possess such powers, and the reason I visit here is primarily to listen and learn. It will come very handy if I ever get called to such high office again.
The issue is far-far more complex, and no, in many cases the airline would not make its dough. The issue evolves around overnight flights with a sector length of 4-4.5 hours, and is linked to night curfews, daily aircraft utilization and crew requirements per aircraft.
For airlines with night curfews at home base, the only way to use the aircraft during this time is to send them out late in the evening and get them home by the time the curfew is lifted. The commercial realities are that these night flights are not only unpopular with crew, but - surprise, surprise - also with passengers, translating into low yields. As a result the maths work out only if the rotation can be completed by a single set of crew, but not if one whole set of crew needs to be stationed permanently at the destination (it is not just the hotel cost, but one full extra set of crew is needed for the aircraft).
The alternative is of course to drop the destination, keep the aircraft grounded at base during the curfew, and operate the aircraft with two less sets of crew (which is what European low-costs typically do, as they do not need connecting passengers to fill half the flight, hence they can afford orphan sectors in the mornings and evenings). But this means that the ownership cost of the aircraft needs to be spread over fewer revenue flights, pushing their cost up. In many cases, without the night flightpair to spread costs (and the 8 hours flight time is a lot), the whole daytime operation may become unprofitable.
No easy answers, and am not advocating anything, just trying to show that the picture is a bit more complex than simply limiting two sector night shifts to 9 hours across the board (and why 9, why not eight or 9:30... ?)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right ...
The industry has become run by bean-counting accountants, no matter what the profit margin they want more and more, many shall never be satisfied.
I worked for one particular operator, the commission-salaried commercial manager would receive a sub-charter enquiry, he would come to me/us asking if we had a crew, the reply would be as big a "NO" and it would be possible to give and still he would sell the flight, he thought it was funny, putting the pressure upon us, and the goodwill of the crews, to work their days off on the promise that we'd give them their day off back the next week until the @sshole would sell another sub-charter etc. ... Somewhat fortunately the CAA withdrew that operator's AOC before they actually killed somebody although they did try with the Leeds United FC team!
Another operator I worked for, and somewhat fortunately my Company President was checked out as a Captain although, the joke was, I referred to him as a penguin, i.e. "The fokker's got wings but he won't fly"! On one two aircraft operation I told him we needed 7 or 8 crews to operate it, he decided that 7 or 8 meant 5 until he found himself in some less than desirable hotel in Bombay ... He never disagreed with my crewing numbers again
As much as I may disagree with pilots's managing office departments they did a darn sight better job that what the industry has now, call centre mentality muppets wearing brightly coloured tee shirts calling everybody sir whilst serving about as much purpose as a chocolate teapot!
The industry has become run by bean-counting accountants, no matter what the profit margin they want more and more, many shall never be satisfied.
I worked for one particular operator, the commission-salaried commercial manager would receive a sub-charter enquiry, he would come to me/us asking if we had a crew, the reply would be as big a "NO" and it would be possible to give and still he would sell the flight, he thought it was funny, putting the pressure upon us, and the goodwill of the crews, to work their days off on the promise that we'd give them their day off back the next week until the @sshole would sell another sub-charter etc. ... Somewhat fortunately the CAA withdrew that operator's AOC before they actually killed somebody although they did try with the Leeds United FC team!
Another operator I worked for, and somewhat fortunately my Company President was checked out as a Captain although, the joke was, I referred to him as a penguin, i.e. "The fokker's got wings but he won't fly"! On one two aircraft operation I told him we needed 7 or 8 crews to operate it, he decided that 7 or 8 meant 5 until he found himself in some less than desirable hotel in Bombay ... He never disagreed with my crewing numbers again
As much as I may disagree with pilots's managing office departments they did a darn sight better job that what the industry has now, call centre mentality muppets wearing brightly coloured tee shirts calling everybody sir whilst serving about as much purpose as a chocolate teapot!
The issue is far-far more complex, and no, in many cases the airline would not make its dough. The issue evolves around overnight flights with a sector length of 4-4.5 hours, and is linked to night curfews, daily aircraft utilization and crew requirements per aircraft.
of the decision making process at the Airline level.
For example, if the rule I proposed existed, the return sector wouldn't be on the table as an option, and all the eeking would be focused elsewhere.
But this means that the ownership cost of the aircraft needs to be spread over fewer revenue flights, pushing their cost up. In many cases, without the night flightpair to spread costs (and the 8 hours flight time is a lot), the whole daytime operation may become unprofitable.
The demise of airlines/ bases who existence relies on the viability of such 'night flightpairs' is a small price to pay and 'the Airlines' will still make their dough....just not those ones.
This is big picture stuff and market forces will naturally resolve the complexities you talk of.
If the situation is viewed in 100 year chunks of time it becomes simpler to understand.
Thanks for you opinion by the way, interesting to see the mindset.
Cheers,
Framer
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what are "excessive" FTLs ? I submit they only exist in the minds of crews. nobody constructs a crew scheduling computer programme that allocates hours in excess of the
rules, which are well known to everyone and are pretty much the same the world over. When did you last hear of a prosecution of an airline for imposing illegal rosters? This F/O roster looks to be the usual computer-generated version the pilot would have received many days or perhaps weeks before the day in question and the chance of it being illegal is zero. Even if it turns out he had been called out at a days notice, due perhaps to the original pilot's absence for whatever reason, a scheduler would still make sure all the applicable rules were observed.
The FTL rules have been analysed/reviewed/modified/complained about for as long as I can remember, involving all interested parties including pilots and the medical profession. However things have changed more than slightly since the days of laying over on some sunny tropical island for a few days to await the arrival of the next aircraft. Its hard to think that FTLs designed then still fit todays world. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way and the hallowed (and hollowed) phrase of "Safety is our highest priority" should be taken out and dusted off...
rules, which are well known to everyone and are pretty much the same the world over. When did you last hear of a prosecution of an airline for imposing illegal rosters? This F/O roster looks to be the usual computer-generated version the pilot would have received many days or perhaps weeks before the day in question and the chance of it being illegal is zero. Even if it turns out he had been called out at a days notice, due perhaps to the original pilot's absence for whatever reason, a scheduler would still make sure all the applicable rules were observed.
The FTL rules have been analysed/reviewed/modified/complained about for as long as I can remember, involving all interested parties including pilots and the medical profession. However things have changed more than slightly since the days of laying over on some sunny tropical island for a few days to await the arrival of the next aircraft. Its hard to think that FTLs designed then still fit todays world. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way and the hallowed (and hollowed) phrase of "Safety is our highest priority" should be taken out and dusted off...