B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Gender Faculty Specialist
That's definitely a possibility and in the WS case it is the correct action, with the thrust levers at least, so NOT an error. The error would be to reconfigure IF a WEM was initiated. You won't get more than rated power on the NG if you firewall the TLs you'll simply get TOGA thrust.
Slight slip in terminology - sorry. Full 26k takeoff thrust is less than the full forward stop, but full 27k Max rated thrust is at the forward stop ref FCOM 2 7.20.4; what isn't obvious to me either from FCOMs or my FMC guide is whether full GA thrust is 26k or 27k - from thrust lever position at GA thrust I would assume it is 26k?
Hopefully the CVR evidence will indicate whether a Windshear or a normal go-around was intended.
Hopefully the CVR evidence will indicate whether a Windshear or a normal go-around was intended.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys: they had only 55pax and some fuel. At that weight there was more than enough thrust for any WEM; but at their height would they have received such a warning? Back to CVR. Or could it have been just a "WS ahead?" Back to CVR. If they were light and gave full power for a WS ahead warning they were in deep shtuck. If this was the case it is almost as though they were primed for this eventuality. Trigger happy? If so, and if they'd experienced it once, and if they had an escape route to a safe haven, i.e. a Plan B in hand, then it is not a rushed manoeuvre. It would have been "let's have another look-see, and if it is the same as before, and because we are both dog-tired, we'll make another GA nice and smoothly and F-Off to that cosy ALTN just done the road. We have their Wx and we have the fuel, and we can look forward to a nice soft warm bed." Good CRM them stipulates that "What do you think?" would follow. Reply," fine by me let's do it. What are they going to do? Fire us? We're leaving anyway."
The CVR will tell volumes.
The CVR will tell volumes.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we'll make another GA nice and smoothly and F-Off to that cosy ALTN just done the road. We have their Wx and we have the fuel, and we can look forward to a nice soft warm bed." Good CRM them stipulates that "What do you think?" would follow. Reply," fine by me let's do it. What are they going to do? Fire us? We're leaving anyway."
I'd much rather get the job done and foxtrot oscar back to the relative luxury of Dubai.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anyone know if the HUD is used during the go round? I've seen them in the sim, but have no idea how it is used.
I have a feeling that if the HUD was used for the missed approach, then the attention of the PF is focused away from the PFD and toward the visual cues outside. This is fine for a low vis landing, but climbing at night into the overcast with the landing lights shining into the cloud, this would be most disorientating.
If the aircraft is accelerating, pitching up and climbing into cloud at night, then I would imagine that the PF would find it very difficult to focus on the pitch attitude unless he concentrated hard on the PFD. It is hard to explain why the previous go round went to plan, but the second went badly wrong, the only difference possibly being that the first go round was due to windshear and the FD pitch commands were followed, but on the second go round, the PF was distracted.
I have a feeling that if the HUD was used for the missed approach, then the attention of the PF is focused away from the PFD and toward the visual cues outside. This is fine for a low vis landing, but climbing at night into the overcast with the landing lights shining into the cloud, this would be most disorientating.
If the aircraft is accelerating, pitching up and climbing into cloud at night, then I would imagine that the PF would find it very difficult to focus on the pitch attitude unless he concentrated hard on the PFD. It is hard to explain why the previous go round went to plan, but the second went badly wrong, the only difference possibly being that the first go round was due to windshear and the FD pitch commands were followed, but on the second go round, the PF was distracted.
but climbing at night into the overcast with the landing lights shining into the cloud, this would be most disorientating.
In another life in 737's I have done hundreds of black night blackhole take off and landings and no shortage of night/IMC go-arounds either. However, on go-arounds in IMC at night, it takes less than two seconds to switch the lights off and saves getting distracted and partially blinded by the lights reflecting from cloud. Call it good airmanship. Finally slave-like devotion to FD needles that require total concentration to keep the needles centred on a go-around, can be a real trap as they hide the "little aeroplane" which is the vital instrument on go-arounds. I envy the `aces` who claim they have no problem looking behind the FD needles because I'm buggered if I can without getting distracted.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we also have lights on/off at 10.000ft, but during high speed climb/descent,ex. CI100,
I just turn them off. More annoying are the new strobes in A320 Sharklet, they shine very much up front into the cockpit. So I turn them off as well in clouds.
I just turn them off. More annoying are the new strobes in A320 Sharklet, they shine very much up front into the cockpit. So I turn them off as well in clouds.
That's because modern airline trainers and managers will punish their pilots for breaching SOP by leaving the lights off.
The notion of the Normalization of Deviance, first offered in Diane Vaughan's, " ", (1996) can be thought of as an objective metric in time as well as a description of human behaviour over time in terms of risk analysis and management.
Years ago flight directors were terrible, and on the DC8/DC9, manually set for pitch, mostly during takeoffs. They were reliable for ILS approaches, however. The habit of "looking through" them was borne from the sense that they really weren't telling you anything important. Today, they are fully integrated and display what the auto flight system is "thinking", so they have value, but both the raw data "in-behind", and an awareness of aircraft state, just as Centaurus emphasizes!
Re "suggester", good one!
That's the way pilots should take it, for sure. The value in the Airbus FD, (can't speak for the later Boeings) is that it broadcasts what the auto flight system is thinking and what it would do if engaged. It should be just another tool, and not a compelling master.
The original issue at hand is the possible-noted effect the FDs had on the PF in the AF447 accident, now discussed at length elsewhere.
That's the way pilots should take it, for sure. The value in the Airbus FD, (can't speak for the later Boeings) is that it broadcasts what the auto flight system is thinking and what it would do if engaged. It should be just another tool, and not a compelling master.
The original issue at hand is the possible-noted effect the FDs had on the PF in the AF447 accident, now discussed at length elsewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all made sense when we had simple things such as the house lever. Push it down and houses got bigger, pull it up they got smaller. Then came glass cockpits and I really must say those who live in them should not throw stones.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I turn them off as well in clouds.
I was IMC, deep in cloud There was this red light mind thumping ef'ing irritating distracting light show going on outside. I turned off the collision beacon. The F/O said, "are we allow to do that?" " We are now!" There then followed a lengthy discussion about the merits of using common sense. We decided that the rotating red beacon served naff all in preventing a collision; it was causing us no end of distraction, and merited turning off. The realisation from F/O that such deviation from SOP's was possible was astounding; and disturbing.
We survived to fly another day.
I was IMC, deep in cloud There was this red light mind thumping ef'ing irritating distracting light show going on outside. I turned off the collision beacon. The F/O said, "are we allow to do that?" " We are now!" There then followed a lengthy discussion about the merits of using common sense. We decided that the rotating red beacon served naff all in preventing a collision; it was causing us no end of distraction, and merited turning off. The realisation from F/O that such deviation from SOP's was possible was astounding; and disturbing.
We survived to fly another day.
RAT_5, a story well worth posting for those are afraid to deviate even when it is obvious that such deviation is necessary. The present pilot shortage is engendering blind adherence to SOPs for their proven record of keeping things safe while keeping the training footprint as small as possible*. Such programs seem to avoid those very occasions in which thinking, knowledge of one's aircraft, knowledge of normal instrument readings & aircraft behaviour, and airmanship take precedence over slavish adherence to habit, company procedures or published SOPs.
In doing so, the commander had better have a very good reason for doing so, but that's the commander's job and also his/her responsibility (to deviate from SOPs in order to preserve, even if only-potentially, life, limb and property).
In fact, if we adhered strictly to every rule and procedure in the book, we'd never reach our destination on-time.
*anyone here believe that, along with simulator time etc., ab-initio airline-pilot cadet flight schools provide a true sense of the principles of aviation, meaning the fact that the airplane is trying to kill everyone on board and will do so at any time the pilots give it an opening...?
In doing so, the commander had better have a very good reason for doing so, but that's the commander's job and also his/her responsibility (to deviate from SOPs in order to preserve, even if only-potentially, life, limb and property).
In fact, if we adhered strictly to every rule and procedure in the book, we'd never reach our destination on-time.
*anyone here believe that, along with simulator time etc., ab-initio airline-pilot cadet flight schools provide a true sense of the principles of aviation, meaning the fact that the airplane is trying to kill everyone on board and will do so at any time the pilots give it an opening...?
Last edited by PJ2; 24th Apr 2016 at 22:50.
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'll add the strobe lights as well to my list to turn off in cloud. Only because it was written as an SOP was discretion allowed on the use of landing lights in LVO's.
I once feigned an epileptic twitch in cloud with the strobes banging away. The look on the face of the F/O was priceless. I urged him to turn them of and made a smart recovery; before I confessed, but the lesson was learnt.
I once feigned an epileptic twitch in cloud with the strobes banging away. The look on the face of the F/O was priceless. I urged him to turn them of and made a smart recovery; before I confessed, but the lesson was learnt.
As someone who flies an aircraft where the flight director and autopilot are entirely independent and the autopilot doesn't actually follow the flight director all that well, I agree with the general sentiment on flight directors. However, the worst flying I've ever seen in the aircraft was from someone trying to "look through" the flight director. If the flight director AND raw data are all telling you the same thing, then follow the damned flight director! "Why not just follow the flight director?" I ask, "because it's crap" he says, "well, it may not be the best in the business but it's a hell of a lot better than you my friend and all of your problems would be solved if you just followed it." I didn't say that, but I was thinking it!
I was IMC, deep in cloud There was this red light mind thumping ef'ing irritating distracting light show going on outside. I turned off the collision beacon. The F/O said, "are we allow to do that?" " We are now!" There then followed a lengthy discussion about the merits of using common sense. We decided that the rotating red beacon served naff all in preventing a collision; it was causing us no end of distraction, and merited turning off. The realisation from F/O that such deviation from SOP's was possible was astounding; and disturbing.
We survived to fly another day.
We survived to fly another day.
There is a huge difference between "doing things right" = management and "doing the right thing" = leadership.