Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

Old 18th Aug 2016, 16:58
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 868
Capn, may be more qualification required than iffy.
What was in mind is how to build on what has been achieved without discarding the useful bits.
First we have to consider where we are or think we are on the horizontal axis in fig 3.1. Approaches toSafety: One Size Does Not Fit All
Whilst some areas of the industry may appear to be ultra safe, perhaps they are not, i.e. the industry requires a range of safety activities.
What helps best to manage risk.
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 00:32
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 762
Originally posted by tdracer
Of course now days, nearly all of that training is done in simulators - with obvious cost savings and it's certainly much safer (I've yet to hear of anyone getting hurt when they crashed the simulator ). But I've also noticed that many (most?) simulators are fixed - full motion simulators being far more costly.
Have we gone too far in the simulation direction?
Whilst there are plenty of fixed base simulators (Flight Training Devices, or FTD), the regulatory requirements dictate that Full Flight Simulators (FFS) are used for zero flight time training/testing and most types of recurrent training/testing. In my experience, FTDs are mainly used during aircraft conversion courses, where they are useful for teaching pre-flight and checklist procedures, and for demonstrating the effects of the cockpit controls on aircraft systems.

My big gripe is that FFS are not being used effectively during recurrent training, where they are mainly used to train 'canned' exercises. In many airlines, recurrent training events have become a 'box ticking' exercise where there is huge pressure to complete as many items as possible in a limited amount of time. That satisfies the various regulatory authorities, but does little to prepare pilots for the unexpected events that occur in the real world. That aspect is slowly changing with the introduction of Advanced Qualification Programs and Evidence Based Training by some airlines, but it remains to be seen if they have much of an effect on safety outcomes.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 01:21
  #1003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by PEI_3721 View Post
The so-called professional comment on the GA video is appalling, noting that this is an open forum. The explanations for the aircraft's flight path suggest wide gaps in certification and operational knowledge - what the aircraft was designed and approved to do, how it was envisaged to be used, vs how it is trained or expected to be used.
Excepting gross mishandling or weather, a GA in the flare or after touchdown should not invoke concerns of insufficient speed, power response, tail strike, climb performance, control effectiveness, etc.

Whilst some of the comment in this forum represents the real professionals in the industry, other aspects suggest that the professional quality is in decline. An emerging concern should be if incorrect or ill-informed comments are influencing the new or inexperienced pilots or unwary management.
Does the predominance of mis-informed information in social media and open forums present a risk in aviation, does it degrade the standards of communication and belief;
How about showing us which quotes you feel are incorrect so that the inexperienced will know what not to believe.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 01:48
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,279
Whilst some of the comment in this forum represents the real professionals in the industry, other aspects suggest that the professional quality is in decline. An emerging concern should be if incorrect or ill-informed comments are influencing the new or inexperienced pilots or unwary management
Has always been a problem on PPRuNe, separating those who really do sit in the front row, and those who are, at best, flight simmers. If you remember our famed SSG he presented himself as a highly credentialed aviator, whereas the reality was the nearest he got to a real aircraft was as a pax in 45C. His views on V1 were a case in point, where an upcoming lad/lass may have taken on board his ludicrous notions because of his self proclaimed "expert" status. Avid flight simmer, and sucked a lot of people in, even professionals. So
How about showing us which quotes you feel are incorrect so that the inexperienced will know what not to believe
is a bit difficult when even the professionals can have widely disparate views at times on a particular subject.
megan is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 02:39
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 120
It's the whole system that is the problem....

I doubt that new or inexperienced pilots are that foolish or easily influenced (unless they read PPRuNe! ) but what I do believe is that they are probably a combination of first 'big jet' job so still 'living the dream' but secondly, bullied by management (directly or indirectly) and also locked in by bonds which puts them all in a Hobson's choice position.

The most worrying thing is that if you believe in SMS principles particularly the James Reason culpability decision tree , we have an awful lot of 'professional' pilots out there knowing and willfully doing stuff which, while legal, is fundamentally unsafe (fatigue/rosters etc.) and by not saying 'no' they become negligent/reckless as a result - before anyone jumps all over me, I am not pointing fingers and I understand the pressure and reasons that lead to this - the root cause analysis points at management, airlines, company culture, regulators and ultimately ICAO (the toothless tiger!) - unfortunately, the guys sat down the front are the ones at the sharp end who bear the brunt and might pay with their lives in doing so!

The decline in professional quality is that the whole system is going wrong and being corrupted and that SMS is being paid lip-service and flight crew are being forced into situations that they know are unsafe ( although 'legal' - just because its legal doesn't mean its right/safe, right!) but due to greed $$$ and regulatory apathy, they can do nothing about it - the ultimate Hobson's choice - 'your job or your life' - we have reached a very sad place in modern aviation
bluesideoops is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 03:27
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,059
but due to greed $$$ and regulatory apathy, they can do nothing about it - the ultimate Hobson's choice - 'your job or your life' - we have reached a very sad place in modern aviation
Agree, the root cause is that said apathy, although they are very agile in reaching out their hands ....
It is more like a "Hobbs choice": The ruthless tiger in their dreams, versus the cuddly toy in reality.
glofish is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 14:16
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
complacency creep

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
When we get thrown into a situation which cannot be handled by the automatics, we fail, or should I say almost all situations we fail in are when the autos can't help us. Pilots can no longer fly, It's that simple.
A bit grim there, Capn'! History just might teach us that AF447 was the bellwether. And if it was, have we learned all the lessons of that perplexing series of events? I would argue that we must travel further. Irrespective of what the PF assumed the protections were at any given moment, his own logic ought to have saved him, had he been confident enough to overrule the 'infallible' bus with it. Unreliable indicated airspeed, perceived erroneous stall warnings and multiple levels of degraded auto law environments must be challenging to say the least, but unreliable physics is an entirely different prospect altogether.

Unfortunately it appears his confidence in the bus (or automatics more generally) allowed him to ignore the fundamentals of flight, which is deeply concerning and clearly needs to be more fully understood.

I'm not convinced it's quite as grim as you [jest?] above, but we might be in danger of entering a new era of 'complacency creep', ironically as a result of the very automatics we designed to enhance safety in the first place (which they indubitably have).

Just IMHO.
deadheader is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 15:53
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by bluesideoops View Post
In that JAL just prior to touchdown and during the initial phase of the G/A check the control surfaces, especially the elevator! Someone was stirring the porridge that day!
I agree, excessive control inputs. I see this online a lot, when the adrenaline starts to flow on a gusty approach at least half the turbulence is self induced.

You don't see it in the sim, maybe because we don't turn up the turbulence in there.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 16:26
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
I sometimes wonder if I live on a different planet to PPRuNe folk. I doubt if anyone would ever get on a plane in China or India or Africa if it weren't for automation. I'm sure there are some minor issues around the margins and the concern for safety expressed here is excellent, but the idea that automation has made aviation less safe globally is patently absurd.
oblivia is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 19:06
  #1010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 91
Adherence to SOP etc.

Many moons ago flying for a well-known UK based carrier flying charter and scheduled flights with a huge variety of destinations same Flight Inspector allowed us to fly all models of BAC 1-11's, yet insisted our kilted cousins fly either their 200 or 500 models, not both. One charter, the other schedules, so a much more limited variety of flying for each. Never understood that.

Company SOP across all fleets was hand fly going and coming below 10000 feet. Everyone benefited from that hands on handling experience.

My only actual not sim engine failure on the 1-11 occurred at TOD which made life much easier than had it occurred on departure.

Having completed Emergency Checklist, discussed with copilot if there was anything else beneficial we could do and it was agreed that lighting the APU would be a good thing, which surprisingly was not in the aforementioned checklist, which we did. Spare air and electrics obviously plus a teeny bit of additional thrust !! Reminiscent slightly of the Trident poke development.

UK destination CAVOK so elected visual approach which ATC OK'd.

Carried out approach higher than normal such that, in the 10 to the minus whatever likelihood the other motor chose to quit, a deadstick would be possible.

Stacks of those practised in the Hunter in my previous life and also in spare time in the sim in Dublin so felt confident it was an option. Practicality proved on a different mount by the Gimli Glider sometime later and the A300 Azores copy. Neither may I add by me.

Unsurprisingly, good motor continued as advertised, achieved stable powered approach later than normal, still capable of a deadstick should it be a late surprise event, managed the usual greaser and stopped well short of the end.

Wrote and submitted incident report; later discussed event with Fleet Manager who berated me for not carrying out the sim well-established ILS procedure, and refused to admit that the addition of the use of the APU in the Emergency Checklist would be useful. Insisted it was merely a matter of airmanship. I suggested that if it were a good wheeze and as it was quite unusual to experience this event in an average fling career it might just be useful to have in the E C as a reminder to even the top airmanship king. No - simple matter of airmanship old boy ! Fought my case with an eventual concession that the ILS might not perhaps be the only option in these circumstances, but final refusal on APU inclusion. Never did understand that, but then I was only a line pilot.

Subsequent Kegworth B737 event might have been different had they had their APU on.

Plus ca change etc. Goes back a long way and yes, I have done the Long BS Course !

Enjoying retirement but still occasional hankering to be back up there with those of you who are !

Final thought- BGO - no matter how clever and sophisticated the automatics are, which they definitely were in the Global Express which I was fortunate enough to pole in my subsequent aviation career, anyone in the pointy end MUST be able to handfly what they are sitting in and be able to recognise and take over capably in the event of an automatics malfunction. Or everyone could perish.
sailor is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 20:36
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 687
I may be the only professional pilot here thinking this, but personally, I'm very glad there are very few (if any?) pilots like you left in the airlines.

The very last person I want to be sitting next to is some astronaut, who thinks he's still in a single engined, single seat fighter!

This job is a TWO pilot operation! Both need to know EXACTLY what's coming next. Keep it SOP. Keep it simple.

Frankly, the industry can't sustain the rates of losses the 'old and bold' generation accepted. We may have different problems now, but flying is infinitely safer, for a very good reason, and it's not purely because aircraft are more reliable!

Though even I'm of an age when I'm seduced by the idea that 'the older I get, the better I was'!
4468 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 21:23
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,187
4468 - exactly what dangerous actions did he undertake? Starting the APU even though the checklist didn't call for it?
misd-agin is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 04:44
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,997
Keep it SOP. Keep it simple.
That's an oxymoron if I ever read one!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 14:34
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Some comments on Checklists. B737 QRH: You have an engine shutdown and therefore a wounded bird. You may be or not under radar. Either way you would be hard pressed to respond to an RA, especially a climb. IMHO opinion selecting TA Only is rather helpful to reduce the risk. Yet, in the QRH for engine failures of all varieties it is No.9 in the checklist. It can take a long time to reach this. In other checklists it comes earlier. It seems as if this section is not considered important to Boeing. Why? Select TA by Recall takes <5secs and may avoid an undesirable moment. There are various QRH checklists where it is appropriate but not included at all. It took much persuasion to include it is the Emergency Descent QRH. Indeed some Boeing company pilots didn't understand there question.
After Sully went boating my airline included a double engine failure/ditching in the recurrence sessions. The SFI asked me why I called for 'locked' harness before splash time. I said it seemed common sense. I did not think the manufacturer included harness locks just for pilot incapacitation; which is the only time they are ever used. After checking the QRH for Ditching it does not include locking the shoulder harness. I wonder why.

Last edited by RAT 5; 21st Aug 2016 at 06:41.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 17:12
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 583
What's the reason for locking the shoulder harness? Does your airline not have tension reels on the shoulder straps?
Mr Good Cat is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 17:40
  #1016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 91
4468 View

4468 - fascinating response !

No astronaut me, and procedure had been practised many times not only in Hunter but twin engined heavier machine with another crewmember who did not have a pole and throttle to play with, just radar and the rest, but he did have his own means of exit/ escape which he could opt to use at any time if he did not care for what was going on.

Event I described had an experienced ex-mil co. What we executed safely was discussed and agreed beforehand, had been practised in the sim by both separately, and of course the co was entitled to take control of any situation where he considered it to be heading towards an unsuccessful outcome.

That's the scenario in more detail for you delectation; perhaps you could expand on your misgivings for me.

Your
"This job is a TWO pilot operation! Both need to know EXACTLY what's coming next. Keep it SOP. Keep it simple." first; would you really throw away the advantage of height and speed in hand in order to perform an SOP ILS approach, which not only would take longer with the good engine at a higher power setting potentially straining it so unnecessarily that it too might quit? Then what ? Is that really such a good idea? I definitely still think not.

If you really do consider that to be the better option then I am glad I flew when I did with airmanship considerations being part of everyday life rather than being constrained like you unfortunately appear to be to a blinkered, always SOP lifestyle. No need to engage brain there. Pity. God forbid !

Next your
"Frankly, the industry can't sustain the rates of losses the 'old and bold' generation accepted. We may have different problems now, but flying is infinitely safer, for a very good reason, and it's not purely because aircraft are more reliable!"

My day included the Comet crash window problems, and ADF, VOR, backbeam ILS and other interesting approaches which were often the order of the day, all hand flown without the luxury of GPS and automation to touchdown that your generation enjoys. So you can go look up on Google what some of those vintage system approaches involved, as you appear to be one of the newer generation who would probably have packed it in when faced with some of those situations. Not entirely a question of old and bold and aircraft reliability at all actually.

Finally your
"I may be the only professional pilot here thinking this, but personally, I'm very glad there are very few (if any?) pilots like you left in the airlines."

I think and hope that you are ! So be it, but you don't know what you missed.
Had you been lucky enough to have been blessed and rostered with me you would probably have learnt a lot to your benefit, being polite and respectful to your seniors and betters perhaps being one of them ! As it is I am very happy that I did not suffer that misfortune. Nothing personal of course !
sailor is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 20:34
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
What's the reason for locking the shoulder harness? Does your airline not have tension reels on the shoulder straps?

Belt & braces! Would you trust yourself to a single safety item when you had a back-up and did not activate it? Why have a back-up and not use it? It is not an automatic system! Duh! Question: why is the lock lever there?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 00:59
  #1018 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 9,142
Back to the original prang of this thread. Although I have followed the full thread, I cannot recall if we learnt: Was the pilot handling, the local Captain or the Australian FO?
PAXboy is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 01:55
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,997
Originally Posted by Sailor
Had you been lucky enough to have been blessed and rostered with me you would probably have learnt a lot to your benefit, being polite and respectful to your seniors and betters perhaps being one of them ! As it is I am very happy that I did not suffer that misfortune. Nothing personal of course !
+1. I Concur.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 02:06
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 51
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by 4468
I may be the only professional pilot here thinking this
Yep. You probably are
White Knight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.