Passenger plane almost crashed into mountain
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wonder if a mixed gender crew is statistically less safe than a crew of either two males or two females.
I haven't looked into it but it seems quite common to me to have a mixed gender crew in the accident reports, almost like there is a distraction or communication difference.
Am I imagining it?
I haven't looked into it but it seems quite common to me to have a mixed gender crew in the accident reports, almost like there is a distraction or communication difference.
Am I imagining it?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I sometimes wonder if a mixed gender crew is statistically less safe than a crew of either two males or two females.
I haven't looked into it but it seems quite common to me to have a mixed gender crew in the accident reports, almost like there is a distraction or communication difference.
Am I imagining it?
I haven't looked into it but it seems quite common to me to have a mixed gender crew in the accident reports, almost like there is a distraction or communication difference.
Am I imagining it?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well statistically crew will fall into one of 3 bins - MM, MF and FF. So if you are suggesting that 1/3 of incident/accident reports fall into that category, and 33% we would all regard as a 'common' occurrence then you are saying nothing of note.
Was the aircraft actually flying an ILS, vs IGS (which is not authorised?). Given the obstacle clearance requirements for an instrument approach, then any alert is very serious.
How is ILS differentiated from an IGS; instrument display, annunciation, Flight Director / autopilot, ...
How is ILS differentiated from an IGS; instrument display, annunciation, Flight Director / autopilot, ...
2. In this case, the IGS is different from an ILS in that it has a DH/MAP of 1290 feet above runway - much higher than a normal ILS. Due to terrain all quadrants. You have to be visual with the airport/runway environment farther away and higher than ILS Cat. I standards allow (even thought, unlike many IGS approaches, the approach track is aligned with the runway heading).
It is also twice as steep as a normal ILS (6.65°) - but then, so are the ILS's into London City (5.5°), so that alone isn't the difference. It does mean a RoD of over 1000 fpm at any groundspeed above 90 kts (1300 fpm @ 110 kts). Which does make me wonder exactly what kind of GPWS alert it was - an actual altitude call-out, or a "Pull UP" due to ground closure rate.
But in any event, you need to get slow and dirty before catching the G/S. Not a lot of room to lose speed and descend that fast - short of a DH6.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown into LSZA a couple of times - although of all of them in the jumpseat.
From the way the crews were having to work and communicate, I think I'd have it as one of the more ( most ? ) difficult let downs and approaches in Europe and the odd ' let's try that again ' moment, especially at night, should be expected.
I'm fairly sure I wouldn't want night time approaches into LSZA on my rosters too often....[
From the way the crews were having to work and communicate, I think I'd have it as one of the more ( most ? ) difficult let downs and approaches in Europe and the odd ' let's try that again ' moment, especially at night, should be expected.
I'm fairly sure I wouldn't want night time approaches into LSZA on my rosters too often....[
pattern, thanks #24, re #14
Without an ILS GS a 'steep' approach path has to be constructed (NPA); altitude and DME, but with FMS VNAV it can be computed. A halfway option is to use FMS positions for distance, and manual altitude.
There was a previous thread reference to IGS, possibly a typo or that if FMS equipped, then the aircraft system is not authorised.
FMS could be used to 'enhance awareness' with position checks, often promoted by operators and some regulators, but this introduces an opportunity for error. The ease of FMS use, or misbelief in its accuracy, then it is used erroneously for the approach.
Perhaps this is a similar situation to incidents in http://www.icao.int/safety/fsix/Libr...plus%20add.pdf
Still looking for confirmation if EGPWS was fitted in the aircraft opposed to the basic GPWS.
Good point about the type of ground prox alert.
Is the dash 8-400 cleared for steep approach GS, which would involve GPWS switching, but not required for a steep NPA.
Without an ILS GS a 'steep' approach path has to be constructed (NPA); altitude and DME, but with FMS VNAV it can be computed. A halfway option is to use FMS positions for distance, and manual altitude.
There was a previous thread reference to IGS, possibly a typo or that if FMS equipped, then the aircraft system is not authorised.
FMS could be used to 'enhance awareness' with position checks, often promoted by operators and some regulators, but this introduces an opportunity for error. The ease of FMS use, or misbelief in its accuracy, then it is used erroneously for the approach.
Perhaps this is a similar situation to incidents in http://www.icao.int/safety/fsix/Libr...plus%20add.pdf
Still looking for confirmation if EGPWS was fitted in the aircraft opposed to the basic GPWS.
Good point about the type of ground prox alert.
Is the dash 8-400 cleared for steep approach GS, which would involve GPWS switching, but not required for a steep NPA.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee:
My guess is that the angle of the glidepath of 6.65 degrees exceeds the ICAO definition for an ILS.
How is ILS differentiated from an IGS; instrument display, annunciation, Flight Director / autopilot, ...
aterpster, thanks.
My poor wording at #14, which referred to the aircraft.
EU Rules require aircraft certification for approaches and straight-in-landing for GS > 4deg; this should also involve EGPWS switching (avoiding misleading alerts).
NPA steep approach-paths above 4deg can have an independent operational approval but this will require a transition to a lower angle for final landing. This does not require an EGPWS change.
LUG, many years ago, involved a steep NPA transitioning to 4 deg visual (PAPI) below DH. I do not know what the current approach procedures involve, nor the aircraft certification or details of operational approval.
Swiss (LX) had operational approval and some certificated aircraft - used at LCY, but a loaner / contracted-out flight (Austrian Airlines) might not have a steep approach certificated aircraft, hence an unmodified GPWS.
However, if more likely the relatively new aircraft has EGPWS then alerts could have given earlier, but not much earlier when on the correct approach path.
My poor wording at #14, which referred to the aircraft.
EU Rules require aircraft certification for approaches and straight-in-landing for GS > 4deg; this should also involve EGPWS switching (avoiding misleading alerts).
NPA steep approach-paths above 4deg can have an independent operational approval but this will require a transition to a lower angle for final landing. This does not require an EGPWS change.
LUG, many years ago, involved a steep NPA transitioning to 4 deg visual (PAPI) below DH. I do not know what the current approach procedures involve, nor the aircraft certification or details of operational approval.
Swiss (LX) had operational approval and some certificated aircraft - used at LCY, but a loaner / contracted-out flight (Austrian Airlines) might not have a steep approach certificated aircraft, hence an unmodified GPWS.
However, if more likely the relatively new aircraft has EGPWS then alerts could have given earlier, but not much earlier when on the correct approach path.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume that an unexpected GPWS "pull Up" event warrants an ASR so it will all come out in the long run.
I would expect a concluding remark of "you shouldn't have been there, but good response."
I would expect a concluding remark of "you shouldn't have been there, but good response."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGS the glide path is 6.65 followed to d3ILU then the papis are set at 6.0
You could have an interesting situation if you coupled the aircraft to the glide path. Our procedure for this is loc and vs, and flown as a non precision approach.
Sion is similar and in my view as unappetising with a steep approach into a narrow valley at 6.0 degrees !
You could have an interesting situation if you coupled the aircraft to the glide path. Our procedure for this is loc and vs, and flown as a non precision approach.
Sion is similar and in my view as unappetising with a steep approach into a narrow valley at 6.0 degrees !
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mosquitoville
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
I seriously doubt it but very easy to check if you have time to dig into the ICAO archives of accidents/incidents reports . I don't 
Approaching Zurich,Cat II wx. night, cloud, mountains. Just intercepting the LOC ILS inbound, "Terrain ! Terrain ! warning. "When in doubt, lash out" During the go around the F/O asked why I had gone around ! 'cos it's night, in cloud, and the gadget said so. But we were on the Loc. and G/s. How do you know ? 'cos the needles were crossed and centred ! No comment.
I asked ATC if they had been watching me on radar, and were we indeed properly established ? They admitted that they hadn't been watching at that precise time, but would on the next approach, so I agreed that if they thought I was on the LOC and G/s and I thought I was in the LOC and G/s then I would ignore the warning. No problem. ATC "suggested' that they had initially vectored us a little "tight" and taken us over a noted "spot height" which had triggered the warning.
What's wrong about obeying a "pull up" warning ? What would be wrong would be to ignore it.
I asked ATC if they had been watching me on radar, and were we indeed properly established ? They admitted that they hadn't been watching at that precise time, but would on the next approach, so I agreed that if they thought I was on the LOC and G/s and I thought I was in the LOC and G/s then I would ignore the warning. No problem. ATC "suggested' that they had initially vectored us a little "tight" and taken us over a noted "spot height" which had triggered the warning.
What's wrong about obeying a "pull up" warning ? What would be wrong would be to ignore it.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gender, Communication and Aviation Incidents
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Females pilots? All for it. Most are A-star.
The paper cited by Mr Magnetic, apparently written in 2015 (no explicit date in the PDF that I can see) writes in terms of binary difference between male pilots and female pilots. But in today's world the person in the other seat may be M or F or anywhere in the LGBTQ spectrum – and Ms and Fs are spectrums in themselves, too, varying a lot in personality and ability to communicate. What matters is that the captain and FO can work together professionally, whatever their gender or other characteristics. If they can't or won't, they're an accident waiting to happen, as many actual accidents have shown. Never forget that it was an M sky-god captain who initiated take-off in fog so thick that he couldn't see, until it was too late, the lights of a 747 backtracking towards him (which he knew was out there but didn't make certain of its position), ignoring his M junior co-pilot's attempt to warn him that that 747 was not clear.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
p1fel. I believe that at one time Airuk had more female pilots that the rest of the UK industry put together. I always found there were no mediocre female pilots. They were always very good (majority) or very bad (a tiny minority). A lot went on to become captains with the big airlines.
Herod
You're probably right...I do get uncomfortable with claims such as "all the female pilots I have flown with were brilliant" - it might well be true for the individual making the claim , but from what I have seen just like the blokes there are a few out there of the female gender who have had questionable skills.
You're probably right...I do get uncomfortable with claims such as "all the female pilots I have flown with were brilliant" - it might well be true for the individual making the claim , but from what I have seen just like the blokes there are a few out there of the female gender who have had questionable skills.