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

Air India B788 descends to 200 ft over water at HKG

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

Air India B788 descends to 200 ft over water at HKG

Old 27th Dec 2018, 15:04
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With the a/p off, and basic flying skills, the pilot wouldn't descend at the rates this flight did with an erratic G/S signal. Maintaining a constant pitch attitude, and rate of descent, would be fine. And there's something called the VASI/PAPI that is a great visual que. It just requires the pilot to cycle between looking outside, and inside, the cockpit.

We kid about "what's it doing now" or "it's doing it again" but it's said when we read reports about guys just watching the automation work poorly when lower levels of automation are clearly needed.

Post #53, if it's accurate, shows a destabilized approach, for at least 25 seconds, at 1125' AGL with a sink rate of 1,800 FPM, and 1,900 FPM at 525' AGL, on a coupled approach. In what universe is that ever normal?

Last edited by misd-agin; 27th Dec 2018 at 15:13. Reason: added the two last sentences
misd-agin is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2018, 16:33
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Missed_again
The incident is not nnecessarily due to lack of basic flyin skill. Any normal ILS approach preparation should take into consideration FAF altitude and distance, average ROD and some altitude Vs DME checks and during execution monitoring that it's happening. Even when they were made aware of a threat they didn't seem to have evaluated it so they didn't have any plan to tackle it. That is why they didn't notice the ROD and DME VS height error which they should have monitored even otherwise.They were simply unaware that anything is amiss till the GPWS sounded which is very poor flying. Without that awareness even manually they would have blindly followed the false GS with same result and if they were aware then even with auto pilot on it was possible to prevent it.
vilas is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 01:38
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
LOL... Please stop with all the excuses! This is total BS!

If a pilot flying an aircraft manually decides to follow a false capture of a G/S and start descending at that kind of rate prior to the usual G/S intercept point and only stops because of an EGWPS warning then both pilots should be terminated!

What are we paid for? What are you trained to do? Where is your airmanship? When flying an aircraft you just can't be sitting oblivious to nothing and let the automation fly on its own without supervision.

It is very clear that this crew did not take seriously the warning on the ATIS nor the warning from ATC and allowed a minor situation to develop into a possible catastrophe and that perhaps only the EGWPS saved the day.

Brief the approach, brief for the warnings and BE READY to react to any problem, no excuses!

You people with all these excuses make me sick!

End of rant.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 01:43
  #104 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,299
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
That's where we differ, vilas. Following a G/S with 2000 FPM through 1000 feet AFE (stabilization criteria, anyone?!! if nothing else for Pete's sake) IS a LACK OF FLYING SKILL. Not of handling skills necessarily (is that what you meant perhaps), but the cognitive and situational awareness as well as predicting the trajectory in 4D is completely missing = no flying skill.

Originally Posted by misd-agin
1125' AGL with a sink rate of 1,800 FPM, and 1,900 FPM at 525' AGL, on a coupled In what universe is that ever normal?
For the record here, I no longer believe an (untrapped) G/S fluctuation is all of the story here. Have no better explanation, but refusing to accept they would watch it go down like that. Let's see.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 02:49
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last week, I offered my colleague to do an ILS raw data approach coming back to our homebase; He is a new Fo but had more than 2000 hours on type. He decided to fly bird off but with A/THR. While intercepting the localizer around 3000 feet, we had a crosswind of about 26 kt ( Wind on ground was light) and he aligned the aircraft on the heading bug who was set on his request to the runway track. Very quickly we start drifting away from the centerline and I told him ''Bro you need to turn to the right, look at the track diamond''. He got confused, and barely turn right then left again and we drifted away even more. Now we were like 2300 feet and 2 dot+ out from the localizer. We were in IMC conditions still, it did not help the poor fellow. shortly after the tower called us to confirm we were established... LOL. Under the panic, and while I was talking to ATC he jumped on the FDs, the APP p/b and engage the AP which recaptured the Localizer. He apologized for it and realised how poor his handling and situation awareness could be. And that was on a fairly good day with A/THR. I let you now imagine how catastrophic it could have ended with 2 guys like him in front in the event of a serious failure resulting in alternate law....

Last edited by pineteam; 28th Dec 2018 at 03:56. Reason: Typo + 1 sentence
pineteam is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 04:24
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Detent
Yes, by basic skill I thought missed_again meant ability to follow LOC and GS manually. But I think you missed my following statement.
They were simply unaware that anything is amiss till the GPWS sounded which is very poor flying.

Last edited by vilas; 28th Dec 2018 at 04:35.
vilas is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 14:34
  #107 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No excuse to bust LOC-only minimums!
aterpster is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 09:36
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It may be interesting to know what the crew did the second time. Did they just repeat what they did the first time and were just lucky that the glideslope didn't fluctuate or if they did something different then why not the first time? By the time the report is out(about two years) nobody will remember the incident.
vilas is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2021, 23:30
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: unknown
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems to have happened again, although not sure how serious it was:

C-FNOH, an Air Canada Boeing 787-9 was conducting flight ACA7273 from Toronto/ Lester B.
Pearson Intl (CYYZ), ON to Hong Kong Intl/ Chek Lap Kok (VHHH). On final approach, in visual
meteorological conditions, the aircraft deviated below the glideslope. The glideslope was
reestablished at approximately 900 feet ASL. The flight landed without further incident.
tcasblue is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2021, 11:48
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,759
Received 179 Likes on 86 Posts
The flight trackers would appear to support that trajectory. Height at 4 DME was approximately 950' AAL.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2021, 15:46
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All these Hongkong incidents of GS fluctuation are handled very unprofessionally risking precious lives without reason. The approach needed to be planned on threat assessment. The good old FORDEC would have you land without problem. What's the threat ? GS fluctuation may cause the AC to dive or climb. What are the options? 10km visibility allows you to do
1. LOC only approach and B787 has even IAN or
2. purely a visual approach or
3. Select ILS but don't arm approach instead use LOC. You can set up required descent you can track GS when OK and ignore it when misbehaving. When visual just go ahead and land.
Is this rocket science? Just flying manually will not solve the problem it will hit sea manually.


Last edited by vilas; 25th Aug 2021 at 16:05.
vilas is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2021, 22:30
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,266
Received 291 Likes on 112 Posts
Is ‘threat assessment’ a euphemism for airmanship?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2021, 08:25
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not euphemism. Airmanship is a vague word in a sense. It encompasses everything that pilot does or should do. It's doesn't define specific situational remedies. That's why the TEM has been developed. It's systematic way to identify the problem and enumerate precise steps 1,2,3,4 to tackle it.
vilas is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.