EK-131: Airbus seconds from doom over Moscow (Report in The Times)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The report is here, the link may take several minutes to load:
https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents%20Investigation%20Reports/Attachments/127/2017-AIFN0010_20_17%20Final%20Report.pdf
Last edited by Airbubba; 24th Apr 2020 at 01:12.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The link is indeed wonky. 
See if you can download it as the report on the top of this list:
https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublicat...ionReport.aspx
See if you can download it as the report on the top of this list:
https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublicat...ionReport.aspx
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
..........The real problem here is one I fear will never be addressed and rectified..
All singing, dancing, high-tech , Fly By Wire, Fadec engines, etc etc etc were bought or leased by the Bean Counter Department...............this ensured incredible fuel savings based on optimal, computerised predictions.
We, ordinary, every day line jocks were forced to resolve everything, heads down, through the damned computer. Airmanship went out of the window as, in busy airspace, we were encouraged to look down at the FMC instead of look up out of the window...................I too, am old school. Well trained in good old techniques of piloting and airmanship. As the automatics were introduced and built up, the notion was always the same ; if you don't like what is going on, knock it all out & fly it like an ordinary aeroplane . Airbus even fooled us into thinking that we were doing that with sidesticks linked to multiple FCC's and dummy throttles (called thrust selector levers clicked into idents).
.........Overwhelmed with modern tech...............
Until we get back to old school basic pilot training (yes, teach the newbees stalling, spinning, recovery from unusual attitudes, AIRMANSHIP, etc, etc, etc, ) and encourage fall back to high standards of hand flying , we will have more incidents like the ones currently being reported.
All singing, dancing, high-tech , Fly By Wire, Fadec engines, etc etc etc were bought or leased by the Bean Counter Department...............this ensured incredible fuel savings based on optimal, computerised predictions.
We, ordinary, every day line jocks were forced to resolve everything, heads down, through the damned computer. Airmanship went out of the window as, in busy airspace, we were encouraged to look down at the FMC instead of look up out of the window...................I too, am old school. Well trained in good old techniques of piloting and airmanship. As the automatics were introduced and built up, the notion was always the same ; if you don't like what is going on, knock it all out & fly it like an ordinary aeroplane . Airbus even fooled us into thinking that we were doing that with sidesticks linked to multiple FCC's and dummy throttles (called thrust selector levers clicked into idents).
.........Overwhelmed with modern tech...............
Until we get back to old school basic pilot training (yes, teach the newbees stalling, spinning, recovery from unusual attitudes, AIRMANSHIP, etc, etc, etc, ) and encourage fall back to high standards of hand flying , we will have more incidents like the ones currently being reported.
Try flying through the London TMA without TCAS.........are you saying you can actually see all those other aircraft by looking out of the window rather than at your ND display? Even in IMC?
Automation was not demanded by the bean counters but indirectly by the flying public, who wanted safer flights that also cost less, and thus provided employment for most of us occupants of seats 0A and 0B.
The problem of losing SA, not doing basic flying cross checks and gross error checks, and being overwhelmed by high tech is what needs to be addressed, not the high tech itself.
There comes a time when even the sharpest tool in the box will get mentally maxed out while dealing with the complexities of the tasks required. Personally, I am not confident that the training and testing systems currently in use, do not test adequately through the point of highest workload and on into the area of overload. How well an individual prioritises tasks and makes conscious or unconscious decisions about what to "drop" in order to focus on the most critical elements, while in overload, needs to be more effective.
Of course, this could result in a decision as to that individuals suitability for the role. Pilots are not super-human. The complexity of automation should at least reasonably align with the capability of a candidate for testing. Pushing the limits is a recipe for disaster.
Just my opinion without prejudice, having been to the edge when it turned out to be a not very fun day.
IG
Oh I passed with Uplinker but in principle, I agree
Of course, this could result in a decision as to that individuals suitability for the role. Pilots are not super-human. The complexity of automation should at least reasonably align with the capability of a candidate for testing. Pushing the limits is a recipe for disaster.
Just my opinion without prejudice, having been to the edge when it turned out to be a not very fun day.
IG
Oh I passed with Uplinker but in principle, I agree
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPLINKER : You have selected bits of my post to comment upon, incorrectly. I never put a "downer" on automatics. I enjoyed the slow introduction of automatics as they reduced the pilot workload. I never suggested that we should, for example , hand-fly the N Atlantic . Neither was my suggestion to fly across busy TMA's looking, solely out of the window.
My experience is that from very excellent basic pilot training through to modern tech, I witnessed an overall high reliance on the automatics that were designed to reduce workload. It is not the fault of new joiners to our profession relying heavily on computerised solving. That is the way they are trained. But there is a woeful lack of airmanship and "SA" as you call it which really should be addressed.
Like the incident being discussed in the ME threads, the guys in Moscow could surely have "looked out of the window" and realised something was horribly wrong as they stared UP at Mrs Vlad hanging out her washing (1)....NO ?...... And the other guys, 8 miles out and at 400ft , SA...whaaaaat ? Nope, was it heads down , Extend the CL, give me an incpt leg to the final fix, enter an abm wp with height check....ooooops, what is all this "pull up. pull up" nonsense ?
Finally, oh yes ; the Beancounters surely forced it. I remarked my concerns to a CP who insisted on max use of autopilot and FMC interrogation with problem solving because the Commercial whizzos who authorised updated hardware in our already sophisticated aircraft demanded that he "re-educate" all pilots to use the equipment fully. On a beautiful, clear weather, no other traffic departure from a UK field, given the leg to the FO, I asked if he would like to hand-fly the departure. I suffered a bemused look with a terse" I would rather stick to company SOPs". Arrival into a non cluttered, clear weather destination, sticking to Company SOP's and painting lots of lovely magenta line options into both routes in the FMC (none of which to experienced airmen would ever be achieved ) we got, predictably very high and very fast from which I had to , regrettably, intervene.
In a previous more delightful and educated Company, the introduction of high tech was a gentle process where we were clear in the education that all the goodies were there to assist and make life more comfortable. OVER-reliance to the detriment of of basic piloting skills was a sure-fire killer. AS I said in my opener , I fear we will see more of this.
My experience is that from very excellent basic pilot training through to modern tech, I witnessed an overall high reliance on the automatics that were designed to reduce workload. It is not the fault of new joiners to our profession relying heavily on computerised solving. That is the way they are trained. But there is a woeful lack of airmanship and "SA" as you call it which really should be addressed.
Like the incident being discussed in the ME threads, the guys in Moscow could surely have "looked out of the window" and realised something was horribly wrong as they stared UP at Mrs Vlad hanging out her washing (1)....NO ?...... And the other guys, 8 miles out and at 400ft , SA...whaaaaat ? Nope, was it heads down , Extend the CL, give me an incpt leg to the final fix, enter an abm wp with height check....ooooops, what is all this "pull up. pull up" nonsense ?
Finally, oh yes ; the Beancounters surely forced it. I remarked my concerns to a CP who insisted on max use of autopilot and FMC interrogation with problem solving because the Commercial whizzos who authorised updated hardware in our already sophisticated aircraft demanded that he "re-educate" all pilots to use the equipment fully. On a beautiful, clear weather, no other traffic departure from a UK field, given the leg to the FO, I asked if he would like to hand-fly the departure. I suffered a bemused look with a terse" I would rather stick to company SOPs". Arrival into a non cluttered, clear weather destination, sticking to Company SOP's and painting lots of lovely magenta line options into both routes in the FMC (none of which to experienced airmen would ever be achieved ) we got, predictably very high and very fast from which I had to , regrettably, intervene.
In a previous more delightful and educated Company, the introduction of high tech was a gentle process where we were clear in the education that all the goodies were there to assist and make life more comfortable. OVER-reliance to the detriment of of basic piloting skills was a sure-fire killer. AS I said in my opener , I fear we will see more of this.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landflap, I fully agree with your views, clearly based upon experience. I would add one perspective, The blame for over-reliance upon automatics in my last company was driven by the Technical Department, led by an immature geek who was evidently fascinated by the newest technology offered by Airbus. This individual brought his influence to bear in writing incomprehensible tech notices and contributing to the creation of complex and unworkable SOP's. These were often based on over-use of the FMS on the large Airbus fleets. An increased number of unstable approaches and go-arounds ensued, creating additional problems due to the minimum fuel carriage recommendations. Management pilots led the way with dodgy approaches, missed approaches, and diversionsl. Many of the trainers disagreed with the SOP's, but chose to keep their heads down. ("Green" SOP's also enhanced the risks, with higher flap settings on approach and landing again creating problems). The company expired before the present crisis, thankfully without a major incident.
Hi Landflap, Fair enough, I must have read it wrong, but to me the general feel of your post #19; with phrases such as 'the dammed computer', 'overwhelmed with modern tech', 'dummy throttles' *, 'Airbus fooled us into thinking....' ; reads to me like that of the crusty high court judge on Not the Nine O'Clock News who doesn't know what a 'digital watch' is. 
As I say, I agree with your points about basic airmanship and basic flying skills, e.g. basic cross checks of altitude versus distance to threshold etc., However, tech in itself is not the problem.
*which of course are fully functioning throttles, cleverly enhanced with modern technology, and are entirely instinctive to use manually or automatically
As I say, I agree with your points about basic airmanship and basic flying skills, e.g. basic cross checks of altitude versus distance to threshold etc., However, tech in itself is not the problem.
*which of course are fully functioning throttles, cleverly enhanced with modern technology, and are entirely instinctive to use manually or automatically
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
May some old bones be allowed to comment? Yes, modern technology is a wonderful tool; but it is just that; a TOOL. It is not the master. Way back in antediluvian times my airline had some good kit for the era. However, when it all went t.u. there was no argument about disconnecting the lot, turning it into a big Cessna single and FLYING THE AEROPLANE. Once sorted, work out what went wrong and reinstate the automatics as appropriate. Remember, the best computer on the aeroplane is THE PILOT'S BRAIN, and the best safety device is THE PILOT'S SENSE OF SELF-PRESERVATION.
Thanks for listening "Nurse, is it time for that nice medicine again?"
Thanks for listening "Nurse, is it time for that nice medicine again?"
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree Herod...
From the Airbus 380 FCTM: Golden Rules
1. Fly, Navigate, Communicate.
2. Use the appropriate level of automation at all times.
3. Understand the FMA at all times.
4. Take action if things do not go as expected - and I will expand this part of the manual --> If the aircraft does not follow the desired vertical or lateral flight path, or the selected targets, and if the flight crew does not have sufficient time to analyze and solve the situation, the flight crew must immediately take appropriate or required actions, as follows: The PF should change the level of automation: From managed guidance to selected guidance, or from selected guidance to Manual Flying. The PM should perform the following actions in sequence: Communicate with the PF, Challenge the actions of the PF when necessary, Take over, when neceesary.
From the Airbus 380 FCTM: Golden Rules
1. Fly, Navigate, Communicate.
2. Use the appropriate level of automation at all times.
3. Understand the FMA at all times.
4. Take action if things do not go as expected - and I will expand this part of the manual --> If the aircraft does not follow the desired vertical or lateral flight path, or the selected targets, and if the flight crew does not have sufficient time to analyze and solve the situation, the flight crew must immediately take appropriate or required actions, as follows: The PF should change the level of automation: From managed guidance to selected guidance, or from selected guidance to Manual Flying. The PM should perform the following actions in sequence: Communicate with the PF, Challenge the actions of the PF when necessary, Take over, when neceesary.
which of course are fully functioning throttles, cleverly enhanced with modern technology, and are entirely instinctive to use manually or automatically
"Entirely instinctive..." I'm trialling website software at the moment and terms very similar to this are used to describe the programs (more than one). It's nonsense. If you hardly ever use the software (or throttles) then they are not "instinctive", nor are you likely to be confident enough to disengage the gimmicks and revert to basic, or indeed even think about doing so.I haven't read the whole report yet but I suspect that the issue was more basic than violating the mighty Airbus Golden Rules. If the GPWS was going off, the crew never got to step 1.
Please don't get me wrong: Technology should certainly not get in the way of basic flying; but we simply would not be flying way we fly now without modern tech. Try driving a Mark I Landrover for a day to appreciate how technology has improved our modern car driving experience.
The problem with tech and flying arises when poor classroom training*, (and/or CBT), coupled with poor SIM training, coupled with poor testing allows some poor pilots - including some Captains - to slip through the system and "control" actual aircraft. 90% of the time they get away with it, especially in a modern ATC environment. But sadly, occasionally, these pilots' shortcomings show up, sometimes with terrible results. Pilots like me started our careers flying basic passenger aircraft with no AP, no FD, and no A/THR. As we progressed, we assimilated, (and most of us embraced), these systems as we encountered them, but we had our previous experience of manual flying in the background. Today you can go from a PA28 equivalent straight onto a modern FBW aircraft. Perhaps this process bypasses some basic airmanship stuff?
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
I will never understand people's problem with Airbus FBW thrust levers. Poor training perhaps? The more you push, the more thrust you get, same as a B737. On the way the Airbus FBW A/THR has various detents to limit and control the auto-thrust for various situations. The N1/EPR gauges show what is going on. Simple.
Your car almost certainly has a "fly-by-wire' throttle coupled to a FADEC, but I bet most of us don't mind it controlling our engine nicely and smoothly. Starting instantly on cold frosty mornings and adjusting for accessory loads, (and giving good economy)
*How many times has your classroom trainer said: "If we only have 20 mins for lunch, and crack-on; we should be able to get through all of this and beat the rush hour"?
.
The problem with tech and flying arises when poor classroom training*, (and/or CBT), coupled with poor SIM training, coupled with poor testing allows some poor pilots - including some Captains - to slip through the system and "control" actual aircraft. 90% of the time they get away with it, especially in a modern ATC environment. But sadly, occasionally, these pilots' shortcomings show up, sometimes with terrible results. Pilots like me started our careers flying basic passenger aircraft with no AP, no FD, and no A/THR. As we progressed, we assimilated, (and most of us embraced), these systems as we encountered them, but we had our previous experience of manual flying in the background. Today you can go from a PA28 equivalent straight onto a modern FBW aircraft. Perhaps this process bypasses some basic airmanship stuff?
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
I will never understand people's problem with Airbus FBW thrust levers. Poor training perhaps? The more you push, the more thrust you get, same as a B737. On the way the Airbus FBW A/THR has various detents to limit and control the auto-thrust for various situations. The N1/EPR gauges show what is going on. Simple.
Your car almost certainly has a "fly-by-wire' throttle coupled to a FADEC, but I bet most of us don't mind it controlling our engine nicely and smoothly. Starting instantly on cold frosty mornings and adjusting for accessory loads, (and giving good economy)
*How many times has your classroom trainer said: "If we only have 20 mins for lunch, and crack-on; we should be able to get through all of this and beat the rush hour"?
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPLINKER : What the h--l is a digital watch ? Creeping the thread a bit, i know, but can't allow your love of tech and analogies with tractors to go unresponded.
I recall being slapped over the head , several times, in conversion from huge Boeing background to Airbus. Attempts to throttle" the dummy sticks was shouted at. I have fat little fingers that led to great difficulty in placing all four dummy sticks, together, into the "click" for take-off. This would result in uneven thrust requerst which would send off an alarm with FGMC message. I would "stop" the T/O much to experienced howling from the F/O & Trainer. "Just slam all four into TOGA and GO " ........against an amber warning (?) . OK . "Resisting the training" was a write up in the notes. I stopped resisting, passed, hated it. Dreamed of my lovely ole DC3, coaxing those big P&W's into burping, farting, starts on cold mornings at Gatters.
Don't get me started on Tractors to Beamers mate. Done that. Brand new, all singing, dancing beamer that even talks to me is better than my first Ford Anglia but nowadays, on the M25, speed-lock in (you will probably call it " Cruise control", Uplinker, fearful of throttle jam & burst into flames, mindset, I am not happy. I really miss clutch, no synchro-mesh on first , wind up windows,...........yeah, yeah yeah.................sorry.
I recall being slapped over the head , several times, in conversion from huge Boeing background to Airbus. Attempts to throttle" the dummy sticks was shouted at. I have fat little fingers that led to great difficulty in placing all four dummy sticks, together, into the "click" for take-off. This would result in uneven thrust requerst which would send off an alarm with FGMC message. I would "stop" the T/O much to experienced howling from the F/O & Trainer. "Just slam all four into TOGA and GO " ........against an amber warning (?) . OK . "Resisting the training" was a write up in the notes. I stopped resisting, passed, hated it. Dreamed of my lovely ole DC3, coaxing those big P&W's into burping, farting, starts on cold mornings at Gatters.
Don't get me started on Tractors to Beamers mate. Done that. Brand new, all singing, dancing beamer that even talks to me is better than my first Ford Anglia but nowadays, on the M25, speed-lock in (you will probably call it " Cruise control", Uplinker, fearful of throttle jam & burst into flames, mindset, I am not happy. I really miss clutch, no synchro-mesh on first , wind up windows,...........yeah, yeah yeah.................sorry.
