734 hard landing @ Exeter
What I see more than a destabilised approach is an oscillating approach with textbook like waveforms - or shall we say repeating cycles of divergence / overcorrection until the ground got in the way.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Having many hours doesn’t automatically mean you are suitable to be a captain."
This is manifestly true. Unfortunately, add a pilot union into the mix which will protect and promote even it's most brain-dead progeny unto the barricades and watch the crash rate increase. cf. Air France
This is manifestly true. Unfortunately, add a pilot union into the mix which will protect and promote even it's most brain-dead progeny unto the barricades and watch the crash rate increase. cf. Air France
Last edited by Dropp the Pilot; 22nd May 2022 at 23:44.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a tad unfair on the AAIB. While it doesn't specifically use what the NTSB terms "probable cause" and "contributory factors", the section in the report labelled "Conclusions" is pretty unambiguous:
Without the ability to get inside the heads of the crew, what more would you like to have seen?
Without the ability to get inside the heads of the crew, what more would you like to have seen?
The aircraft suffered a hard landing as a result of the approach being continued after it
became unstable after the aircraft had past the point where the crew had declared the
approach stable and continued.
became unstable after the aircraft had past the point where the crew had declared the
approach stable and continued.
What I'd like to have seen is a report without grammatical mistakes (past/passed). This is in the 'Conclusion' section, which, presumably, has been read and approved by at least one other person than the writer, and who could be assumed to either have decent English, or access to a technical writer/copy editor.
"It's just a typo!", you may cry - and indeed, writing 'has passed' or 'was past' both parse correctly, even if the sentence structure is strained. However, the AAIB is meant to demonstrate competence, so readers of the report have confidence in the conclusions, and if a simple error like this gets though, it makes the reader wonder how many other errors in their work are not so noticeable. Presentation is important if you want to appear competent. Details matter, especially when your organisation is expected to routinely make painstaking investigations. If you can't get the basics right, what else is going wrong?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DRU figures clearly show the aircraft pitch only starts to change, when passing the glideslope, not before the glideslope is reached.
Join Date: May 2022
Location: The frozen North
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semreh,
Written by an Inspector (or maybe Senior Inspector, which is usually an Inspector who’s managed to stay in the job for two years), looked at by at least two other Inspectors (or Senior Inspectors) probably in more than one meeting, messed about with by a Principal Inspector, probably in more than one meeting, then checked by the Deputy or Chief Inspector.
Yes, past/passed is poor. As was Stanstead not long ago. But I maintain that some effort to explain why an airline pilot couldn’t land, would have been a good thing to include.
Written by an Inspector (or maybe Senior Inspector, which is usually an Inspector who’s managed to stay in the job for two years), looked at by at least two other Inspectors (or Senior Inspectors) probably in more than one meeting, messed about with by a Principal Inspector, probably in more than one meeting, then checked by the Deputy or Chief Inspector.
Yes, past/passed is poor. As was Stanstead not long ago. But I maintain that some effort to explain why an airline pilot couldn’t land, would have been a good thing to include.
Last edited by Furniture Saver; 23rd May 2022 at 21:11.
Moreover, the modern day company policy of openly "positive" discrimination towards applicants of a certain characteristic, and thereafter, a disinclination to remove substandard pilots of said characteristic from the line for fear of blowback, may be the cause of the confidential data I saw which showed they account for a vastly greater proportion of severe handling incidents, (notably, landings). Of course, woke PC will no doubt prevent such data from ever seeing the light of day.
Unfiltered raw data on incidents/accidents correlated to age, hours, gender, position etc should be accessible so that *if* there's anything to this then trainers, regulators, employers, (and the public who get on a flying machine) may all be able to complete due diligence and reach conclusions on whether there are any statistically significant issues and, if so, how one might address them.
If, once thorough investigation has been carried out, there is something to be addressed then that detail must also be available to everyone without 'spin'. Should different groups then wish to exercise various opinions as to why it's 'better' to have statistically risky people in such positions that's up to them, but from a logic perspective there's be no excuse IMO. After all we'd not use components with a known low MTBF during overhaul when there are better ones available, would we?
In saying this I'm quite aware that there could be many reasons why one group might initially appear to have a greater number of incidents than another - it may in fact be nothing to do with biological factors - however without the necessary [unbiased] data it's extremely difficult to make any reasonable assessment. In the absence of traceable facts people are left to speculate, which can be quite corrosive.
Ultimately it's a complicated thing designing, building, and testing an aircraft, then getting it into the air, full of people, along to a destination and back without incident. Along that journey we try to use the highest quality components, the best people, the most proven systems, and we (hopefully thoroughly, scientifically without bias, and publically) regularly assess how that's going on so that any weaknesses or issues may be addressed. Factors relating to the drivers of these machines should not be exempted from such scrutiny, they are an important part of the process we presently utilise.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Atlantic safety record is good
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB in now sadly like the CAA.
In my personal opinion an organisation with zero credibility, a once formidable global reputation for probity, rigour and technical excellence is no more.
In my personal opinion an organisation with zero credibility, a once formidable global reputation for probity, rigour and technical excellence is no more.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
First principal - personally I think at the that female pilots are just as likely to make good or bad pilots as males at the outset, and gender aptitude is not the hypothesis anyway. It's the discrimination in favour of females at the recruitment, and training washout phases and the lower standard that logically follows. Yes, training departments will assert that minimum standards are maintained, and even accepting that to be true (debatable), but by narrowing the candidature based on gender, minimum standards could otherwise have been exceeded by a greater margin by not discriminating. Discrimination is bad, whatever it's form (eg gender percentages, quotas etc).
The dangers of woke to aviation and so much else. Exaggeration? How did that 767 guy at Atlas end up flying the line.
Ageing pilots is another factor. Whilst a number maintain their skills to the end of their career, it is an inconvenient truth to a lot of us older posters that this can also be a factor. I don’t think any one of the holes in the swiss cheese can be singled out. But Covid disruption has definitely increased the number of holes.
Time Traveller; I want to send you a private message but you’ve got the option turned off. Can you change that so I can send you a PM? Thanks
The data that would show gender differences in incident rate/report etc is there but is not accessible in the main. Which is interesting because I would hypothesise that if the data indicated female pilots had fewer incidents or reported more safety events thus demonstrating greater honesty/safety consciousness then any HR department/airline would be singing it from the rooftops so burnish their credentials. The fact is that none do and the female pilots pushing for greater gender balance don’t push for it either.
The data that would show gender differences in incident rate/report etc is there but is not accessible in the main. Which is interesting because I would hypothesise that if the data indicated female pilots had fewer incidents or reported more safety events thus demonstrating greater honesty/safety consciousness then any HR department/airline would be singing it from the rooftops so burnish their credentials. The fact is that none do and the female pilots pushing for greater gender balance don’t push for it either.
The data that would show gender differences in incident rate/report etc is there but is not accessible in the main. Which is interesting because I would hypothesise that if the data indicated female pilots had fewer incidents or reported more safety events thus demonstrating greater honesty/safety consciousness then any HR department/airline would be singing it from the rooftops so burnish their credentials. The fact is that none do and the female pilots pushing for greater gender balance don’t push for it either.
Well no because if the data was properly analysed using inferential statistics then one off events would not make any difference. Trends over time might make a difference eventually but for example; the data up to present day could result in interesting results - for example; no difference, small difference, large difference. They would be interesting results in their own way.
Also I reckon women are just like men; some are too sensible, some aren’t and a whole bunch occupy them middle ground. So wouldn’t that mean a few less sensible folk (male or female) would be making that case by now if the data supported it?
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 25th May 2022 at 13:05. Reason: typo
It's interesting that when we discuss other accidents; involving only male pilots, I don't think we ever see, "well a female pilot in that situation would have been more cautious", or "a female pilot would have been able to multitask better" or whatever it may be.
In other words we only seem to see a gender debate when a woman pilot is involved?
In other words we only seem to see a gender debate when a woman pilot is involved?
Well no because if the data was properly analysed using inferential statistics then one off events would not make any difference. Trends over time might make a difference eventually but for example; the data up to present day could result in interesting results - for example; no difference, small difference, large difference. They would be interesting results in their own way.
No trend picked up the 2 x B777 events in DXB, the take-off one or the GA one, they are system resonant events that come from what otherwise looks like a normal day at the office. The Exeter landing would not necessarily have been proceeded by actionable QAR alerting of stable approach criteria unless the screening looked at the full path of interest, rather than 2 snapshots. Even with screening triggering the unstable approach as an event, unless attributed to a common pilot, their problem doesn't get highlighted, it becomes a blip in the overall scheme of events. There are ways to get a meaningful understanding of the risks that the operation has, but it means a change of the manner by which we do business, and it is incompatible with pathological management teams, which are overrepresented in aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have observed a code of silence on these fora for some time now, not wishing to be drawn into any debates.
However, I feel the need to speak up this time and ask the mods to clean up this disgusting thread or close it. You can not seriously be suggesting that we are now blaming "the woke" and "female pilots" for landing incidents. What is wrong with you? Step out into the real world for a minute. And most of all, take a good look in the mirror.
Landing incidents are either the result of sloppy flying, fixation or lack of confidence. If, as you say, women are overrepresented in these type of occurrences, I'm willing to bet it's due to lack of confidence. I can very well see why someone would lose faith in their own abilities if they flew with condescending, patronizing assholes like yourselves.
Women are not extraterrestrials. Just like any living being, if you treat them right, support them and show them you trust them, you will see their ability and confidence come out. If you employ the attitude shown in some of these posts, you will make whoever is sitting next to you uncomfortable, make them retreat inside themselves and prime them to make mistakes. Were you never taught this aspect of CRM or did you never have the common sense to learn it?
I would rather fly with amoeba than with some of you on here.
However, I feel the need to speak up this time and ask the mods to clean up this disgusting thread or close it. You can not seriously be suggesting that we are now blaming "the woke" and "female pilots" for landing incidents. What is wrong with you? Step out into the real world for a minute. And most of all, take a good look in the mirror.
Landing incidents are either the result of sloppy flying, fixation or lack of confidence. If, as you say, women are overrepresented in these type of occurrences, I'm willing to bet it's due to lack of confidence. I can very well see why someone would lose faith in their own abilities if they flew with condescending, patronizing assholes like yourselves.
Women are not extraterrestrials. Just like any living being, if you treat them right, support them and show them you trust them, you will see their ability and confidence come out. If you employ the attitude shown in some of these posts, you will make whoever is sitting next to you uncomfortable, make them retreat inside themselves and prime them to make mistakes. Were you never taught this aspect of CRM or did you never have the common sense to learn it?
I would rather fly with amoeba than with some of you on here.
de minimus non curat lex
Knowing the history of these unfortunate pilot(s) can be revealing…..the AAIB report of the A320 landing accident at KOS in July 2007 provided training details of the FO who was PF.
Reading it of course gave a remarkable feeling of hindsight.
Reading it of course gave a remarkable feeling of hindsight.
On the topic of discrimination, I am generally supportive of some of the views expressed by Stuka Child, although I find the language and presentation of the post no better than that of those he/she condemns. More generally, the topic of discrimination, whether it seeks to deliver positive outcomes or not, should be open to discussion, particularly if it might possibly have some relevance - more on this in a moment. To prevent or delete that discussion is akin to pulling down statues and tossing them in the harbour.
I truly doubt whether female pilots are better or worse than male pilots - all other things being equal. And to know if all other things are equal, it is necessary to record and analyse data where there may be relevance. To me, those who seek to prevent such analysis and subsequent discussion are likely to be afraid of what the results might show.
And one final point on analysing data - and this relates mainly to fdr’s comments - when looking at accident, and to an extent, incident data (particularly when looking at a fairly narrow subset of that data), the sample size is very small. There is no real value in looking for trends because the data is already marginal and, quite possibly skewed - whether intentionally or otherwise - by the sample selection. The most useful approach is to search for common factors in the events and then to investigate whether these are coincidental or a hint of a trend. Of course, that investigation will be of little value if it is done with preconceptions of what the outcome will or should be.
I truly doubt whether female pilots are better or worse than male pilots - all other things being equal. And to know if all other things are equal, it is necessary to record and analyse data where there may be relevance. To me, those who seek to prevent such analysis and subsequent discussion are likely to be afraid of what the results might show.
And one final point on analysing data - and this relates mainly to fdr’s comments - when looking at accident, and to an extent, incident data (particularly when looking at a fairly narrow subset of that data), the sample size is very small. There is no real value in looking for trends because the data is already marginal and, quite possibly skewed - whether intentionally or otherwise - by the sample selection. The most useful approach is to search for common factors in the events and then to investigate whether these are coincidental or a hint of a trend. Of course, that investigation will be of little value if it is done with preconceptions of what the outcome will or should be.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
I bet you would rather fly with this guy.
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/...1-519a3a7bd6ec
Unfortunately, people( I won't use the term amoeba) like you are willing to force us to.
Oh, and his family is suing the airline.
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/...1-519a3a7bd6ec
Unfortunately, people( I won't use the term amoeba) like you are willing to force us to.
Oh, and his family is suing the airline.