Airbus Within 6ft of the Ground nearly 1 mile Short of Runway
The origin is irrelevant, it is the current state of the aircraft and the only organisation that will know that is Airbus .The mod state will depend on whether the mods are mandated or the operator decided to upgrade the aircraft. I worked for an airline that had CFM A320s. IAE A321 with numerous differences. There were even differences between the type of CFM56 and whether they had sharklets, gps etc etc. The airline borrowed from a flag carrier a differences sheet which was part of the pre-flight briefing to brief the crew what they were going to operate. I can also think of another large operator that has a mixed single aisle fleet with seven distinctly different sub types.
I don't think I have ever heard French ATC using the ridiculously un-phonetic "un" "une" or "onze"
Give them their due all I recall is the unmistakable "unité".
Despite the fact the buggers should have been speaking English in the first place...
Give them their due all I recall is the unmistakable "unité".
Despite the fact the buggers should have been speaking English in the first place...
Doublecheck my arithmetic, but it seems to me had the PF delayed the go-around actions by only half a second more, they would have touched down short. At -717FPM at DH, that's pretty much exactly 12' / second vertically. The reason they took 9 seconds to initiate the GA is another matter entirely, though, and they should count their lucky stars it was open fields under the approach, rather than a substantial obstacle.
To think that in this day and age a ("relatively") modern airliner came within half a second of CFIT due to confusion, from whatever source, about 1011 / 1001 is unacceptable. I well know the HF at play, including the French ATC speaking French, but a single slip should not result in something like this.
Then again, missing a single step in a single procedure did cause BHP to have the biggest derailment in history in terms of terms of tonnes, size and speed - but the rail industry is decades behind aviation in terms of HF & safety culture.
To think that in this day and age a ("relatively") modern airliner came within half a second of CFIT due to confusion, from whatever source, about 1011 / 1001 is unacceptable. I well know the HF at play, including the French ATC speaking French, but a single slip should not result in something like this.
Then again, missing a single step in a single procedure did cause BHP to have the biggest derailment in history in terms of terms of tonnes, size and speed - but the rail industry is decades behind aviation in terms of HF & safety culture.
Only half a speed-brake
From the report they said they never saw anything, but even in fog you’d expect to see something at 6R. Daytime as well but heavy rain with the wipers on. I suppose the 6R was reached at a high pitch attitude during the GA, so you’re looking at somewhere between 50’ and 100’ AGL - still one .
Also interesting to learn about the history of crew with the operator. All of AviaSolution is hiring like crazy and people out of currency line up in drowes.
The "smart landing" EGPWS add-on includes an "Altimeter setting" alert- if there is a disagreement between GPS and indicated altitude (and it knows the transition level) it gives a voice annunciation. Hated the system except for this feature, which should probably be a requirement for Baro-based approaches.
Moderator
If someone else has raised the point, my apologies for missing it.
We old chaps might wonder why a significant discrepancy between forecast/ATIS and advised QNH did not present an immediate red flag "need to query" requirement to the crew ?
We old chaps might wonder why a significant discrepancy between forecast/ATIS and advised QNH did not present an immediate red flag "need to query" requirement to the crew ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A GPS Altitude vs Baro Altitude warning system is incorporated in the EGPWS enhancement known as Runway Awareness and Advisory System (RAAS).
https://skybrary.aero/articles/runwa...ry-system-raas
See section 2.3 of the manual here:
https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/1974.pdf
https://skybrary.aero/articles/runwa...ry-system-raas
See section 2.3 of the manual here:
https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/1974.pdf
Only half a speed-brake
There are about 5 operators in the owners group. AvEx and Lynx pay about 8000 EUR/m invoiced during the summer, and 80/blh in winter if they call you.
GetJet probably pays around 2000/m less than that.
Recency, proficiency, skill and talent. Why would you not go work for the better paying companies in the group is the razor question.
Whoever signed GJ is complicit.
FO probably on 1100 EUR/m
Last edited by FlightDetent; 13th Jul 2022 at 06:40.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an ATC point of view : first it would help if people would read the BEA report before making comments and wrong statements here, but it is probably too much to ask.
From the report : Communications with the flight were in English and only in English , QNH was passsed according English phraseology 1 0 0 1 and 1 0 1 1 , digit per digit . So it is not an dual language issue.
The LOC controller had a mental fixation on the wrong QNH and passed it to at least 2 aircraft ( and I would bet probably more during his shift ) it happens .But he/she should not have been alone on his position and his/her assistamt should have picked it up .It did not happen.
The controller twice did not use correct pharesology on the MSAW alerts, . That is a training issue . Serious and need to be corrected.
Finally the APP lights were not on and should have been. Another training issue combined with a lack of supervisory oversight. .
Not a good day for CDG . I hope they learn from it .
From the report : Communications with the flight were in English and only in English , QNH was passsed according English phraseology 1 0 0 1 and 1 0 1 1 , digit per digit . So it is not an dual language issue.
The LOC controller had a mental fixation on the wrong QNH and passed it to at least 2 aircraft ( and I would bet probably more during his shift ) it happens .But he/she should not have been alone on his position and his/her assistamt should have picked it up .It did not happen.
The controller twice did not use correct pharesology on the MSAW alerts, . That is a training issue . Serious and need to be corrected.
Finally the APP lights were not on and should have been. Another training issue combined with a lack of supervisory oversight. .
Not a good day for CDG . I hope they learn from it .
From an ATC point of view : first it would help if people would read the BEA report before making comments and wrong statements here, but it is probably too much to ask.
From the report : Communications with the flight were in English and only in English , QNH was passsed according English phraseology 1 0 0 1 and 1 0 1 1 , digit per digit . So it is not an dual language issue.
From the report : Communications with the flight were in English and only in English , QNH was passsed according English phraseology 1 0 0 1 and 1 0 1 1 , digit per digit . So it is not an dual language issue.
From the report:
1134:28, incorrect QNH issued to NSZ4311 in English
1135:37, incorrect QNH issued to EJU75MA in English
1136:04, correct QNH issued to AFR crew in French.
Had the controller used English for that 3rd transmission, which was less than 30 seconds, and probably closer to 15-20 seconds after her incorrect call to the EasyJet crew, there's every chance at least they, if not both of them would have queried them about it, "Hey, bud, you just gave us 1011 but Air France 1001 - which is it?"
Sure, they might not have picked it up either, but the whole point of the entire planet using English for aviation is to avoid mistakes and allow others to pick up on them should they occur.
Bollocks it isn't a dual language issue.
From the report:
1134:28, incorrect QNH issued to NSZ4311 in English
1135:37, incorrect QNH issued to EJU75MA in English
1136:04, correct QNH issued to AFR crew in French.
Had the controller used English for that 3rd transmission, which was less than 30 seconds, and probably closer to 15-20 seconds after her incorrect call to the EasyJet crew, there's every chance at least they, if not both of them would have queried them about it, "Hey, bud, you just gave us 1011 but Air France 1001 - which is it?"
Sure, they might not have picked it up either, but the whole point of the entire planet using English for aviation is to avoid mistakes and allow others to pick up on them should they occur.
From the report:
1134:28, incorrect QNH issued to NSZ4311 in English
1135:37, incorrect QNH issued to EJU75MA in English
1136:04, correct QNH issued to AFR crew in French.
Had the controller used English for that 3rd transmission, which was less than 30 seconds, and probably closer to 15-20 seconds after her incorrect call to the EasyJet crew, there's every chance at least they, if not both of them would have queried them about it, "Hey, bud, you just gave us 1011 but Air France 1001 - which is it?"
Sure, they might not have picked it up either, but the whole point of the entire planet using English for aviation is to avoid mistakes and allow others to pick up on them should they occur.
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: luxembourg
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/most-spoken-languages
https://www.berlitz.com/blog/most-spoken-languages-world
There is absolutely no reason to change the international language of aviation.
Only half a speed-brake
English is the only golden standard for international ops, which really CDG should have embraced long ago.
In the presented case, it is but a one very thin slice of cheese that got removed because of this.
Some great contributions upthread already, amidst the frog bashing screams.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Whatever the language, when humans are involved it is not merely code that will always be processed exactly the same way. I understand ATC procedures are designed to make communications as code-like as possible but so long as people are involved, other factors will come into play. This limitation needs to be understood.
There is nothing more painful in my trade than hearing two native speakers of the same non-English language talk to each other in English. They will never achieve the same degree of communication as in their own native language and there's a degree of unnaturalness about it that is inherently frustrating.
I appreciate the potential benefit of other pilots being able to listen in and spot errors, but I'm asking myself whether that actually happens and how often it is actually useful.
As others have hinted, I invite those on here for whom English is their native language to imagine landing at an airport in an English-speaking country and being required to conduct communications with the ATC in a learned foreign language. Can you see the problem? Language isn't just code.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all my previous airlines we used to preset the QNH when receiving Atis in cruise or early descent, meaning going from STD to QNH, setting the airport QNH and the going back to STD till transition altitude.
That way, when going through transition altitude, you had only to switch from STD to QNH and adjust for the 1 or 2 mb possible change for the last 20 mins.
With this procedure I’m pretty sure that a 10 mb change to what had been preset would have at least raised an eyebrow….
That way, when going through transition altitude, you had only to switch from STD to QNH and adjust for the 1 or 2 mb possible change for the last 20 mins.
With this procedure I’m pretty sure that a 10 mb change to what had been preset would have at least raised an eyebrow….
