Innsbruck Go-arounds 15-3-03
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How have I shot myself in the foot eh Mitty?
In every airline there are Lowest Common Denominators. Some airlines have more than others. The BA S.O.P. takes care of all and no-one gets hurt.
If some F**kwit takes more than ONE approach to realise that he has mapshift, it would be preferable to some F**kwit flying into something unpaved because an S.O.P. existed that allowed some discretion over whether to respond to a "Pull Up!" warning.
Some airlines have S.O.P.s that leave more room for the superior airman that you no doubt are, Capt Mitty. But not every airman is superior as yourself, even in your company.
I'm not trying to sound patronising Walter. But some Nigel making a slight arse of themselves because of their limited knowledge of EGPWS is somewhat preferable to a smouldering wreck, regardless of our NASA team skills.
In every airline there are Lowest Common Denominators. Some airlines have more than others. The BA S.O.P. takes care of all and no-one gets hurt.
If some F**kwit takes more than ONE approach to realise that he has mapshift, it would be preferable to some F**kwit flying into something unpaved because an S.O.P. existed that allowed some discretion over whether to respond to a "Pull Up!" warning.
Some airlines have S.O.P.s that leave more room for the superior airman that you no doubt are, Capt Mitty. But not every airman is superior as yourself, even in your company.
I'm not trying to sound patronising Walter. But some Nigel making a slight arse of themselves because of their limited knowledge of EGPWS is somewhat preferable to a smouldering wreck, regardless of our NASA team skills.
So three times round the valley at Innsbruck in CAVOK conditions followed by a 15 kt tailwind landing on that huge runway equals "a slight arse of themselves".
I agree with flt_lt_w_mitty.
Whatever happened to common sense and good old airmanship?
I agree with flt_lt_w_mitty.
Whatever happened to common sense and good old airmanship?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our definitions of 'Good Airmanship' differ. My opinion of good airmanship would have been the Captain 'trapping' the error made at Innsbruck 20 minutes previous, when map integrity was checked during the descent.
I think we agree that he posessed by either mine or your definition, a lack of good airmanship on that day.
"The superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid the use of his superior skill"
I think we agree that he posessed by either mine or your definition, a lack of good airmanship on that day.
"The superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid the use of his superior skill"
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to get into a 'slanging match' over this incident, except to ask whether anyone KNOWS whether either of the hard warnings were genuine, and not 'false'? INN is festooned with terrain which can give a hard warning even on the 'old' GPWS, and the 'look-ahead' function of EGPWS CAN trigger there even with spot-on nav accuracy, so perhaps it is a bit unfair to try to judge?
Land ASAP - the position was almost certainly checked IAW SOPs as accurate before descent into the valley, and the map shift, if any, could have been sudden and extreme. I have had a position jump of 8 miles at low level into Aberdeen (and subsequent g/a) with a good accuracy at top-of-drop, due to an incorrect update on the only available DME, the Aberdeen VOR/DME. It is the 'kit' that is lacking. The SOP requires only a check of FMC pos against actual and as we know, IRS pos is where the 'kit' goes (at a given rate) when it loses the update. I personally check the IRS positions against actual. There is the option to 'tell' the 737 WHICH IRS it should trust!
For those other operators using the same 'kit', I have heard today that it is believed that the new DME (south of INN) is operative and should go a long way to eliminating false warnings with EGPWS.
Land ASAP - the position was almost certainly checked IAW SOPs as accurate before descent into the valley, and the map shift, if any, could have been sudden and extreme. I have had a position jump of 8 miles at low level into Aberdeen (and subsequent g/a) with a good accuracy at top-of-drop, due to an incorrect update on the only available DME, the Aberdeen VOR/DME. It is the 'kit' that is lacking. The SOP requires only a check of FMC pos against actual and as we know, IRS pos is where the 'kit' goes (at a given rate) when it loses the update. I personally check the IRS positions against actual. There is the option to 'tell' the 737 WHICH IRS it should trust!
For those other operators using the same 'kit', I have heard today that it is believed that the new DME (south of INN) is operative and should go a long way to eliminating false warnings with EGPWS.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And isn't it a bit unfair to be having a go at the crew if, as it appears, they were strictly following BA SOP's?
Comments such as "good airmanship" might be unreasonable in this respect. If the company has decided (rightly or wrongly) that hard warnings must ALWAYS be followed, even when fully visual, safe, and stabilised, then surely it is the procedures which should be questioned rather than the airmanship per se.
With SESMA looking over the crews shoulder, and a BA SOP which would no doubt result in "a quiet chat" if you continued the approach, what would you do?
Comments such as "good airmanship" might be unreasonable in this respect. If the company has decided (rightly or wrongly) that hard warnings must ALWAYS be followed, even when fully visual, safe, and stabilised, then surely it is the procedures which should be questioned rather than the airmanship per se.
With SESMA looking over the crews shoulder, and a BA SOP which would no doubt result in "a quiet chat" if you continued the approach, what would you do?
It seems to me that there are two things wrong here; faulty equipment and poor SOPs. My own company is quite adamant that all warnings must be reacted to immediately unless you are in CAVOK conditions and can safely continue to land.
Now most airlines operating into Innsbruck must have similar SOPs otherwise the valley would be permanently stuffed full of circling aeroplanes!
In my case, the situation would never have arisen for I would have been able to land without breaking company SOPs. In any event, I would not have been thrilled about landing on a 6000 foot runway with a 15 knot tailwind.
Perhaps the easiest way for these chaps to get things sorted out would be to start diverting to Munich or Salzburg on CAVOK days when everyone else is landing without difficulty and that might get the attention of the accountants!
After all, Innsbruck is a Category C airfield and special procedures apply so why can't their company have a CAVOK get-out clause? The way things are at the moment, rules are being followed blindly and common sense is being ignored. Mind you, I'm sure the chaps on the ground thoroughly enjoyed the flying display. However, if they do it too often, they could find that they will not be invited back by the airport authorities!
Now most airlines operating into Innsbruck must have similar SOPs otherwise the valley would be permanently stuffed full of circling aeroplanes!
In my case, the situation would never have arisen for I would have been able to land without breaking company SOPs. In any event, I would not have been thrilled about landing on a 6000 foot runway with a 15 knot tailwind.
Perhaps the easiest way for these chaps to get things sorted out would be to start diverting to Munich or Salzburg on CAVOK days when everyone else is landing without difficulty and that might get the attention of the accountants!
After all, Innsbruck is a Category C airfield and special procedures apply so why can't their company have a CAVOK get-out clause? The way things are at the moment, rules are being followed blindly and common sense is being ignored. Mind you, I'm sure the chaps on the ground thoroughly enjoyed the flying display. However, if they do it too often, they could find that they will not be invited back by the airport authorities!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a general statement regarding GPWS warnings as we had this discussion before, let's see what Mr. Boeing says:
From the B737 QRH - warning systems:
Condition: The GPWS provides warnings and/or alerts for any of the following potentially hazardous flight conditions:
Correct the flightpath lor the airplane configuration
not really surprising but then:
NOTE: If an alert occurs when flying under daylight VMC conditions, and positive visual verifications is made that no hazard exists, the alert may be regarded as cautionary and the approach may be continued.
If this is to technical, we can translate that to:
Hey, man, look out and use your eyes and experience. Don't rely too much on technical systems as they can fail occasionaly. Comman sense still apply as well.
From the B737 QRH - warning systems:
Condition: The GPWS provides warnings and/or alerts for any of the following potentially hazardous flight conditions:
- excessive descent rate
- excessive terrain closure rate
- altitude loss after takeoff or go-around
- unsafe terrain clearance when not in the landing configuration
- excessive deviation below an ILS glideslope
Correct the flightpath lor the airplane configuration
not really surprising but then:
NOTE: If an alert occurs when flying under daylight VMC conditions, and positive visual verifications is made that no hazard exists, the alert may be regarded as cautionary and the approach may be continued.
If this is to technical, we can translate that to:
Hey, man, look out and use your eyes and experience. Don't rely too much on technical systems as they can fail occasionaly. Comman sense still apply as well.
Controversial, moi?
Also the BA had that "tattle tale" gizmo that records all deviations, hence the crew couldn't use common sense
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have thought the thread made it obvious, but yes they fly 737's from Gatwick, Newcastle and Dublin as per cityflyer in previous years. And Manchester on the RJ100, which incidently has GPS based EGPWS so doesnt suffer from this unfortunate problem!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the airlines I've flown for there has always been the proviso that Captain has the discretion to deviate from SOP's for flight safety reasons.
Secondly; I've always had the idea that MK. 1 eyeball over-rides computers, and common sense is the pre-requisit of all pilots.
It has also been stated that a GWPS warning can be assessed for validity if visual. Electronics can go wrong...go worng.. go wonrg.....!
So, I am lost as to this thread. Call me an old fart if you wish, but with an empty piece of tarmac in front of me, and in the visual slot & stabilised, and cleared to land from other traffic, why not do the simple thing. I'd look a right Charlie burying it into the local concretous mountinous trying to be smart.
I'm not trying to be cute, just follow the principle of KISS. Get it right, you're a hero, but f+*k it up and no one wants to know.
Secondly; I've always had the idea that MK. 1 eyeball over-rides computers, and common sense is the pre-requisit of all pilots.
It has also been stated that a GWPS warning can be assessed for validity if visual. Electronics can go wrong...go worng.. go wonrg.....!
So, I am lost as to this thread. Call me an old fart if you wish, but with an empty piece of tarmac in front of me, and in the visual slot & stabilised, and cleared to land from other traffic, why not do the simple thing. I'd look a right Charlie burying it into the local concretous mountinous trying to be smart.
I'm not trying to be cute, just follow the principle of KISS. Get it right, you're a hero, but f+*k it up and no one wants to know.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Mode you say ...."Would have thought the thread made it obvious, but yes they fly 737's from Gatwick, Newcastle and Dublin as per cityflyer in previous years. And Manchester on the RJ100, which incidently has GPS based EGPWS so doesnt suffer from this unfortunate problem!"
So NOT a BA aircraft or trained crew then....!
These days just because an aircraft has BA colours it does not mean it is a BA aircraft. In 5 years it will, when the new scope agreement comes in.
So NOT a BA aircraft or trained crew then....!
These days just because an aircraft has BA colours it does not mean it is a BA aircraft. In 5 years it will, when the new scope agreement comes in.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robbed boy
The 737's were always BA aircraft, with BA crew. As are the RJ 100's now. Can you not understand simple english or woz' ur' brane robbed ov all normal finkin'.
What's it got to do with who the pilots were anyway dimwit - BA has a big book of FCO's "Flight Crew Orders" that they HAVE to abide by - even if it does make good old fashioned airmanship a thing of the past. It's simple - you follow the FCO's, or else you get your P45 unless you have a very good reason.
Having been ex CFE myself and having trained some of the "Nigels" onto the RJ - MAN and BHX guys- all I can say is that they were some of the BEST pilots I've had the pleasure of working with.
Unfortunately the company makes the rules - ignore them at expense of your career and your pension.
The 737's were always BA aircraft, with BA crew. As are the RJ 100's now. Can you not understand simple english or woz' ur' brane robbed ov all normal finkin'.
What's it got to do with who the pilots were anyway dimwit - BA has a big book of FCO's "Flight Crew Orders" that they HAVE to abide by - even if it does make good old fashioned airmanship a thing of the past. It's simple - you follow the FCO's, or else you get your P45 unless you have a very good reason.
Having been ex CFE myself and having trained some of the "Nigels" onto the RJ - MAN and BHX guys- all I can say is that they were some of the BEST pilots I've had the pleasure of working with.
Unfortunately the company makes the rules - ignore them at expense of your career and your pension.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do hope you dont work for BA you were robbed 'cos you havent been keeping track on events at Crawley International.
And White Knight, hope the suns treating you well, best out of the current mess.
And White Knight, hope the suns treating you well, best out of the current mess.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No GA this time
Sat 29th. Same situation. Wind 090/16 RWY 08 in use. When BA 737 reported right hand downwind for 08 everybody watched. Some might have hoped for replay óf those go arounds and downwind landing, if so they wasted their time. AC came in stabilized, weel contact on the 1000" marker - made it for B without backtrack.
As the map shift problem should have persisted in the INN valley, there must have been a change in the books or a crew with a different philosophy.
As the map shift problem should have persisted in the INN valley, there must have been a change in the books or a crew with a different philosophy.
