|
Jet Airways check pilot pulls CB on finals
From the Times of India Check pilot's prank nearly crashes Jet flight - India - The Times of India
Pretty unbelieveable if true. MUMBAI: A Jet Airways flight coming in to land in Mumbai in October lost height faster than the prescribed rate of descent as the auto-pilot tripped, the flight director disappeared and the ground-proximity warning system went off. The flight finally landed safely — with none of its passengers hurt or even aware how close they had come to disaster, but for the experienced pilot and tons of luck. The dangerous turn of events began — about 3,700 feet above the ground — when a check pilot, seated behind the commander and the first officer on the Jet Airways Delhi-Mumbai flight, pulled out a circuit-breaker. He did it ostensibly to check the pilot's ability to handle an emergency. Only, such checks are always done in simulators — never with a plane load of people. The unthinking act set off a chain reaction, tripping the autopilot, making the flight director indications disappear and turning off the ground-proximity warning system. The aircraft went sinking at a rate faster than the maximum prescribed descent of 1,000 feet per minute over the hills behind Jarimari, Andheri, but — despite all this — the aircraft managed to make a safe landing. Jet Airways has ordered a probe. But it has not derostered the check pilot though both aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus have a strict policy warning flight crew against use of circuit-breakers during flight — they are not pulled even on a check or a test flight. A Jet Airways spokesperson said: ``The flight had a normal approach and landing, carried out safely within the acceptable parameters. An internal inquiry is in progress.'' But inquiries and investigations are not carried out for flights that are ``operated safely within the acceptable parameters'' and an exceeding high sink rate is not an acceptable parameter, say aviation experts. The matter is over a month old but the inquiry is still in progress and no action has been taken against the pilot concerned. The Directorate-General of Civil Aviation too has initiated an inquiry. ``I will be able to comment only after I have the facts from the air safety department,'' director-general Nasim Zaidi said. When the commander was interrogated, he said (and gave it in writing) that after the aircraft landed, the ACM revealed to him that he had pulled out the circuit-breaker on Radio Altimeter 1 ``just to see his reaction to failures''. The incident took place on October 20 on flight 9W 332 around 8.50am, during the morning peak hour. The check pilot was flying as an additional crew member (ACM) in the jump seat located behind the pilots' seats. An ACM's status is that of a passenger and s/he is not supposed to touch the flight controls. ``The aircraft was established on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 27,'' an official said, implying the aircraft was coming in to land from the east and was about 3,700 feet high and had got visual guidance to help it descend and touch down on the runway 27 centre line. ``At that instant, the autopilot tripped and the flight director disappeared,'' he added. A flight director gives visual cues to the pilot who follows it by, say, turning left or right or pitching the aircraft up or down to take it to its destination. So, with both vital navigation instruments failing, the commander took over the flight controls to bring in the plane for landing entirely manually. ``But the aircraft started sinking fast. It was going down faster than 1000 feet a minute, the maximum prescribed descent rate. It was a dangerous situation as the approach to runway 27 was over hilly terrain,'' the official said. When an aircraft has a higher-than-normal descent rate, the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) blares out a loud aural warning, ``sink rate whoop whoop pull up'' continuously till the descent rate is slowed down. But no such alarm went off in this cockpit. ``A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS,'' said the source. It is such a critical equipment to prevent crashes that the International Civil Aviation Organisation mandates that no passenger aircraft should fly without a functioning EGPWS. Jet Airways confirmed that the EGPWS warning was not received. This confirms a system malfunction or a deactivation of the system. ``Since the sink rate was very high, the Digital Flight Data Recorder showed up an `exceedance report', which was picked up by the airline's flight safety department after the aircraft landed,'' said the source. ``It is a very dangerous thing to do as pulling out a C/B can render unintended systems to fail, like the EGPWS failure in this case. No pilot would want to fly without an EGPWS,'' an official said. Aircraft manufacturers are so careful about C/Bs that these switches are not installed at locations easily accessible or even viewable from the pilot's seat. It is located behind the seat as Airbus and Boeing did not consider the possibility of an ACM pulling out a C/B. |
Prank ?
I'd call it dereliction of duty. What do you suppose he thinks simulators are for ? I hope he flies a desk for a while, just to clip his ego. |
He deserves to be pulled off-line and smacked.
|
reminds me of a bad redition of EKG's 'matches':E
|
Messing around with systems in flight????
Remember the DC-4 (Air Pennsylvania, I believe) in the 1940's??? Check pilot engaged the gust lock during cruise @ 4,000 ft. The aircraft started to climb, the Capt added nose down trim, Ck Pilot disengages the gust, and voila...the first half of an outside loop...A CAA (pre-FAA) Cessna was behind the flight and witnessed it.... 60+ yrs later and we still haven't learned... |
Remember the DC-4 (Air Pennsylvania, I believe) in the 1940's??? TRANSPORT: Boys Will Be Boys Monday, Oct. 27, 1947 Fortnight ago the heads of American Airlines faced an embarrassing task—explaining why one of their DC-4's had gone into a violent dive, on a clear, calm day near El Paso, had flown upside down, and dumped 48 fear-stricken passengers* out of their seats. After some consideration they decided not to talk at all. But last week the Civil Aeronautics Board revealed the simple, if startling, truth. The whole thing had been a, witless practical joke. Its perpetrator was the plane's veteran chief pilot, Captain Charles R. Sisto, of Los Angeles. Captain Sisto was riding as a check pilot while another pilot, Captain John Beck, familiarized himself with the route. As the plane snored west at 8,000 feet, Sisto reached down from a jump seat behind Beck and fastened the gust lock—a device used to lock the rudder, elevator and ailerons while the plane is on the ground. The plane began a steady climb. Puzzled, Pilot Beck adjusted trim tabs on the plane's control surfaces to bring the nose down. Then, still undetected, Sisto released the gust lock. The plane immediately went into an outside loop. Both Sisto and Beck, neither of whom had fastened his safety belt, were thrown from their seats. Two things saved the plane. Sisto struck buttons which feathered the propellors of three engines. Copilot Melvin Logan, who was securely belted in, was able to roll the ship right side up, a bare 300 to 400 feet from the ground. Captain Sisto resigned (many airmen thought he should have been fired, many others thought he should have been jailed). If the plane had crashed, killing passengers and crew, it would doubtless have been added to the list of unexplainable accidents. *A Frenchman, doused with the contents of the plane's chemical toilet, was apologetically informed: "This is not normal operating procedure in American airplanes." Sisto's pilot licenses were pulled and he appealed unsuccessfully: 179 F2d 47 Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board | Open Jurist Apparently, he later got at least a commercial license back since he flew as a copilot for Transocean Airlines a few years afterward (another version of the gustlock incident is here): One of the More Unusual Pilots a |
Are pilots really so out of touch that a single radio altimeter failure (at any altitude, btw) would cause an accident? Heaven help us.
GB |
Are pilots really so out of touch that a single radio altimeter failure (at any altitude, btw) would cause an accident? Heaven help us. GB Did he pass? |
Graybeard, SLF here, but post 1000 on the Turkish Schiphol accident.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...hiphol-50.html It sounds like the left radalt failed, and the pilots may not have noticed, or handled it correctly. Also sounds like Boeing will discuss radalt issues and their effect on the AT system. |
Have the check pilot arrested on landing in Mumbai for endangering the safety of the aircraft!:ok:
|
2 things are disturbing to me about this incident;
1. In VMC conditions (they called for a visual appr), with the AP failed as well as the EGWPS, the crew is back to godd old fashioned stick, rudder and power to land the aircraft from an altitude higher than approach minimums. It appears that this was very surprising to them, and it took a little bit of "manoeuvering" to re-establish somewhat of a final approach. Is this the state of aviation nowadays? Is this perhaps what sublimely lies behind why the FAA wants more thourough pilot training and screening? BTW, did this crew pass? 2. Was the check pilot trying to prove a point to someone (himself, the training sept, the crew?)?. In any case it appears he unveiled rust of handling skills by the crew, as well as a confidence with the auto-systems onboard. But with pax onboard!?!?!? On a ferryflight, sure, but not on a commercial flight. That`s what the sim is for (and one can always argue the value of knowing that you are in a sim vs the real thing, but that`s another thread). But, does this call for disciplinary action by the company, or evn the local CAA? Or.... is this just more journalistic sensationalism to feed the hysteria fire? |
Arresting him could be a bit harsh. Ever watched 'Slum Dog Millionaire' ?
I would simply demote him to First Officer for five years, and in that time make him responsible for learning then teaching CRM, TEM and all those other exciting subjects that we get to do these days to make us more aware of our limitations. It's called rehab. |
Just revoke his ATPL and let him survive on his big EGO, what an idiot can a pilot be any more stupid. The pax should sue Jet Airways and then see what Jet does to the guy.Very unsafe, out right dangerous
|
Absolutely! The article clearly states that both autopilot and flight director are "vital navigation instruments". We have to ask questions about the safety of aeroplane design that lets AP and FD fail after radalt CB is pulled!
If you wonder, my tongue is firmly planted in cheek. |
What a nightmare scenario to be in. To look down and see no flight director commanding a left/right or up/down correction must be bloody scary, I think we can all agree on that. Especially with the runway and PAPIs out the window to confuse the already assaulted senses. It's all very well sitting in front of a laptop screen in a warm lounge and spouting out stuff about setting appropriate pitch and power and keeping the TDZ stationary in the windscreen but you're missing the point - THE FLIGHT DIRECTOR had failed. Manually landing an airliner is next to impossible with the failures they got. Bravo I say.
P.S. Agreed, the check pilot was a numpty. |
I hope that the so called check pilot is suspended and then sacked as a result.To pull Cb's on a chk flight is crass stupidity and very dangerous.It reminds me of the "The right stuff flight training regime" that we all recognise today could not be further from the ideal.Unbelievable.
The simulator is the place to have highlighted this potential fault to demonstrate its effects.That's called training. Joe,TRE Retired. |
The aircraft landed safely after the radalt cb was pulled, pilots should be able to fly an ILS raw data no AP and no FD. All true.
Modern aircraft are highly complex and the systems are hugely interrelated, the failure of one system is rarely a single event with no other consequence than the single failure. In this case the AP FD and EGPWS all failed. The MEL will tell you whether it is legally acceptable to fly in this situation and what maintenance and operational actions are required for the flight to be undertaken. In flight events are dealt with by the QRH. The problem here is the astounding actions of the check pilot who deliberately degraded the aircraft's systems during a critical phase of flight. Apart from the manufacturers instructions about not pulling a CB except as mandated as part of a QRH drill - it is common sense that you do not do this. The mere fact that this Check Pilot thought he knew more than the manufacturers and was so smart and able that he could deal with any situation that arose as a result of his actions FROM THE JUMP SEAT beggars belief. We are all aware that accidents are the result of all the holes in the swiss cheese lining up - why on earth would any professional aviator deliberately reduce flight safety by lining some holes up intentionally. There is a place for these actions - the simulator, as any half decent pilot, let alone check pilot knows. This man should be grounded by the company pending a full investigation. Failing that the regulators should pull his licence until the full facts are known. |
I suspect a line checker did that to me on a Cat3 approach - and pulled another little stunt.
You know who you are :* |
If the news report (and that's one big if) bears some semblance to what has actually happened, than we have at least two issues here:
1) jumpseating checker pulling illegal and not quite smart stunt. 2) his stunt uncovering deficient manual flying skills on the part of the flightcrew. However, I'd wait for official word before getting overly excited over it. I won't hold my breath though. OFFTOPIC: DownIn3Green, DC-4 dive at Bainbridge was suspected, but AFAIK not proven, on "unporting" - elevators losing balance and going fully nose down because of the missing hinge bolt. EK Gann's "Fate is the hunter" has a fantastic chapter on it. Interestingly, capt Sisto was at Lester's groundschool with mr. Gann and he was described as "defiant" and "incorrigible" by the later. |
I suspect a line checker did that to me on a Cat3 approach - and pulled another little stunt. You know who you are It's not about the handling skills of the crew. To me that's completely irrelevant. If the check pilot suspected handling deficiencies then he reports his concerns and recommends a sim-check, it's not a massive deal. All crews should be able to fly a manual approach, no arguments there! With regards FD/AP off approaches: They are not in themselves dangerous or even non-standard, but there is a time and a place. To say they are essentials is plain wrong (with the obvious exceptions) and smacks of over-reliance on technology - they are in the category "Nice to have, but can deal without" What is a massive deal is the deliberately pulled circuit breaker (and it doesn't matter a jot which one is was) and the operation of the aircraft in a manner which is not only forbidden by the aircraft manufacturer but is also in violation of SOP's, no doubt, the TR manual, one's common sense and finally, is illegal ... not to mention the fact he wasn't even flying (or in a seat where he would be able to do so if something had gone wrong). At the very least his licence should be revoked and he should be sacked. In my opinion he should also face appropriate criminal charges. (and I'd quite like to see a poll of people who agree with me) Less focus on the ineptitude of the crew and more on the outrageously dangerous actions of the idiot on the jump seat. A_o_A |
I am amazed that crew was able to get that crippled airliner with no FD, autopilot and EGPWS from way up at 3700 feet to the runway with no damage or casualties. I know they were doing a visual approach but that doesn't take away the heroic way they saved the day. Phew.
|
The time and place for creating situations out of the ordinary is in the simulator, not in the aircraft, whether it is ferry flight, empty flight or a flight with pax. Common sense would dictate that surely? We try and stay out of trouble in the aircraft, not look for it.
My recommendation would be to certainly pull his check certificate. I don't believe he should have his livelihood lost by taking away his licence. I would recommend he be demoted to F/O until he learns some common sense, maybe a year or two as an example to others with huge egos and nothing between the ears.. believe me when I say most of them are well up on the theory. Oh yes they can recite manuals etc., word for word but a lot of them "cant see the wood for the trees." If the checker was an expat he would be gone of course and rightly so in my opinion. However if it was a local, then he will be put off flying duty on full pay until it all blows over. The speed of which, will be determined by the next incident, or god forbid accident.... then he will be back, rest assured. |
it's almost as bad as having to ditch in the Hudson river. let's give these guys second prize as aviators of the year
|
``A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director.
Times have changed, if now a single circuit breaker in the cockpit pops, we are e all in serious danger of crashing and burning. :\ |
Allocate_on_Arrival,
I just suspect but cannot prove. Anyway, it's all water under the bridge. Next time I meet up with anyone from that particular outfit, I'll make discreet enquiries. |
The pilot flying should have been sent back to recurrent to develop flying skills. The crybaby pilot reporting the incident should have been fired.
There are critical, essential and nonessential categories of equipment on airplanes. The radio is only critical during Cat III autoland. That's why it has a backup or two. At any other time it's only essential, which means the flight can be completed without hazard. Whether a CB pops, or the radalt fails internally, which can and will happen at any time, it must be accommodated as routine. I don't fault the check pilot at all. He did that in benign conditions. He may have overestimated the competence of the pilot, however. I'll be riding SLF across the US on A320 today. This pilot incompetence display and all the condemning of the check pilot on here has me wary.. GB |
Ahhh the gadgetry that separates the Microsoft pilots from the stick and rudder pilots.
|
I believe that failing a radAlt on short final has more implications than just no GPWS.
Perhaps some A320 jocks can correct me, but as I understand it, the system needs the RadAlt to overide the Alpha floor function when the intention is to flare and land, otherwise, the thing wants to power up and maintain height. Recognising the failure and reverting to a lower law is part of the exercise. |
Graybeard: Are you for real, or have I missed some hidden irony in your post?
The training captain in this case has done something that is, on the face of it, illegal; he has wilfully gone against the manufacturer's recommendation, and therefore by extrapolation will also have gone outside his own company's SOPs. There can be no excuse. Your post displays a quite staggering lack of understanding of airline operations. |
ZeeBee - A 737 remains in normal law all the time!
|
ZeeBee - A 737 remains in normal law all the time! I understood Jet operated A320's and there was a reference to an A320 in one of the posts . |
A 737 remains in normal law all the time! |
Pulling CB's
Many years ago I had a wing a/ice problem. Outstation engr isolated the system. On finals at base - Ldg Ckecks ..." Ldg Gear ... Oh dear, no greens. G/A. Check everything. No greens. Briefed No 1 Should be no problem, but if expensive noises, you will know the worst." Later turned out that pulling Wing A/Ice CB's also isolated the gear wngs - but obviously not EICAS because it stayed mum (but don't worry, it was soon changed!). Manufacturer's engr told me that up to 10 different functions can be routed through any one CB (and you are rarely let into the secret).
|
Airbubba...You're right...The AA crew was at 8,000 ft and survived because the props were "feathered" because the 2 Capt's hit the feathering buttons with their heads....
Their testimony solved the earlier accident I mentioned, as they were at 4,000 ft and didn't have the alt for recovery... See or read Robert Serling's "The Left Seat"...fiction based on real events... Great post BTW... |
DAC Pitch upsets
Cited by Down3Green above:
"... testimony solved the earlier accident I mentioned ..." Prior similar DC-4 tuck-under mishap: Eastern DC-4 30May47 day light cruise upset at 4000' near Bainbridge MD (Port Deposit); pitched down dived into ground. Capt Bill Coney, FO K.V. Willingham, 53 fatalities. Upset had been observed by by "government investigators" flying three miles behind: first it "tucked-under" then entered vertical dive. Investigators tested the DC-4 Gust Lock engagement with pitch trim use, and duplicated the upset. CAB AAR included the Gust Lock hypothesis as only one of ten possible causes. [Solberg's "Conquest" pg 324, AW 47:12 Ag 25 '47.] |
A lot of the PPRuNe crowd is evidently unfamiliar with the sensationalist tack of most media with regards to air travel, especially out of India. Nothing in that article leads me to believe that the aircraft was ever in any danger after the pilots lost their "vital" navigation instruments. There is plenty in that article, however, that leads me to believe that the check airman needs to be sacked, at the very least.
It's a shame we still hear of incidents like this from time to time. Reminds me of a story I heard of a check airman out of a country in Central America who pulled one of the throttles back on a heavy B727 to see if the pilot could handle a V2 cut. He was removed from service soon after. I know that if any check pilot on one of my flights were to concoct a "test" like that, he would witness a sterling example of the methods by which a crew member should deal with an in-flight saboteur. |
hey "AoA"...you can't get away with that...
quote "A 737 remains in normal law all the time! More like direct law with 2 missing tray tables..." should refer as "A 320 remains in normal law most of the time! More like direct law with 2 missing control columns..." arhhh...looks much better! Cheers...FD...:) |
Gentlemen , Jet only operates 737 ,so all 320 speculation is pointless.
|
A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS 411A's going to stroke out when he reads that..... |
Quote: A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.