"2010 JFK A380 go-around incident highlights need for change"
 

That's according to a recent BEA report on situational awareness during go-arounds:

BEA: A380 Incident Highlights Need For Go-around Changes

Apparently the A380 (airline not named - who was flying A380s to JFK in Oct 2010?) went around due to an unstabilised approach:
BEA is asking regulators to update certification rules to add devices to limit thrust during a go-around and to "adapt thrust to flight conditions."

Such a device is already fitted in all Airbus - we call it the Thrust Levers.

In an high energy/altitude go-around you just momentarly firewall the TL to the TOGA to arm the G/A modes and quickly bring them back MCT or to CL. Otherwise it is clear that you will overspeed the flaps and/or overshoot the altitudes.

They've done it again
 

French authorities investigating an A380 incident in New York...

http://www.bea.aero/etudes/asaga/asaga.study.pdf

Page 32.

Yeah, that's it. Dumb the profession down some more. :ugh:

They mean like the Boeing 737 then.

Sadly airlines like Air France are managing that all on their own.

From the BEA analysis (P2 PF):
"At 480 feet, the approach had still not been stabilised and the speed remained at 210 kt. The Captain ordered a go-around, which surprised the co-pilot who was focused on the landing."

Surprised!!:eek:

For God's sake don't limit the thrust, you may need it one day. All that is required is to explain (train, indoctrinate, lead them by the hand) to pilots the need to apply thrust appropriate to the situation, in other words plain old ordinary airmanship.

Hmmmm, didn't that go badly once before?

Dunno, on my extremely quaint old 737 that is already installed. Just use one click on the TOGA button and you get reduced go around thrust good for around 1000 to 2000 fpm climb, not more. If you need more another click gives full go around thrust.

Doesn't prevent the need for good training though.

Sadly, Air France's safety record is much more similar to that found in Africa rather than than that associated with Europe. I have no doubt that there are some great pilots there, but boy are there some shockers.

When was it that pilots stopped being pilots? Wouldn't it be less expensive and more desirable to just require pilots to be able to fly (and I do mean actually fly) to a minimum standard, rather than redesign whole fleets (just because AF is having another pilot-related flying problem)? :ouch:

Just fly the f:mad:ing airplane! It is not that hard. Really it's not.:ugh:

All the BEA is asking for is a dog in the cockpit to handle the flying if the pilot screws up.

@LapSap - they had plenty of thrust, they ran out of alpha! You'll note how the 320 flies nicely into the tops of the trees rather than stalling into their trunks.

The frogs need to go for a ride in a 717 to see how autothrottles should perform during a go-around.

Amazing the world's premier people-mover overspeeds flaps on a GA.

Bloggsie,
A friend of yours (an ex supa driver) over here has suggested you have seen them operate in the go-around mode quite often.:E

the Don

Apparently LOSA have identified mis flown, high energy GA's as an industry problem. It was included in our last LPC training cycle due to this. Apparently main problems arise from unanticipated GA's when not close to minima ( in crap weather you have it mentally prepared) which don't require prolonged TOGA and especially when they occur above the published GA platform. What they call 'startle factor' leading to slow or incorrect handling of events.

The author of that study needs his head examined if he really believes that to be an analysis of what actually happened!

The handling pilot simply couldn't handle the airplane would be my analysis. The approach had all the ingredients of a screw up way before the go around, and displayed that the pilot was way out of his depth. It really is about time the industry considered the value of good old fashioned art of "airmanship" when choosing who to stick in the RHS.

Integrated training is all very well, and does serve the purpose of teaching how to make use of the "magenta" technology used today, but nobody in their right mind could claim to have any level of experience when they jump into the RHS of a transport cat aircraft with only 200hours! Without experience its impossible to even make a start on acquiring any degree of airmanship.

The self improver route to gaining a Commercial licence worked very well in my opinion.

C212-100 has nailed it. Remember, just because the BEA (or NTSB, AAIB etc.) recommend something doesn't mean it'll happen - in fact it's usually fairly unlikely.

@LapSap - Hand Solo's right. The FADECs demanded TOGA thrust the second the thrust levers were pushed forward. The problem was that the engines had spooled down to expedite the descent and needed time to spool up again.

@Capt. Bloggs - wasn't there an SAS MD-80 where the autothrottles firewalled (and destroyed) the engines following ice ingestion?

Ignoring any lamentable handling skills for a minute, why was the published level off 1000' for the GA as the article suggests? Anyone know why this is the case? Even from minima that's always going to be a sporty GA.