Aerobatic trainer
 

The Ancient Greek sagely mentioned:
My feeling is that if all airline pilots did this then some would likely die in the process since GA flying is quite a bit more hazardous that airline flying. It might reduce the total deaths from air travel but at the expense of increasing the occupational hazard of being an airline pilot.

Would that be an acceptable trade off?

No, GA is more hazardous primarily because of GA pilots making poor flight decisions so I have hard time with the premise of your argument that a professional ATP pilot flying in GA airplane is automatically at much higher risk level, there are many safe pilots who fly GA their whole life and never get into any trouble. Yes, some pilots will always die - for example crashing while driving to the airport. :bored:

Am sure SI exists and occurs with pilots.

Question is why/how do some crews sort it (viz example in B757 above) but others don't?

I've had disorientation on several occasions when airborne but lived to tell the tale,

The answer is thorough crew training and procedures - plenty of a/c do GAs in potentially disorienting situations but do not come to grief.

Ref this being "common place " in GA a/c accidents - can you supply statistics?

I am not trying to speculate on what might have happened here, but have a read about the ICELANDAIR B-757 that was very close to crash during a go-around at Oslo Gardermoen in 2002 .

Shocking to see how quickly a well trained north-european crew nearly lost it during a standard procedure in an fully operational aircraft.

Pitch - 49 degrees, and lowest RA 321 !

REPORT ON THE serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757

Somatogravic Illusion (SI)?: I know because I've mentioned her several times in my classes; but in 45 -plus years of honest profession, mainly in the commercial Sector, conduct, thank God , without even getting a scratch on my plane , I never met her.
And in any case on the liner as everything that is fungible and redundant , even the pilots are 2 and it is not 'statistically' possible that both have simultaniously the same illness.
As for the gruesome accident in question, maybe we better wait the results of the investigation.
But let me express.
Given the increasing number of incidents/accidents occurring during a go-around with all engines operative , as we perform derated TO, why do we use max thrust, and the weight is certainly lighter, and we are not provided a reduced thrust for GA?

Actually, the 737 uses reduced thrust for G/A. At least as long as you only press the TOGA buttons once.

Yesterday I found a preliminary report issued on 19th Nov by Norwegian AIB. It describes incident on a B738 in Finland. During intermediate approach horizontal stabilizer moved to position full nose up, a/c pitched up +38,5 deg, KTAS dropped to 118. Fortunately crew was able to recover.

During investigation it has been found that at certain conditions de-icing fluid can ingress into tail cone compartment and it is possible that it freezes, blicking PCU input arms. This concerns all B737.

Abovementioned report: http://www.aibn.no/Luftfart/Rapporte...-File&attach=1

.

Interesting that. Done lots of simulator sessions but haven't struck that problem. Have seen airsickness especially when taxiing and doing a 180 on the runway. The fix for airsickness was to close your eyes before starting the turn and don't open them until taxiing straight. You need a kind and understanding instructor, though. Also happens when coming out of reverse when slowing up after landing.

It may be a lame question, but why nobody implemented a system which could override pilot's action just before the moment when the collision becomes imminent? It looks like a kind of silly that a fully operable plane with all the modern sophisticated computers can fly into terrain just because pilots suffered some kind of illusion.

A37575 - JH is simply describing a form of SI used all the time in simulators - not 'a problem' - and you will have experienced it on every detail. It is the use of a tilt of the box to simulate a longitudinal acceleration, that's all. It 'stimulates' all the body's acceleration sensors including the inner ear. As an example of the power of SI, it is extremely convincing, as we all know. The point JH is making is that if you 'reverse' the 'illusion' it can be equally convincing.

because that system is not 100% fail proof and when it fails in such a way that it still can override but the logic of that system is erroneous, it overrides pilot's actions and crashes the plane. now what? :=

Well, if the probability of a system error is significantly lower than the probability of a pilot error, isn't that still a good thing? What's worse, 10 planes crashing because of a pilot error or 1 plane crashing because of a system error? Not to mention that it is actually possible to fix the system error after the first accident so that it never happens again (although a different error can still happen), but you can't 100% "fix" all the pilots, even though you can give them better training. And as I understand, there are already similar systems. For example, I remember NGE's Mayday episode Pilot vs Plane, where the pilot pulled up and the nose went down because of the Alpha Protection or something, in order to prevent stalling. The plane still crashed anyway, but it was determined that the crash would be worse if the plane obeyed the pilot's command and crashed after stalling.

Wihout getting into a stupid Boeing vs Airbus war PLEASE.

ISTM that the envelope protection of an A320 could possibly have prevented this. Or possibly not ?

Thank you so much Jazz Hands and BOAC
I'm really ignorant on the subject.

And so I have to change my sentence:
...but in 45 -plus years of honest profession, mainly in the commercial Sector, conduct, thank God , without even getting a scratch on my plane , I've never met her in the real world. ...

So I experienced unknowingly the SI thousands of times.
As a matter of fact, often my students said they had felt unwell during certain maneuvers in the simulator.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, it all looks like a nail.

If you are at night, and trying to visually acquire the airport, and realize "this is AFU" and call for a Go Around, the first thing you do is GET ON THE GAUGES! You set GA attitude as power comes on and you, or the dear old Otto, holds it. Since these guys were in manual, the objective is to set the go around attitude, and hold it. As your C/P changes configuration via flaps or gear up in due course, you still fly on the gauges, and your primary reference is your pitch and roll indicating instrument, with cross check on your airspeed and VSI to make sure your GA is within bounds.

I don't know how well trained this crew were in doing a go around, but I saw Agricus' post and believed his point: pilots behind the aircraft shortly after GA decision. Flying visual wasn't a choice, flying with a proper instrument scan is the ONLY choice in IMC missed appproach, and Night IMC missed approach. It appears from the information that their condition was night/IMC.

If you don't stick to the basics, you'll get behind the plane. If behind the plane, it is possible to overcontrol when trying to correct.

Dan, the issue is Instrument Scan. Is the devleopment and application of one not considered a core competency of a professional pilot? Does the pilot force of a given airline get sufficient reps in instrument flying to keep the scan skill current, and not rusty?

You mitigate the problems of those illusions by flying on your instruments, regardless of what you "feel" in the seat.

EDIT:

I don't know enough about 737 to guess intelligently, but IF they had a malfunction in the pitch trim motor/system, and had a trim hardover or runaway during this maneuver, how easy is it for FDR to figure that out? :confused:

Light aircraft CFI/II/MEI here.
I have seen something like this when transitioning pilots from a very light airplane - like say a C-150 or J-3 size - to a "big" airplane like a C-182. A C-150 can be flown pretty well without ever touching the trim. Then you get that pilot in a C-182 and get him to start using trim. Coming down final with 2 aboard you'll be trimmed pretty much full back if you don't want to land nose first. Say Go Around and now you have a plane headed for the moon and a panicked pilot pushing full forward with many times the force his previous airplane ever needed. Even worse - hop in a C-208 with one big 600 or so HP engine out front and you really better be trimming it right.

As for the various illusions, I do everything I possibly can do to get my students to develope vertigo. You cannot imagine how hard it is to overcome your brain screaming WE ARE DIVING LEFT OMFG :eek: when the plane is really climbing to the right or vice versa until you have to do it for real. IMHO winning this mental battle reduces the brainpower left for any other task by a lot. The "black hole" issue is pretty common in GA. You take off with good visual reference - you think - on a dark overcast night and rotate. Now your world is pitch black. Or you break out on the ILS, switch to looking outside, and then go around. Suddenly your world disapears, the plane is loud and changing pitch and flaps need to come up and you can't see anything and it can get away from you with only 150-300-600 HP to manage. Can't imagine what a half-trained pilot in a 737 would be going through.

Lonewolf 50, excellent post which says it all - thanks for bringing us back to the basics.

Lonewolf:
Every plane I have flown with a coupled autopilot can leave you with a big mess if it gets out of hand. You notice it going bad, kick it offline, and now you are hand flying with a badly out of trim airplane and sometimes the actions you took to kill Otto also take the electric trim offline. That said, it doesn't really look like this is the case here from my casual reading.

Heh - and the other C182 gotcha, short field approach with flaps 40, instructor say go around, full power and push forward --- Eeek it wont climb.
Slow realisation - you still have flaps 40 = DUH.

island, agreed that "catching" up when auto systems transition to your control can take some work.

I noted earlier in the thread that CVR does not appear to be intact. :( While we can guess what went on in that last few minutes, it would be better to know what was said between the two on the flight deck.