I would hazard a guess that luck and statistical anomaly would play a part.

When I started flying, there was a lot of difficult and unpleasant aircraft to master. Many a cruel dinosaur to placate and also many old wizards to learn from.

My last type rating was onto the 737 after years of flying more primitive and temperamental beasts.

The Standard Alteon CBT and FSTD training were the "modern way". I of course went through the system fine and came out able to follow SOP and fly the thing easily and safely, like all the others before me. I still basically knew nothing about the aircraft... But that's seemingly how Boeing want it.

I have spent the last 2 years correcting that... On the line, in the hanger, anywhere I can. Watching my colleagues looking at the Wx radar trying to figure it out because they can't work out what the flippin' great black cloud in front of us is or them busily tapping at the FMC to build a pink line to give VNAV guidance as they simply cannot figure it out by looking out the window is saddening.

Yes, the everyday safety of modern avionics is great. But the lack of airmanship, common sense or basic flying ability is growing daily and just once in a while it still comes in handy.:

AF447. BA038 (meant to say this being the exception!!), in fact the various ATRs, Airbus Boeings and others that have either crashed because of mis handling or not because of good airmanship over the last few years.

BA038? Mishandling?

What ever happened to 2.5 to 3 degrees per second basic pilot training





Well that doesn't work on different a/c.


Consider this statement - "2 to 2.5 degrees per second, reaching a target of 7-9 degrees in four seconds." That's an actual pitch rate of 1.75-2.25 degrees per second.


Knowing the actual limits, and techniques, of different a/c is important.


Boeing has tail strike guidance on it's HUD's. Dotted line, keep the VV (velocity vector) at or below the limit. What's the basic limit? Two degrees less than tail strike angle.


That's not that tough to see. Tail strike limit of 9.5 degrees on the 321? Freeze the pitch attitude at the 7.5 mark on the ADI and wait for the plane to fly.


11.5 degree tail strike limit on the 319? Freeze it at the 10 mark until liftoff.


737NG? Target/freeze of 7.5 degrees (HUD limit display at 8 degrees)


757-200? 10 degrees.


767-300? 7.5 degrees.


777-200? 10 degrees.


777-300? 7.5 degrees.


Rotate - freeze/pause if necessary at target limit, liftoff, mini pause, continue rotation. Done smoothly it's unnoticeable to the passengers.

Look ahead of the aft section "dome"..and who says she's not a curvy thing of beauty.
 

I agree with Glad Rag, Airbus FCTM A320 say that although it is 3 degrees a second but anything down to 2 degrees has no significant degradation of performance. I always ease off and hold near before the critical pitch, aircraft flies fine. Most tail scrapes do occur on landing though, more variables and different geometry.

..........:ok::ok:

AAIB report published
 

No mention of the barely 300 hrs total time for the PF as being a factor?

Talk about ignoring the big white elephant in the room.

So the PF flies the aircraft then when visual the PM becomes the PF and the now PM retards the thrust leaver? How utterly bizarre and in contraction to the airbus FCOM.

Surely if people retard at different and inconsistent rates its going to make flaring that little bit more difficult and create more of a challenge for perfectinf the technique.

Chop the thrust and down she goes. Smoothly and progressively closing them can aid a good touch down. Not having clue as to when and how quickly the other guy will cut the thrust just seems a bit odd.

BA has used cadets since then days of Hamble has it not?

Squawk7700 - Apart from the top of page 8!

Where does it say that in the report?

Meatballs - you've totally misinterpreted BAs monitored approach technique. Assuming visual and stable, at 1,000' the PM (who became PM at TOD) takes over and lands the aircraft, they handle the thrust levers until touch down when the PM selects reverse. I used to be skeptical about the monitored approach before joining BA but seeing it in action, I actually think it's quite a good thing.

Oh. I get it now! I feel for the guy/gal. I can't think of a worse thing to happen so soon into their career. I hope s/he is back online and hopefully moving on.

From the AAIB report
Have BA put such restrictions in place and if so, what are these experience requirements? Do other operators of the A321 limit landings to crew of a certain experience level?

The report is from the current month's AAIB bulletin and can be assumed to be reasonably up to date. It makes a clear distinction between safety actions that the operator has already implemented, like specific A321 differences training, and those that are so far just being considered.

So if co-pilot experience restrictions are already in place, that's only been done in the last few days.

That's incorrect.

New cadets cannot fly A321 aircraft until they have been line flying for 6 months. This policy has been in place for some time (6 months or so)

Many thanks, you beat me to it!

That's just giving the data, Chesty.

My comment was in regard to experience not being listed as one of the factors to the accident.

The airline certainly thought it was a factor, which is why not only do they have some measures in place already, but also state they will evaluate restricting A321 landings even further for inexperienced crew.

I am sure the Operator has learnt a lot from this event.
The benefit of hindslght is a wonderful thing.

Two days post completion of line training still requires very careful handling, and I doubt very much even if "PITCH" had been called by the Captain it would have prevented the incident.
A similar event occurred at KOS a few years ago, and was subject to an AAIB enquiry. Worth reading as it highlights the importance of being fully and consistently competent at landing the beastie.

As to why the non handling pilot has the task of selecting REVERSE must lie in some ancient SOP [Boeing 707? VC10?] as a sensible procedure in a stonking crosswind where the handling pilot had both hands on the control column initially. ?? Hardly applicable to the BUS.
Perhaps someone can shed some light as to this procedure?

The restriction referred to in the AAIB report was that co-pilots flying the A321 would not be allowed to perform landings until they had sufficient experience on type.

So not the same thing at all, unless you're suggesting the AAIB have got the wrong end of the stick.