Nice is an airport that has pitfalls, gotchas, bizarre and very complex routings and weird approaches all rolled into one, along with sometimes very indifferent ATC.
If you go there you pay very strict attention, brief very carefully and hope they don't change approaches on you at the last minute (as they are prone to doing) requiring a rushed brief for the new complex approach. Followers of the Magenta Line don't like the Prescribed Tracks approach as there is several miles of close-in low level visual flying with big turns obscuring the terrain close alongside.
All your antennae are out at Nice, it is a place to be very careful indeed.
Perhaps no one told THY that.

Money talks.

This approach is far simpler than the old Blue Bay approach to the 22s, with step descents et al. Still needs plenty of thought though.

THY. Its past safety record speaks for itself. Lucky this one didn't end up in the stats. It'll be glossed over quickly enough by the Turkish "authorities".

I landed very often there and cannot imagine such a 22 approach missing the last turn.

I operated into Nice frequently in the nineties, and don't remember any approaches this complicated. A was said, money talks.

Geez, we landed in a Britannia in the late 60's in the dark [!!] when all the runway lights failed, mind you we didn't want to miss practice for the GP, or someone didn't...

If those numbers on the overlay are to be believed, this was not that far away from a CFIT accident into a densely populated area. Given how sensitive they are to aircraft tracks at NCE, I’d have thought an investigation would be very likely.

What disturbs me is .......
In 80's & 90's we had basic a/c operating into Nice, Samos, Heraklion, Zakinthos, Mykonos, Corfu, Calvi, Salzburg, Leeds, Inverness, Lanzarote, & numerous others in Europe, and I'm sure other similar airports around the world. It was a common occurrence. Basic a/c, basic nav aids, basic skills. As someone said on another thread, charter crews were expected to receive a mission to some new airfield, study the charts and then take their a/c & pax there safely. It seemed to work.
Now we have super sophisticated a/c, improved nav aids & ATC but a dilution is basic skills. There are some airlines that brief their crews to death, run sim sessions into new airfields and design specific procedures and routings to pump into the FMC to enable their crews to go there. Takes weeks of preparation. Each of these airfields have perfectly good charts published. They reinvent the wheel.
It would seem that todays technology has not caused an improved evolution of skills, but the opposite. I went to all those 'black spot' airfields. I understood the threats. but felt adequately capable to deal with them. This was in non-LNAV/VANV a/c. A visual approach was not a threat nor a problem. What could be easier than landing on a runway you could see from miles away. It had terrain surrounding it; yep, but you could see it. You knew about mountain winds and sea breezes. You knew how to fly the a/c and the airfield was authorised for your category of a/c. The runway was long enough, just. You got on with it because you were trained and competent.
Todays a/c are just as competent, even more so. They have more nav data information; they have better brakes and more powerful engines. Why has the job been made more difficult & perceived to be more dangerous?
Nice is no big deal. I've flown all the approaches there. It's a case of doing it correctly and being in control of your a/c, being configured correctly and looking out the window. It's a VFR approach. To someone who is used to big ILS airfields in flat lands it might look dodgy, but it's perfectly doable. I've taken B767 into much tighter & more basic airfields. A visual in a turbo-prop, biz-jet, medium jet is just that. I suspect it's the companies that make an easy job difficult by injecting nervousness into the crews and not training them properly, and imposing crazy restrictions on them about minimum finals and heights etc, and use of automatics and FMC's.
The root cause of this incident might be traced back to the training dept. Or it might be a crew screw up. If they were not trained properly or allowed to practice these type of approaches they might be expected to screw up.

Yes, yes, everything was better during the war.

I agree RAT. The latest trend being circling with prescribed tracks and the airfield brief "recommends" to keep the autopilot on. Crazy in my view. See the runway, land on it. Simples. If you cannot do that you shouldn't be doing the job.

If you have lost the skill or your confidence - get practicing on nice sunny days
If you stuff it up by getting fast/ low/ high - Go around before the houses/trees are really big
If you are unfamiliar with the place configure a little earlier and coast it in

RAT 5,

That's how it was because the aircraft and aids were all a bit basic. And it worked, with only the occasional CFIT. Visual flying is just a skill, like raw data instrument flying, and like complex automation flying.

Where does a modern pilot learn and develop the visual flying skill?

• He does maybe 80 hours on his MPL course, and most of the visual flying is done round one airport at a stage in your career when everything is pretty "exciting".
• He goes off to learn how an A320 or 737 works in the sim, and then goes on line to fly ILS to ILS. Or VOR (GPS overlay). Or NDB (GPS overlay). Or GNSS. We now even get "RNAV visual overlays" for some visual approaches.
• Visual approaches in Europe are becoming rarer and rarer, so the crusty old ex-TP Captain flies them because the FO just doesn't have the skill or practice.
• The FO gets his command.

And that's where we are. It's a function of improved aids and improved aircraft. The only option I can see is to routinely un-improve your aircraft to gain or retain the skill, however that is seen as increasing operational risk (and more importantly increasing personal risk to the pilot if everything is not perfect) and not in accordance with TEM.

To be fair, most cadet-to-command pilots I see are good. It's just the small number of reduced skillset pilots in that position is increasing, but it's not their fault. In my opinion it's the heavily punitive nature of airline managers in the event of things not going perfectly. "What the hell were you doing a visual for when there was a perfectly good VOR - tell me about your TEM in that brief - your decision making is in question - you're fired".

Where does a modern pilot learn and develop the visual flying skill?
Visual approaches in Europe are becoming rarer and rarer,

1. By doing it.
2. They are still there, and with traffic space available they are allowed if requested.

Chicken & egg.

The only option I can see is to routinely un-improve your aircraft to gain or retain the skill,


I don't follow that. If by 'un-improving' your a/c means switching off the A/T, FD and ignoring the computer, then I can't agree. Those tools were not added to make a visual circuit more possible. They were included for very different reasons. To fly a visual circuit with manual control, manual thrust & Mk.1 eyeball is in no way degrading the a/c. By flying only full IFR arrivals via the automatics & computer you are un-improving and degrading the pilot in command.

And that's where we are. It's a function of improved aids and improved aircraft.

Indeed it is where we are, but is it where we want to be or where we should be? Improved aids allows operation in worse weather and easier operations into tight airports. The a/c is not improved, expect for performance; and it is the equipment installed on the ground and in the flightdeck that has improved. There is nothing in a modern jet that has changed the technique for a visual approach from that used in a DC-3. It's power, pitch, configuration and visual judgement.
What has changed is that airlines don't encourage it after base training and often don't allow it. That is where the erosion of skills starts. We hear from prune pilots on this topic that they do practice these techniques regularly and are encouraged to do so by their airline. Within their network they are necessary. Without those skills many of their destinations would be off-limits. They do not reside in the "and that's where we are" world. It is the airlines who operate with the opposite philosophy: no non-FD flying; no visual approaches without FMC back-up; no short finals; full use of automatics: it is they who have placed their pilots on the skills erosion slippery slope.
But not all operators do so. The lament is from the pilots of those who do. It might be in the majority, but it has by no means taken over the industry in total. There are those who resist the tide of mediocrity creeping into their ranks.

it's the heavily punitive nature of airline managers in the event of things not going perfectly.

Indeed and very sad. I've seen Flt OPs departments whose response to a screw up by one crew is, rather than discover why it went wrong and train the correct solution, is to ban the whole manoeuvre from the whole pilot force. So those who've been doing it fine for years and maintaining their skills and demonstrating that technique are now banned form doing it because the common standard has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. The SOP training manual has become 'Airline flying for Dummies.' That might sound a bit strong, and as I said is not applicable to all.
I do understand that there are this long-haul operators who routinely fly into huge airports and do what ATC tells them, both speed and altitude. No discretion.(It's worse than being married.) And they do it only 8 times per month. But they could choose to do it manually, if not too knackered. And then you have to land at St.Maarten, or the old Kai Tak, even TFN. or some other testing runways in the network. Some modern operators think Lanzarote is scary and devise special procedures; whereas it used to be 'just another airfield'. Is it that those are now left to only the sky-gods? I hope not.

"And that's where we are"; a major operator in a perfectly fine a/c in a perfectly fine airport on a perfectly fine day making a perfectly executed screw up. There are a/c going in & out of Nice every day, some in challenging wind conditions. They do it fine. Let's find out how so and then other operators can adopt their philosophies. Let's find out the true root cause of such incidents and fix it at root cause rather than adding more layers of sponge & safety netting in the wrong place.

I also add that this debate has been doing the rounds for years now. The circle seems to keep turning. Nothing seems to change and so things stay the same, and it all goes quiet for a while. Then another such incident pops up and the debate starts up all over again. We are beating our gums and talking to deaf ears.

Depends where. Yes, i do enjoy flying visuals and do them whenever i can. However in my homecountry they are largely outlawed and not allowed at 99% of all airports we serve. Not a company restriction, an ATC/airport restriction. And even in those warmwater destinations where it was always possible to fly a visual approach it is now rarely possible "due to traffic". Probably a reaction to changed traffic patterns which create a large surge in traffic to certain airports.

As a visual approach is still a requirement during our LIFUS flying for both experienced and inexperienced crews our trainers have to get creative and let the trainee fly a "visual ILS", which is kinda cheating. But there are simply not enough opportunities to assure a real visual approach during line operation.

Been there many times as well, but usually on 05 (now 04) due to northerly winds.
I only landed on 23 just a few times; it remember it as a tricky approach, you come in on a high approach angle (terrain or noise?), always with tailwind on base and a final turn of about 90 degrees, making it harder to assess your visual gp until almost established on final. Also seem to remember a kind of visual distraction (can't call it illusion): two parallel close runways, approach over water, coast converging at an angle, not the usual visual image of an airport..
All in all a challenging visual requiring you to divide your attention. When things get hot, easy to focus on one thing and forget the others..

Not to mention team work; this one is a team effort, needs good coaching..

I think you answered your own question. It's just a perception. The reality is that modern commercial aviation is safer than ever:

http://www.airbus.com/company/aircra...ocID%5D=108528 [PDF]

I'm sure there is always room for improvement, but these statistics are far more compelling than the rose-tinted anecdotes of retired aviators from yesteryear. And what this data fails to capture is that a huge chunk of the growth in flights has happened in developing countries. The fact that safety has nevertheless improved so much is a staggeringly impressive achievement.

GYS: I agree: the base turn onto 23R is challenging and you needed to go closer to the shoreline during the curve-in than some might feel comfortable with. I wonder if this was a LHS or RHS arrival. The vision from RHS would be very limited. The topic about ez at Paphos, where the situation was not made easier by being a RHS left circuit visual springs to mind.

Of course GYS and Rat5, specialy from RHS, but TK1815 started no turn! Did they want to watch the Promenade des Anglais from overhead where the truck killed dozens of people, or did they imagine a plane version of that attack ?

Roilis, I agree, it truly is a big F*up, only wanted to say the approach is not easy...
And now I think about it again, this approach easily overcomes an unprepared (or unexperienced) pilot, still flying is a team effort; what did the other one do?

NOT advocating following the magenta line but, on most FMCs it's possible to put an extended centreline on the ND. Not to follow it, but it does help with situational awareness.