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

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!

Yes it does Cough :ok:

I understood Jet operated A320's and there was a reference to an A320 in one of the posts .

More like direct law with 2 missing tray tables...

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.

Jesus God.

411A's going to stroke out when he reads that.....

Just fell off the chair, laughing...:)