Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > South Asia and the Far East
Reload this Page >

Unbelievable Vietnam Airlines crew paycut due to EGPWS in visual approach!!

South Asia and the Far East News and views on the fast growing and changing aviation scene on the planet.

Unbelievable Vietnam Airlines crew paycut due to EGPWS in visual approach!!

Old 25th Sep 2011, 14:06
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Moon
Posts: 2
Unbelievable Vietnam Airlines crew paycut due to EGPWS in visual approach!!

One expat Captain and First Officer just received a 10 days arbitrary paycut by Vietnam Airlines (the Captain only agency covered the unpaid salary).

The crew was performing a day visual approach in cavok conditions in Danang, report shows that during a descent at 1520ft/min, 238kias they overflew a 1050ft hill at 2642ft RA making the EGPWS trigger PULL UP warning for 3 seconds. According to the company Vice President, Mr.Duc this has been a level 3 event that had to be avoided, disregarding what the QRH says about EGPWS triggering in visual conditions: "During daylight VMC conditions, with terrain and obstacles clearly
in sight, the alert may be considered cautionary."

Is there any of the operators you are working for that treats the EGPWS triggering in a visual approach the same way?
Captain Revolution is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2011, 14:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knoteatingham
Posts: 828
This is the sort of thing that happens when you let HR centric people run an operationally centric business.
BANANASBANANAS is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2011, 14:50
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 42
Posts: 1,037
What aircraft and what agency?
PT6A is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2011, 04:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pre-dep area
Posts: 164
i hope that's just a lack of proper communication on the viet side.

if the pilots are to be reprimanded (and i DISAGREE with the salary penalty), it could be because of airmanship issues:

the hill is 9 miles to the threshold, ideally you should be 2700' over it, and their 2642' is just 58ft low. no big deal here.

however, what could have actually triggerred the alert was their rate of descent. 1520fpm sink rate was too much to maintain a 3deg flt path at 238kts.

that was what was probably being highlighted, albeit in the WRONG MANNER. everybody commits mistakes, and punishment by salary cut does not a better pilot make.
capt. solipsist is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2011, 16:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ...way up north
Posts: 102
No surprise, None at all!
olepilot is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2011, 07:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,481
Can anyone shed light on the company SOPs as far the latest one must commence the configuration process for approach and landing at this particular carrier? Is this a repeated violation of company procedures by the crew?

If the crew were non-standard, then counseling may not be an unreasonable route to take on the matter. Pay cut??? Now that form of punishment is tantamount to reducing a child’s allowance.
captjns is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2011, 10:30
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: InBetween
Posts: 2
I do not know the exact circumstances of the event...If the data are correct (2642ft RA over a 1050ft hill at 9 miles?), they might have been slightly high though. (3692 ft...where my reference would be around 3000ft)


However, it doesn't really matter. I think there is no reason to cut the pay of any crew for events like this. It is also in contradiction with the company's FOM...which says that: "no disciplinary action shall be applied to any employee who openly disclose an incident or safety occurrence...."


There do is this Government Decree on Sactioning Administrative Violations in Civil Aviation...


Article 9. Violation of regulations on aviation personnel, training institutions, training aviation personnel


1. A fine of 500,000 to 1,000,000 for each of the following acts:

e) Members of the flight crew, air traffic controllers, aircraft maintenance personnel performing the task incorrectly prescribed procedure affecting the civil aviation activities that may threaten the aviation security and aviation safety.


4. A fine of between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 for each of the following acts:

c) Flight crew members control aircraft violating the rules, flight procedures;

So this Decree might be the explanation for the paycut? One might think fligh safety could be improved with good or additional training. But apparently punishing people with paycuts seems the easy, albeit a less constructive way...Sad times for safety indeed.
BacktotheMoon is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2011, 13:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ...way up north
Posts: 102
During my years in VAC all the reports that surfaced ended in the same way,
"The crew has been punished accordingly"

Also I remember the story told by a friend that attended a flight safety seminar for the Asian carriers. The rep from EWA told about a problem they've had in Tapei and how they solved it. VAC had the same problem in Hanoi and when the EWA rep was finished he asked if there were any questions, the VAC. rep raised his hand and asked, "How did you punish the crew?"

Different centuries!
olepilot is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2011, 05:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rabbit hole
Posts: 1
Hi All,
I’m not surprised about the happening……
I’ve been working in this environment for a long while, and I truly believe this is unfortunately nothing to be surprised at all…….
The decision taken from VAC headquarters is strictly political, as usual….
Expats are not well seen in Vietnam Airlines.
It’s the usual power play….as they always do with roostering (expats always get worse destinations, or are called anytime as soon as the weather turns to bad or anytime locals don’t like to fly ‘cos are playing volleyball, tennis or whatever…).
This time, ridiculously, they’re trying to show that something happened on an expat flight….even if clearly nothing really happened…..
That crew didn’t do anything wrong…..they operated following Viet Air FOM (assessing that the max vs < 2000 ft AGL is 2000 ft/min ), Airbus and Vietnam Airlines SOP and ATC (requiring not to overfly the city…).
The GPWS alert was triggered for less than 3 sec while overflying an small obstacle, around 2500 ft above it, clearly in sight…..
To me there’s nothing wrong…moreover, checking the QAR datas it looks like to be a pretty well done one!
But still the management of the airline is trying hard to find something wrong…..even denying what Airbus says on QRH concerning GPWS alerts and how to react.
They just prefer to lie instead than loosing face while playing these ridiculous power games!!!!
This wouldn't happen to any local guy.
A strange game that is costing 10 days of suspension/salary to the crew….
Strange is that no one knows anything about any “episode” happening from time to time to local pilots…… Everything hidden……….

Cheers
Abulubulu is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2011, 13:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Age: 66
Posts: 132
the local guys are punished too, but you would not hear about most likely,
on the flights to europe, where you have to cross into afghanistan at a given
slot, they did not care until a few months ago, now they do! why? they punish them if they do not cross at the given time and have to fly at a lower level than planned, in relation to monthly salary much more than an expat.
and so for unstabilised approaches and and and......
mach 84 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2011, 16:06
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: JAKARTA
Posts: 16
when i read this topics it looks a lot of pilots dont know what is a visual or vfr approach............there are still some stupid pilots to believe they are on ils while performing visual approach....... 9miles 2700ft ?????? i never read somewhere that on visual approach we have to follow glide path of 3 ° except in cebu pacific airlines ....... requirement for visual approach is to be stabilized at 500"........ anyway as its already said in ATR manual its clearly written under day light vmc conditions an EGPWS warning threshold may be deliberately exceeded ( cf EMERGENCY & ABNORMAL procedures EMER 03.50 page 30)
im not really surprised by typical VAC behaviour, nobody in VAC read any manual.... in cebu pacific as well ......

after AIR FRANCE ....... VIETNAM AIRLINES wants to teach to birds how to fly
cris95123 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2011, 10:11
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: terra firma
Age: 49
Posts: 2
how about this?

Have you heard about capt L _ _ g's hard landing during fo's training...exceeded 2.4G's...whilst VAC's limit's are set at 2.1G's. No penalty, No reprimand, No issues, No rumors....hahaha.......Just so you know....he's the chief pilot...
supercooled is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2011, 16:54
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: InBetween
Posts: 2
Off topic but..."VAC's limit's are set at 2.1G's"...Really, where's that written?
BacktotheMoon is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 02:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: terra firma
Age: 49
Posts: 2
Well, your FOQA are being generated according to company/safety limits, dunno what your company exceedance limits are, but that's basically your exceedance limit settings. (i.e 32 kts, or 30 kts taxi speeds, >1200fpm v/s below 1,000 ft on final approach.) I guess if i answer too much you would know my MIXIRS position so can't say too much.
supercooled is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 02:56
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Yorktown
Posts: 33
FYI, Load Factor Limitation with Slats and Flaps extended (0G to +2G) A320 FOM, so I guess anything above these limits generates LOAD FACTOR exceedance... You can check these values at your safety division/offices as settings depend on maintenance/airline setting for QDM
Leemankin is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 09:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 625
Backtothemoon you can set the parameter as you like it in accodance with the Manufacturers threshould to inspect after a hard landing.

Usualy the operator has a lower threshould at his QAR-FOQA as the Airplane is testet / certified for.

There are certain Operators around the World who exceeded the test flight values and still made it. I remember a 4.3 G-Landing on a F100, 440KTS IAS in a B744, a dented A330 who´s EICAM was full and still made it to destination after the Crew flew thru a CB short after take off.

So the MAX is not the MAX, it is a guideline. Unfortunatly the Asian Culture is asking for punishment and not for education. That is, of course, not written anywhere, You should know it despite the smile in the face, that is to make you die sweet.

I have a long lasting expirience in the "Oriental" Culture, 15 Years inclusive middle East. After a while you know how to hide when the firing squad is out. Fortunatly I am distant since a month now. Taking some time out and then back in the saddle.

Fly safe and land happy

NG
B737NG is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 10:56
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pre-dep area
Posts: 164
"Unfortunatly the Asian Culture is asking for punishment and not for education." -- WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THIS GENERALIZATION?
capt. solipsist is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 15:54
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ...way up north
Posts: 102
No need to shout, but B737NG is right. Maybe "asked" should've been substituted with a different word, but the fact remains. That's the way it works.
olepilot is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2011, 01:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Springfield
Posts: 736
Just a way for the gooks to save face
Ejector is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2011, 05:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 447
Visual Approaches

Don't have the FAR Part 121 reference, but the Part 91 reference is 91.129 (e) (2) (i).

In essence, if you're conducting a visual approach to a runway served by an operating ILS, you must remain at or above the electronic glide slope.

Fly safe,

PantLoad
PantLoad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.