Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg

Old 10th Mar 2010, 16:58
  #501 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 645
Alf: Whilst I appreciate your viewpoint with your "air safety perspective" hat on - even you must acknowledge the possibility/probability that given the experience level of the captain that he would have experienced more crosswind approaches, albeit PNF as well as PF, than the co-pilot. There is a good reason why many airlines impose lower crosswind handling limits on their F/O`s. The fact that LH appear not to do this is a matter between them and their authority. The days when BOAC used to fly all their command trainees up to Iceland to experience actual large crosswind landings are gone and no matter how good the fidelity of the modern simulators may be, they do not truely represent the real life variations that can be encountered. I can only repeat my view that I am still completely baffled as to why the captain could have thought that it was even a good idea to have the F/O handling the landing. Please explain how his `duty of care` was exercised.
Meikleour is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2010, 17:52
  #502 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
Pilot Error!

Lets admit it guys....from the time they crossed the threshold it looked precarious...so why not Go Around....PILOT ERROR!In fact the tower wind report should have rang enough caution bells!ATIS itself was alerting.The plane innocently continued flying and in the last moment during flare you could see that plane being forced down to land....were they low on fuel or something!

It might have been a case of a blue line capt learning the plane from a seasoned FO...but looks like he was carried away with the show to see how it would turn out rather than excerise caution and going around...to his alternate!

Looks like machismo flying was in action!
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2010, 18:17
  #503 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,062
Meikleour, Re “explain 'duty of care' …
In an HF sense I cannot. I think that it is within human behaviour, only known to a decision maker at the time – perhaps even an unknowable subconscious activity; a bias, a belief, a goal, wanting to help someone … etc.

All that I might argue is an equivalent phrase - ‘the required level of safety’, which could be influenced by the organisation, perhaps even inadvertently by the authority in this modern ‘overseeing’ environment. The guidance for achieving this level of safety should allow for human variability, perhaps more so as training and operating scenarios change.

From personal experience in a similar situation, self reflection leaves a feeling of emptiness - ‘it seemed OK at the time’, of being unable to explain the decision as logical, but at the same time it was not illogical.
Would I do it again … in a progressive, learning, safety culture, … perhaps; but no, we all like a quiet life and thus might take the easy less-hassle choice and let the management and regulators worry about safety (... experience!). Thus this is another problem for the industry where individuals and organisations wish to duck their duty of care, by moving the responsibility for safety elsewhere.
We might question (debate) a Captain’s decision, but never criticise someone who took responsibility for safety, irrespective of the outcome. But to achieve an understanding of this, the same understanding as that of the Captain, requires very much greater thinking ability than mine.

As an afterthought, I wonder if the simulator adequately represents the aircraft in the obscure scenario of the incident. Is the ‘on ground signal’ simulated for each leg, and is a single wheel touchdown calculted and registered by the simulator software? If not, how can simulators provide Cat D training for crosswinds?

Vc10Tail, beware hindsight bias and the fundamental attribution error.
alf5071h is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2010, 20:50
  #504 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 645
Alf: Professionals are expected to work unsupervised therefore their `duty of care` is to exercise their highest level of judgement, exhibit the required level of professional skill and where appropriate allocate resources available in an optimum manner.
If the F/O had been vastly more experienced in A320 handling than the captain then PERHAPS her role as PF could have been justified. Alas the report does not warrant that I`m afraid.
Meikleour is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2010, 01:29
  #505 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,062
Meikleour, we agree on professionalism, judgement, skill, etc; our differences appear to be in timing.
At the time of the decision, there is no evidence the crew’s behaviour being anything other than professional given the situation, operational culture, and knowledge.

In hindsight, the decision could be judged as misguided.

The difference between these two may represent the mechanism of judgement, experience, etc.
There may be some aspects of human behaviour which we cannot comprehend. Thus it may be more beneficial to consider what can be learnt from the incident opposed to attempting to categorise activities which might defy understanding.

Experience? I don’t know why I did it, but I won’t do it again.
alf5071h is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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