Re-training required!
Controversial, moi?
411A
I wonder how many people have crashed despite being sure of where they were.
I would suggest that the luxury of assessing the validity of the warning should be carried out having reacted spontaneously to the warning.
I wonder how many people have crashed despite being sure of where they were.
I would suggest that the luxury of assessing the validity of the warning should be carried out having reacted spontaneously to the warning.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft...
Actually we had three to confirm...that all important Flight Engineer, certainly you must remember, the guy that just "sometimes" saves your behind.
Common sense must come into play at some stage...otherwise the flight would just circle, with GPWS alerts, until someone, usually the COMMANDER, says..."wait a minute, this is BS, we approach and land, NOW. It is a shame that First Officers can only (usually) look in the book...and NOT outside.
AND, I think that this is a DIRECT result of VERY poor training, IMHO.
Some will disagree of course, BUT us older guys know the score.
AND, do not forget, the older guys are in the Chief Pilots chair, nearly always. And always, DFO.
PS: IF this incident was at ALL related to the outdated idea of using QFE for landing...is it not about time that BA abandoned this rather backward idea?
Tin hat at the ready...standing by for incomming.....!
Actually we had three to confirm...that all important Flight Engineer, certainly you must remember, the guy that just "sometimes" saves your behind.
Common sense must come into play at some stage...otherwise the flight would just circle, with GPWS alerts, until someone, usually the COMMANDER, says..."wait a minute, this is BS, we approach and land, NOW. It is a shame that First Officers can only (usually) look in the book...and NOT outside.
AND, I think that this is a DIRECT result of VERY poor training, IMHO.
Some will disagree of course, BUT us older guys know the score.
AND, do not forget, the older guys are in the Chief Pilots chair, nearly always. And always, DFO.
PS: IF this incident was at ALL related to the outdated idea of using QFE for landing...is it not about time that BA abandoned this rather backward idea?
Tin hat at the ready...standing by for incomming.....!
Last edited by 411A; 16th Jun 2002 at 21:31.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, the day you leave handling events like a GPWS going off to "common sense" is the day you've lost all control of your aircrew and your airline.
Standard Operating Procedures are there for a reason. That reason is that every pilot, whether captain or FO, needs to know exactly what he may expect from the guy in the other seat, whether he's flown with him fifty times in the past two months, or never met him before a couple of hours ago. As soon as one guy decides he's not going to apply what the company teaches and trains its pilots to do, in that instant he has become a maverick; there is no team left, and the other guy is floundering, not knowing what to expect. That is an excellent basis for serious accidents to occur.
If during a flight something happens which is not covered by SOPs ("anytime we get near the ground the GPWS goes off") or you need to divert from SOPs, you stop reacting and surprising the other guy for a few minutes, you consult and brief on a course of action. That way everyone is in the loop, everyone knows what's happening, what's going to happen, and what to do.
An airline has to dictate how it wants its aircraft to be handled. So it dictates the SOPs. Now they may be good or bad. If you have a problem with any of them, you do not just forget it and go and do your own thing because you think you know better. The correct action is to raise it with the Training Committee, or the Fleet Manager, or whoever can address whatever you think is wrong.
In most airlines, you will get a sympathetic hearing, and perhaps you may be right, in which case, the SOPs will be changed, it will be promulgated around the fleet and everyone will do what you think they should. Alternatively, there may be good reasons for having the SOPs as they are, and I am sure the reasons will be clearly stated to you.
But insist on doing your own thing and you are a danger to everyone around you. In my book, that makes you prime candidate for being permanently grounded as being psychologically unfit to fly.
Standard Operating Procedures are there for a reason. That reason is that every pilot, whether captain or FO, needs to know exactly what he may expect from the guy in the other seat, whether he's flown with him fifty times in the past two months, or never met him before a couple of hours ago. As soon as one guy decides he's not going to apply what the company teaches and trains its pilots to do, in that instant he has become a maverick; there is no team left, and the other guy is floundering, not knowing what to expect. That is an excellent basis for serious accidents to occur.
If during a flight something happens which is not covered by SOPs ("anytime we get near the ground the GPWS goes off") or you need to divert from SOPs, you stop reacting and surprising the other guy for a few minutes, you consult and brief on a course of action. That way everyone is in the loop, everyone knows what's happening, what's going to happen, and what to do.
An airline has to dictate how it wants its aircraft to be handled. So it dictates the SOPs. Now they may be good or bad. If you have a problem with any of them, you do not just forget it and go and do your own thing because you think you know better. The correct action is to raise it with the Training Committee, or the Fleet Manager, or whoever can address whatever you think is wrong.
In most airlines, you will get a sympathetic hearing, and perhaps you may be right, in which case, the SOPs will be changed, it will be promulgated around the fleet and everyone will do what you think they should. Alternatively, there may be good reasons for having the SOPs as they are, and I am sure the reasons will be clearly stated to you.
But insist on doing your own thing and you are a danger to everyone around you. In my book, that makes you prime candidate for being permanently grounded as being psychologically unfit to fly.
Last edited by Captain Stable; 16th Jun 2002 at 22:20.
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, if a GPWS goes off any time below MSA, visual or not, CAVOK or not, runway in front or not then I am off like a scalded dog. Neither I, nor the FO is omnipotent, we do not know that we have overlooked something, we may even be in a visual trap for all we know (Mt Erebus-like) and this is not the time for the luxury of questions. Or the arrogance of certainty.
Once the GPWS go-around has been converted to a standard go-around, the aircraft is clean, and we have a few moments to review the scenario we can then work out a game-plan for the next approach. Possible reasons, such as incorrect altimeter seting, radalt ramping etc. will be reviewed, and a decision made accordingly.
Thus, if the next time round, when we are BOTH watching like hawks we get a warning we will have a plan of action. CAVOK, runway in front, everything in the groove and verified, this time we might elect to continue. But it varies on the day and by circumstance.
That is how a Captain plays it. Even one like me, nowhere near as venerable in age as you. This is not some great game in which you know all the answers, but one in which you try your damndest to make the cards run in your favour, and that includes using your co-pilot who may be more aware of a developing situation than you are. Maybe you were always more aware than your co-pilot of everything going on around you; in that case, sir, I take my hat off to you, for you are a greater man than many on this board.
BA do not use QFE by the way. Also, the training is immediate go-around for any hard GPWS below MSA (and in the event above it was an EGPWS warning... still a hard warning, so no excuses, but slightly different from the ones when you used to fly in terms of visuals/aurals.). That training is 100% correct, no matter how much of an ace crew are on board at any given time.
Once the GPWS go-around has been converted to a standard go-around, the aircraft is clean, and we have a few moments to review the scenario we can then work out a game-plan for the next approach. Possible reasons, such as incorrect altimeter seting, radalt ramping etc. will be reviewed, and a decision made accordingly.
Thus, if the next time round, when we are BOTH watching like hawks we get a warning we will have a plan of action. CAVOK, runway in front, everything in the groove and verified, this time we might elect to continue. But it varies on the day and by circumstance.
That is how a Captain plays it. Even one like me, nowhere near as venerable in age as you. This is not some great game in which you know all the answers, but one in which you try your damndest to make the cards run in your favour, and that includes using your co-pilot who may be more aware of a developing situation than you are. Maybe you were always more aware than your co-pilot of everything going on around you; in that case, sir, I take my hat off to you, for you are a greater man than many on this board.
BA do not use QFE by the way. Also, the training is immediate go-around for any hard GPWS below MSA (and in the event above it was an EGPWS warning... still a hard warning, so no excuses, but slightly different from the ones when you used to fly in terms of visuals/aurals.). That training is 100% correct, no matter how much of an ace crew are on board at any given time.
6£ is 200% correct - 411a you are wong.
Nuff said,
WWW
Nuff said,
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry gentlemen, cannot agree.
If common sense does not enter into the picture, then pilots are not needed, and Curruthers will have his automated (no pilots needed) crew.
GPWS alert below MSA, yes indeed, action required. GPWS alert well above MSA, and all concerned can agree on the aircrafts position, then action as needed, which may indeed mean continued approach. To blindly say....the box is always right...is nonsense, IMHO. Now, IF one crew member says..."something not right here" then action is indeed necessary.
My opinion anyway. Others will more than likely disagree, but have found that many just will not accept reality. These boxes installed are AIDS to navigation, certainly not the last word. That position is reserved for the respective fleet manager.
If common sense does not enter into the picture, then pilots are not needed, and Curruthers will have his automated (no pilots needed) crew.
GPWS alert below MSA, yes indeed, action required. GPWS alert well above MSA, and all concerned can agree on the aircrafts position, then action as needed, which may indeed mean continued approach. To blindly say....the box is always right...is nonsense, IMHO. Now, IF one crew member says..."something not right here" then action is indeed necessary.
My opinion anyway. Others will more than likely disagree, but have found that many just will not accept reality. These boxes installed are AIDS to navigation, certainly not the last word. That position is reserved for the respective fleet manager.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page One of our manual states something to the effect that not all operating contingencies are addressed... and that common sense and good judgement must not be constrained in any situation....Which is to say that if the GPWS goes off in VMC conditions in broad daylight with no obvious threat of terrain proximity, then the PF would not respond with avoidance action.
This is not about "individualizing" any procedure, it's about utilizing one's reasoning ability and one's eye balls to ascertain what's an obvious false warning.
Smoke does not always indicate a fire; it could be a smoke machine. Remember?
This is not about "individualizing" any procedure, it's about utilizing one's reasoning ability and one's eye balls to ascertain what's an obvious false warning.
Smoke does not always indicate a fire; it could be a smoke machine. Remember?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
<<PS: IF this incident was at ALL related to the outdated idea of using QFE for landing...is it not about time that BA abandoned this rather backward idea?>>
Your "worldwide" experience is obviously not as great as you make out. Yes, BA do use QFE into certain airfields where it is state procedure... as do all other airlines (to my knowledge). QNH remains the standard at most airfields. The problem is that EGPWS relies on QNH being set to match aircraft altitude with terrain database...
There is always scope for common sense. My disagreement with your line of attack here is that a GPWS warning, if genuine, might require immediate action to avoid the terrain - there is not time to have a full 2 or 2 way CRM discussion in "what do you think chaps - shall we ignore it?". So a "Pull Up GA" should be flown, since all expect that...
Subsequent to this, we can now hold the CRM discussion, review the charts, position, and decide if it was genuine, a possible GPWS fault etc. Now common sense may dictate "ignoring" a further warning depending on the outcome of the above discussion.
NoD
<<PS: IF this incident was at ALL related to the outdated idea of using QFE for landing...is it not about time that BA abandoned this rather backward idea?>>
Your "worldwide" experience is obviously not as great as you make out. Yes, BA do use QFE into certain airfields where it is state procedure... as do all other airlines (to my knowledge). QNH remains the standard at most airfields. The problem is that EGPWS relies on QNH being set to match aircraft altitude with terrain database...
There is always scope for common sense. My disagreement with your line of attack here is that a GPWS warning, if genuine, might require immediate action to avoid the terrain - there is not time to have a full 2 or 2 way CRM discussion in "what do you think chaps - shall we ignore it?". So a "Pull Up GA" should be flown, since all expect that...
Subsequent to this, we can now hold the CRM discussion, review the charts, position, and decide if it was genuine, a possible GPWS fault etc. Now common sense may dictate "ignoring" a further warning depending on the outcome of the above discussion.
NoD
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, what is your opinion on following SOPs?
Do you feel that they should be followed, or forgotten about if you think you know better?
If you are going to divert from SOPs, do you think the other pilot should be kept in the loop, and if so, will you brief him before or during an alarm going off on the flightdeck?
And if an alarm goes off, will you react to it as per the book, or just decide whether you think it is spurious or not?
What role do you think an FO has if he doesn't have the faintest idea what to expect from you?
Do you feel that they should be followed, or forgotten about if you think you know better?
If you are going to divert from SOPs, do you think the other pilot should be kept in the loop, and if so, will you brief him before or during an alarm going off on the flightdeck?
And if an alarm goes off, will you react to it as per the book, or just decide whether you think it is spurious or not?
What role do you think an FO has if he doesn't have the faintest idea what to expect from you?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft--
For example, if you were in the hold at LAM (with other aircraft above and below) and you received that GPWS (EGPWS) alert, would you climb as necessary in response to that alert?
If so, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Captain Stable--
See GlueBall's post above. To blindly follow SOP's in a situation where they do not fit, is not using what I would consider "common sense".
A tough decision to make? Yes...and that is why there is a Commander on the flight deck.
For example, if you were in the hold at LAM (with other aircraft above and below) and you received that GPWS (EGPWS) alert, would you climb as necessary in response to that alert?
If so, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Captain Stable--
See GlueBall's post above. To blindly follow SOP's in a situation where they do not fit, is not using what I would consider "common sense".
A tough decision to make? Yes...and that is why there is a Commander on the flight deck.
Last edited by 411A; 17th Jun 2002 at 17:12.
Controversial, moi?
MSA in the LAM hold is around 3000'. Above MSA an immediate manouevre is not called for according to the SOPs I adhere too.
I am suprised that by reading other replies that you had not understood that there is a difference in response depending on whether one is above or below MSA.
I hope, should you be unfortunate enough to have a GPWS warning, that your lightening fast 'common sense' thought processes will be enough to save your life should the warning be real.
I am suprised that by reading other replies that you had not understood that there is a difference in response depending on whether one is above or below MSA.
I hope, should you be unfortunate enough to have a GPWS warning, that your lightening fast 'common sense' thought processes will be enough to save your life should the warning be real.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ascot,Berks,Great Britain
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A - Well you seem to have opened Pandora's Box with what may have been a less than well thought out comment. You keep coming back to "common sense"...many of the replies have shown plenty of that in commenting that having completed the GPWS go-around once they would then take time to review and replan. Indeed many have commented that on the second approach they may feel more inclined to disregard the warning. This is all emminently good sense. You however show remarkable confidence, verging on arrogance. We can ALL be wrong. Even you. By definition a GPWS warning, were it genuine, would require a very prompt response. I would respectfully suggest that even you would have insufficient time to consider whether the warning was valid. That's why we have an SOP. No-one is suggesting flying round in circles executing countless go-arounds.
I really wish you would reconsider your position. Your comments sound frankly arrogant and when coupled with the wrong character in the right hand seat, dangerous.
I really wish you would reconsider your position. Your comments sound frankly arrogant and when coupled with the wrong character in the right hand seat, dangerous.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stable--
As I mentioned before, the only GPWS alert that I have received was reviewed at the time by me, the First Officer and the Flight Engineer...and it was decided that the warning was false, so we carried on with the approach.
Seems like a reasonable action to me, ie: everyone agreed.
The action was reported (Captains Report) to the Chief Pilot (ex-BA, by the way)...who agreed also.
Works good, lasts a long time.
Do you have a particular problem with this?
It is certainly not necessary to re-invent the wheel.
As I mentioned before, the only GPWS alert that I have received was reviewed at the time by me, the First Officer and the Flight Engineer...and it was decided that the warning was false, so we carried on with the approach.
Seems like a reasonable action to me, ie: everyone agreed.
The action was reported (Captains Report) to the Chief Pilot (ex-BA, by the way)...who agreed also.
Works good, lasts a long time.
Do you have a particular problem with this?
It is certainly not necessary to re-invent the wheel.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From our SOP top paragraph on QRH, which is also Airbus
EGPWS ALERTS
CAUTION
During night or IMC conditions, apply the procedure immediately. Do not delay action for diagnosis.
During daylight VMC conditions, with terrain and obstacles clearly in sight, the alert may be considered cautuionary. Take positive corrective until the alert ceases or a safe trajectory is assured.
All seems common sense to me
EGPWS ALERTS
CAUTION
During night or IMC conditions, apply the procedure immediately. Do not delay action for diagnosis.
During daylight VMC conditions, with terrain and obstacles clearly in sight, the alert may be considered cautuionary. Take positive corrective until the alert ceases or a safe trajectory is assured.
All seems common sense to me
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too.
At nearly every company where I have worked, when ex-BA guys were hired, their opinion usually was...."well at BA, we didn't do things that way".
It was promptly pointed out that ..."BA is NOT paying your salary, so do it OUR way, or say goodbye."
They always stayed.
Not really surprised.
At nearly every company where I have worked, when ex-BA guys were hired, their opinion usually was...."well at BA, we didn't do things that way".
It was promptly pointed out that ..."BA is NOT paying your salary, so do it OUR way, or say goodbye."
They always stayed.
Not really surprised.
Last edited by 411A; 17th Jun 2002 at 20:35.
Controversial, moi?
411A
Can't quite make up my mind whether you have a hatred of all things BA or are just plain provocative.
Nobody in BA would claim to have the ideal method of operating an aeroplane. I do know that if I have concerns about an SOP I will be listened to and things can and do get changed.
However with reference to GPWS it would seem that you are in the minority. I hope it doesn't kill you as it has others with the same attitude and approach.
You also make arrogant statements about being the commander that frankly went out with the ark.
Something I have noticed about CRM issues is that those most in need of examining their own attitude and behaviour are usually those that believe that the rest of the world is out of step with them.
I do know that the last thing most in BA have is a closed mind.
Oh, and before you get on your other hobby horse of how experienced you are I am no spring chicken either.
Can't quite make up my mind whether you have a hatred of all things BA or are just plain provocative.
Nobody in BA would claim to have the ideal method of operating an aeroplane. I do know that if I have concerns about an SOP I will be listened to and things can and do get changed.
However with reference to GPWS it would seem that you are in the minority. I hope it doesn't kill you as it has others with the same attitude and approach.
You also make arrogant statements about being the commander that frankly went out with the ark.
Something I have noticed about CRM issues is that those most in need of examining their own attitude and behaviour are usually those that believe that the rest of the world is out of step with them.
I do know that the last thing most in BA have is a closed mind.
Oh, and before you get on your other hobby horse of how experienced you are I am no spring chicken either.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well beamer, as this is the Rumour Network, what's the gin?
M.Mouse..
Suspect that it is more of a USA vs UK idea.
Nothing wrong with the way BA plan their operations, just that some do not agree. Simple as that.
M.Mouse..
Suspect that it is more of a USA vs UK idea.
Nothing wrong with the way BA plan their operations, just that some do not agree. Simple as that.