757 pilot had history of hairy landings
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Base training
I noted the reference to Base Training having been completed. I'm surprised that there seems to have been no reference to any problems at that stage in the training,
Manually landing an airliner or any high performance jet aircraft under normal conditions (99.5% of the time) is not difficult. It's a process, a procedure, it varies from type to type, but it's generically 50ft gently close the thrust levers, 30ft flare, aka pull back a bit, kick off any drift and wait. The M O for landing most airliners is flying them into the ground, along the runway with the right ROD of course. On the midsize bizjets I used to fly there was a little bit of scope for artistic flaring at the end but it really didn't make much difference. The REAL skill is presenting the aircraft to the runway at the right height, the right speed and the right heading in order to do the easy bit (landing!) but airlines discourage manual approaches now or insist on auto coupled to minimums. To be fair we did auto approaches, but we also did enough to know we didn't need to do them. I do know this, put most modern airline pilots in something like a Boeing 707, there would be carnage within a week. Yes the job has changed but the bar is much lower and so are the salaries...........
Last edited by Private jet; 5th Aug 2020 at 21:15.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Manually landing an airliner or any high performance jet aircraft under normal conditions (99.5% of the time) is not difficult. It's a process, a procedure, it varies from type to type, but it's generically 50ft gently close the thrust levers, 30ft flare, aka pull back a bit, kick off any drift and wait.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, ability will always be envied. There's an old wisdom about trying to help the drowning man and he will drown you to try and save himself. Time to revert to silent running. Goodnight.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oran
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand this exact situation as I made a line check as Captain with a older FO I had flown with in a previous company and who I’d recommended to his New company. The examiner being on the jump seat. It was 4 sector trip. It was very hard for me to take control but that’s what I did for his first two landing at 50’ pushing lots of thrust and lowering the pitch to recover the landing. We have to have a final gate that we must not pass where a safe recovery can me made. I feel sorry for the first officer, and also for the Captain who knew if he took the controls it was then end for the FO
Interesting thread. Heres my take:
The 757 is incredibly easy to land smoothly and accurately:
After a stable approach followed by the 50 feet call, count to three, ( 2 on a 76!) raise the nose to set the correct attitude, about 21/2 degrees, smoothly close close, retard, Thrust levers and jt rolls on beautifully, every time.
The FCTM is quite specific. “ Do NOT allow airplane attitude to increase after touchdown” (caused by spoiler lift, which I believe moves the c of p forward) Risk of tail strike with all the consequences of possible damage to the pressure bulkhead.
Failing a final line check is secondary to ensuring the absolute safety of the aircraft and all on board.
I also feel as an ex RAF CFS QFI and TC the training captain should have been ALMOST hands on to take control, or at least minimise incorrect control input, absolutely as soon as the limit of safety is approached, particularly with a trainee who has shown poor skills in earlier training, final line check or not.
The 757 is a truly delightful aeroplane and a pleasure to fly, and I have often said that if you cant land the 75 perhaps airline flying is not for you !
Back to my morning coffee!
The 757 is incredibly easy to land smoothly and accurately:
After a stable approach followed by the 50 feet call, count to three, ( 2 on a 76!) raise the nose to set the correct attitude, about 21/2 degrees, smoothly close close, retard, Thrust levers and jt rolls on beautifully, every time.
The FCTM is quite specific. “ Do NOT allow airplane attitude to increase after touchdown” (caused by spoiler lift, which I believe moves the c of p forward) Risk of tail strike with all the consequences of possible damage to the pressure bulkhead.
Failing a final line check is secondary to ensuring the absolute safety of the aircraft and all on board.
I also feel as an ex RAF CFS QFI and TC the training captain should have been ALMOST hands on to take control, or at least minimise incorrect control input, absolutely as soon as the limit of safety is approached, particularly with a trainee who has shown poor skills in earlier training, final line check or not.
The 757 is a truly delightful aeroplane and a pleasure to fly, and I have often said that if you cant land the 75 perhaps airline flying is not for you !
Back to my morning coffee!
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 6th Aug 2020 at 09:01.
18 years on the 757 and I only managed one landing I wasn't proud of (Windsheary day into Tenerife). 737-8 in comparison always seemed to land like a truck falling off a cliff edge. Horrible, horrible machine.
Had an ATPL recently in the Sim at our place who couldn't safely take off. THAT'S SCARY!
Had an ATPL recently in the Sim at our place who couldn't safely take off. THAT'S SCARY!
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting what the underlying causes might have been. If the pilot started flaring at 100 or even 50, that speaks of a very severe misjudgement of height. Something I would be seriously looking into if faced with rectifying such a problem in someone is where they are looking during the final approach and flare. Some people look at the very far end of the runway which makes them flare high (but often still not as extremely high as 100 feet). Conversely, those who look straight below the nose risk either not flaring at all or doing it late enough to land quite hard. Same or worse goes for those who chase the FD bars without looking outside literally until flare. Also, leaving the AP on until 400 feet is not appropriate for someone with low experience and apparently poor technique. Late AP disconnection with no time to properly adjust to manual flight often results in dire landings among the beginners.
It would be interesting to scroll through the training file of someone like that. If the problem had been apparent for months before this occurrence, how exactly was it addressed? What remedial training was given? Was change of instructor considered? I have a feeling that there was some root cause which was never addressed.
It would be interesting to scroll through the training file of someone like that. If the problem had been apparent for months before this occurrence, how exactly was it addressed? What remedial training was given? Was change of instructor considered? I have a feeling that there was some root cause which was never addressed.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PilotLZ might be onto something. At the beginning I also used to have issues to judge my height over the runway when looking at the opposite end of the runway, but looking 3/4 down the runway works for me.
I think that a couple of simulator sessions with focus on landing might have given a different outcome to the whole story.
I think that a couple of simulator sessions with focus on landing might have given a different outcome to the whole story.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another recent case of adjusted training standards to embrace a non-traditional hiring demographic with the PF in the Atlas 3591 crash:
Training Incompetency and Failures
Past Training Notes (directly quoted from the NTSB Docket)
- 6/27/11 - Resigned from CommutAir for failing DHC-8 initial
- 8/13/12 - Resigned from Air Wisconsin for failing CRJ initial
- 4/22/14 - Failed EMB-145 Oral at Trans State Airlines
- 5/11/14 - Failed EMB-145 Type Rating at Trans States Airlines
- 5/17 - Failed EMB-175 Upgrade Attempt at Mesa Airlines
- 5/17 - Nearly failed FO Requal after failing upgrade attempt at Mesa Airlines
- 7/27/17 - Failed B-767 Oral at Atlas Air
- 8/1/17 - Unsat Judgement/Situational Awareness during FBS-1 at Atlas Air
- 8/5/17 - Failed DBS-5 at Atlas Air
- 8/11/17 - Almost Failed FFSI-1 at Atlas Air
- 8/31/17 - "Regression of Situational Awareness" during FFSI-3 at Atlas Air
- 9/22/17 - Failed B-767 Type Rating for "Very Low Situational Awareness", incomplete procedures, and exceeding limitations at Atlas Air
Past Training Notes (directly quoted from the NTSB Docket)
- Air Wisconsin CRJ Initial Failure - "They were conducting the emergency procedure cabin altitude ... where they are at FL350 or so, and he gives the students a cabin altitude message requiring an emergency descent to 10,000 feet" ... "Conrad then goes to descend the simulator. He was not sure of Conrad's background, but instead of descending on the autopilot, Conrad disengaged the autopilot and abruptly pitched down well below horizon. They got stick shaker and overspeed alert together. He was not sure if it was an extreme nose down, but remembered that it was abrupt input on the controls"
- Mesa Airlines ERJ-175 Upgrade Failure (Instructor 1) - "He had previously failed simulator lesson 2 with different instructor, and he had requested a different instructor. She was conducting his retraining for lesson 2. She said his performance was a "train wreck" and he performed very poorly in this lesson. In the briefing room he did well, and explained things well. However, in the simulator and something he wasn't expecting happened he got extremely flustered and could not respond appropriately to the situation." ... "When asked about her comment in her notes about Conrad's "lack of understanding of how unsafe he was," she said he was making very frantic mistakes, lots and lots of mistakes, and did a lot of things wrong but did not recognize this was a problem. He thought he was a good pilot never had any problems and thought he should be a captain. he could not evaluate himself and see that he did not have the right stuff."
- Mesa Airlines ERJ-175 Upgrade Failure (Instructor 2) - "He first met Conrad Aska during a recurrent checking event in March 2016. That session went ok and nothing stood out. He did have some trouble with the stall series. The problems were with his attitude control, and he had a hard time getting the airplane back to level flight" ... "He said when Conrad would make a mistake in training he had an excuse for everything"
I’ve looked at the report and the remedial work is about what I’d expect any decent airline to give to a struggling student. Since I have no access to the recruiting system I can’t comment on their methods or preferences. S*** happens. Generally I’d put effort into trying to fix a single handling problem if the rest of the work is good - SOPs, CRM etc.
I can understand a TC letting it go as long as poss - no one wants to be the one to end a dream - but I can’t help feeling earlier intervention would have been the right thing to do.
I’m interested that there were two TCs on board. That would seem to put pressure on pressure, but it’s not my trainset. JFP seems to have a good insight into training methods at J2, certainly more then me.
For me, this is nothing to with pc - perhaps if a job offer doesn’t come your way, maybe that could be inferred. On the other hand, if you’re now working in freight then maybe the outcome is not so bad! From the outside looking in it seems that the airline chimes right in the way it does training business.
Best wishes to all
I can understand a TC letting it go as long as poss - no one wants to be the one to end a dream - but I can’t help feeling earlier intervention would have been the right thing to do.
I’m interested that there were two TCs on board. That would seem to put pressure on pressure, but it’s not my trainset. JFP seems to have a good insight into training methods at J2, certainly more then me.
For me, this is nothing to with pc - perhaps if a job offer doesn’t come your way, maybe that could be inferred. On the other hand, if you’re now working in freight then maybe the outcome is not so bad! From the outside looking in it seems that the airline chimes right in the way it does training business.
Best wishes to all