Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 119

Thread: Cargo airplane collapsed in Kyrgyzstan

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Well in this case, capturing it at all would have been a good start!
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Aha. The old false glideslope routine. And the old not flying the plane routine. Where do they get these guys...
    A lot of things done wrong... How can you get as low as 100ft without ever crosschecking anything to see if you are in the right place? Altitude checks vs distance, at least check the glide slope indication!!!

    Yet, one thing was done right: With 100ft (which was the official DH) and with no visual cues at sight, they initiated the go-around. ALWAYS when you initiate a go-around you will descend a bit more as you transition to climbing, but 100ft should have been more than enough. Imagine if they had flown the approach correctly and spotted the runway just at 100ft, that should be enough to flare, even without adding power.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  3. #23
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Are you saying that the glideslope should always be captured from below?
    It should be but it doesn't have to be if you can capture it and remain in the stable approach criteria. It should be because it leads to pilot errors such as abusing FLCH, getting into a high vertical rate and extended period of idle, or this little phenomena known as the false glideslope. If you are capturing the GS from above, you have to be especially vigilant that you have captured the correct one. False glideslopes are a collateral phenomena of the analog nature of the signal and occur at multiples of the original one, usually having a false one at 9° (but they can also occur at 6°, 12° and 15°). If you are flying the plane, it's not hard to recognize the situation (DME, crossing altitudes, rule of three, vertical speed etc.) But as even you will one day have to admit, perfect airmanship is worthless when the brain is offline.

    In this case it seems the false glideslope was passed through, not followed, but in passing through it, the autopilot G/S CAP mode was initiated (from ALT HOLD) and for reasons I don't fully understand (BoeingBobby might help us out), this resulted in a 3° autopilot descent angle. So correct angle of descent too far down the approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    Yet, one thing was done right: With 100ft (which was the official DH) and with no visual cues at sight, they initiated the go-around. ALWAYS when you initiate a go-around you will descend a bit more as you transition to climbing, but 100ft should have been more than enough.
    And when you call for a GA at 100' and initiate it at 52'? But of course, they didn't even do the GA right because that GA should have commenced the moment the approach became unstable, long before visibility issues came up. But they didn't bother to notice, did they...

    Anyway, apparently another fatal lesson in stealth factors taught to a crew who probably thought their gut level airmanship was all that was needed.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	v5ap5.gif 
Views:	25 
Size:	10.5 KB 
ID:	7173  

  4. #24
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...you will one day have to admit, perfect airmanship is worthless when the brain is offline...
    Maybe some day you will understand logic.

    Perfect airmanship includes having the brain online and perfect airmanship means flying perfectly down the glideslope, and going around with perfect attention to altitude, and isn't going to result in crashing unless maybe the Russians are moving trees around ahead of the crash.

    I have however resigned myself that you will never understand that procedures fail miserably when the brain is offline, and that, in spite of all the great scientific engineering, perfectly executed procedures have resulted in crashes...

    And I'm still looking for the fundamental airmanship rule that says "pull up relentlessly".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Maybe some day you will understand logic.

    Perfect airmanship includes having the brain online and perfect airmanship means flying perfectly down the glideslope, and going around with perfect attention to altitude, and isn't going to result in crashing unless maybe the Russians are moving trees around ahead of the crash.

    I have however resigned myself that you will never understand that procedures fail miserably when the brain is offline, and that, in spite of all the great scientific engineering, perfectly executed procedures have resulted in crashes...

    And I'm still looking for the fundamental airmanship rule that says "pull up relentlessly".
    Procedure = CRM

    Procedure: PM to PF upon noticing full downward GS deflection: "glideslope"

    Procedure: PM to PF upon getting no LAND annunciation: "go-around"

    Procedure: PM to PF upon not having FLARE armed: "go around"

    etc etc etc etc.

    There were so many indications here that something was wrong, and all of them could have triggered a go-around long before reaching DH, if only CRM PROCEDURE had been followed. Because without CRM all you have is airmanship, and when that fails there is nothing to fall back on.

    Redundancy 3WE, procedure is redundancy.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    And when you call for a GA at 100' and initiate it at 52'?
    That's 4 seconds. More than what I like or it's acceptable, but not a awful lot of time either. Yet, 52' to go should be enough to arrest the descent.
    It is possible that they wanted to do it smooth and nice. GA at minimums in a CATII ILS approach has to be an aggressive maneuver. You are going around at 500'? You can do it smooth and nice.

    But of course, they didn't even do the GA right because that GA should have commenced the moment the approach became unstable, long before visibility issues came up. But they didn't bother to notice, did they...
    I've already agreed with that.

    Anyway, apparently another fatal lesson in stealth factors taught to a crew who probably thought their gut level airmanship was all that was needed.
    What? If by gut level airmanship you mean "by the gut and only by the gut", that's no airmanship at all. Not looking at the PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAY (which has the words PRIMARY and FLIGHT in its name for a reason) is not airmanship, gut or no gut. As well as not looking at the ILS needles in an ILS approach is't.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  7. #27
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Procedure = CRM

    Procedure: PM to PF upon noticing full downward GS deflection: "glideslope"

    Procedure: PM to PF upon getting no LAND annunciation: "go-around"

    Procedure: PM to PF upon not having FLARE armed: "go around"

    etc etc etc etc.

    There were so many indications here that something was wrong, and all of them could have triggered a go-around long before reaching DH, if only CRM PROCEDURE had been followed. Because without CRM all you have is airmanship, and when that fails there is nothing to fall back on.

    Redundancy 3WE, procedure is redundancy.
    LAND? FLARE? Where they in Auto-Land? In a CATII approach? Do you know something that we don't?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  8. #28
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    LAND? FLARE? Where they in Auto-Land? In a CATII approach? Do you know something that we don't?
    Naw, his mind is so full of procedures and acronyms, he sometimes gets basic things confused...heck, I see CATII and the T almost passes for an I if you read it quickly...but hey, I loves me some acronyms!

    And I think really good CRM includes stuff like the PF saying "one dot high, correcting" or the unwritten gross fundamental that if you aren't established and kinda stable at the marker you simply go around then. But what do I know, maybe the procedure is different on a 747-800 than a -200.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    LAND? FLARE? Where they in Auto-Land? In a CATII approach? Do you know something that we don't?
    No, pure speculation but it smells like CAT II autoland to me, given the weather conditions and the fact that the crew was basically sitting this one out. Of course, if it was intended as autoland, it would have been a NO AUTOLAND long before 100'. I'd really like to know what the vertical mode was after GS CAP failed... does it transition to V/S by default?

    Autoland or not, my point remains. A crew focused on good CRM procedure would not have flown this down to DH.

  10. #30
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    That's 4 seconds. More than what I like or it's acceptable, but not a awful lot of time either. Yet, 52' to go should be enough to arrest the descent.
    It is possible that they wanted to do it smooth and nice. GA at minimums in a CATII ILS approach has to be an aggressive maneuver.
    Maybe they spent a lot of time reading aviation forums and were concerned with underslung engines and pulling up too much?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,878

    Default

    What is nuts to me is how a pair of seasoned pilots can execute an instrument approach in these conditions while paying so little attention to what is going on and failing to monitor instruments correctly and maintain situational awareness. When the weather reads like that you know in advance you need to be EXTRA careful and operate with an extremely high level of awareness.

  12. #32
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    From a statement from ACT Airlines:

    "Captain has a total of 10,821 flight hours of which 833 hours are on B744. Our First Officer has a total of 5910 flight hours of which 1771 hours are on B744. "

    And how many go-arounds on the B747? That's not much on-type experience, and it leads me to speculate...
    He became responsible for that B744 flight as a captain, with an experience of 833 flight hours in a B744 cockpit?

    Hm. I don't know how the word 'experience' is handled by a Turkish airline like 9T.

    But if you ask me, I don't like to be responsible for a B744 flight as a captain with less than 1000 flight hours in a B744 cockpit! That means, I'd always like to sit next to a pilot who has 6,000 or more flight hours in a B744, if I had less than 1,000. And in such a case, the ranking is clear: F/O with 833 hours, and Captain with more than 1,000 in a B744...

    Imho, it's a perfect thing that always two pilots are on board. And the pilot with more flight hours on the type should be responsible for the flight. And btw, regardless of age!
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  13. #33
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    What is nuts to me is how a pair of seasoned pilots can execute an instrument approach in these conditions while paying so little attention to what is going on and failing to monitor instruments correctly and maintain situational awareness. When the weather reads like that you know in advance you need to be EXTRA careful and operate with an extremely high level of awareness.
    Hi Leftseat.

    I rather agree with Evan. Less than 3,000 flight hours (833 + 1771) in a B744 cockpit, if you count the B744 experience of all pilots in the cockpit, that's not much, to stay polite.

    Imho, the person on board who is responsible for the aircraft and all humans (and cargo) in it, should not be called a 'captain' with less than 1000 flight hours on e.g. a B744.

    I know A320 flights, where the captain has 6,000 hours of experience in an A320 cockpit.

    You don't gain the captain's rank for nothing, at least not in Germany.
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    What is nuts to me is how a pair of seasoned pilots can execute an instrument approach in these conditions while paying so little attention to what is going on and failing to monitor instruments correctly and maintain situational awareness. When the weather reads like that you know in advance you need to be EXTRA careful and operate with an extremely high level of awareness.
    Apparently these guys earned a lot of their time as fighter pilots. And who knows what else. I wonder if this is another case of being new to a modern autoflight sysytem and over-estimating the automation, like that crash involving a former 737-100 crew with clockwork autopilot experience transitioning to a 737-200 Advanced with digital flight control, where they thought it could just magically fly out of windshear on its own...

  15. #35
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Naw, his mind is so full of procedures and acronyms, he sometimes gets basic things confused...heck, I see CATII and the T almost passes for an I if you read it quickly...but hey, I loves me some acronyms!

    And I think really good CRM includes stuff like the PF saying "one dot high, correcting" or the unwritten gross fundamental that if you aren't established and kinda stable at the marker you simply go around then. But what do I know, maybe the procedure is different on a 747-800 than a -200.
    Yes. If you n me were able to sit in a 747-200 cockpit today, and tomorrow in a 747-800 cockpit, you'd probably say that one of these cockpits was not a 747.

    As far as I know, and I am only able to compare the original 742 to the 744 cockpit, the -200 did not provide fmc, thus, at least one or two of the three crew members in the cockpit of a 747-200 had to be a navigator, i.e. a person who - without the use of satellites - knows where the aircraft is, in every second of the flight.

    Old school. The step from 747-400 to 747-800 is nothing, compared to the 742. Chief engineer Sutter could've told us more detail. But after all that I've heard, the 748 fmc hasn't changed that much compared to the B744.

    I don't think that computers can replace the communication between the two pilots in the cockpit!
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  16. #36
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post

    As far as I know, and I am only able to compare the original 742 to the 744 cockpit, the -200 did not provide fmc, thus, at least one or two of the three crew members in the cockpit of a 747-200 had to be a navigator, i.e. a person who - without the use of satellites - knows where the aircraft is, in every second of the flight.
    That's not entirely accurate, most -200s remaining in service have long been refitted with FMCs, some even refitted with glass PFDs and HSIs. In some cases that was out of sheer necessity, the old parts being NLA.

  17. #37
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    That's not entirely accurate, most -200s remaining in service have long been refitted with FMCs, some even refitted with glass PFDs and HSIs. In some cases that was out of sheer necessity, the old parts being NLA.
    Hm. I think the important word is 'remaining in service'. Do we talk about the upgrade which the new President has experienced a few weeks ago, from 757 to 747?

    I've never seen a VC-25 cockpit, not even photographed. The only thing that I know is, Barack Obama has been always very happy when he was on board his 747. And imho this is one of the very few (strongly modified) 747-200s that are still in service.

    I don't have to tell you how we distinguish the different years of construction:
    -200 >> "antennas" at the wingtips.
    -300 oha. ?
    -400 >> with winglets.
    -800 >> without winglets.

    I'd bet that when Obama flew across the pond last time, his aircraft had 'antennas' at the wingtips. But this photo doesn't contain a view of the cockpit. My hope is, that Obama was in the air with a cockpit that's at least as modern as in a B744, so, glass PFDs, glass NDs, glass upper EICAS, et cetera et cetera...
    Obama's had deserved it.
    Here is the photo (with 'antennas'):
    Obama en route beyond the pond.

    PS: My favourite airline left the 747-200 club in 2004, after 33 years. And it joined the 747-400 club in 1989. So, what can we say. If you find pilots who enjoy to fly an a/c type, and if you find (updated) spare parts, you don't have to leave the club.
    Last edited by LH-B744; 02-15-2017 at 12:29 AM. Reason: My favourite airline...
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    He became responsible for that B744 flight as a captain, with an experience of 833 flight hours in a B744 cockpit?

    Hm. I don't know how the word 'experience' is handled by a Turkish airline like 9T.

    But if you ask me, I don't like to be responsible for a B744 flight as a captain with less than 1000 flight hours in a B744 cockpit! That means, I'd always like to sit next to a pilot who has 6,000 or more flight hours in a B744, if I had less than 1,000. And in such a case, the ranking is clear: F/O with 833 hours, and Captain with more than 1,000 in a B744...
    How many hours on type do you think that ALL the 787 captian have now? Or all the 744 captains one year after first revenue flight? Or how many hours in 747s in general (regardless of the 100, 200, SP, 300, 400, or 8 suffix), or in any widebody for the matter, do you think all the 747-100 captains had on type one year after the 747-100 first revenue flight?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  19. #39
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    How many hours on type do you think that ALL the 787 captian have now? Or all the 744 captains one year after first revenue flight? Or how many hours in 747s in general (regardless of the 100, 200, SP, 300, 400, or 8 suffix), or in any widebody for the matter, do you think all the 747-100 captains had on type one year after the 747-100 first revenue flight?
    Indeed, you cite some logic issues with LSD's marginal Englais and it's never wise to get too specific when posting around Gabriel.

    That being said...there sometimes seems to be some eye-rolling shortcomings in how experience is handled...In a perfect world, the left seater has a bunch of hours (and hopefully a nice bit in-type). The right seater can be "the apprentice"...

    Ironingly, perhaps the lowly Beech 1900-no-autopilot should be the zillion hour captain, with less experienced guys operating Evan's totally computerized, newest luxury liner?

    And of course, you have that whole human imperfection thing where sometimes, the less experienced guy is better with his airmanship and procedures than the veteran.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #40
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    How many hours on type do you think that ALL the 787 captian have now? Or all the 744 captains one year after first revenue flight? Or how many hours in 747s in general (regardless of the 100, 200, SP, 300, 400, or 8 suffix), or in any widebody for the matter, do you think all the 747-100 captains had on type one year after the 747-100 first revenue flight?
    Is this a discussion on a professional base? Well, let's do the 747 discussion, on a semipro base. You n me know good 747 destinations. So let's take the best example that you n me know.
    Flight LH 510 --- departure 2205 local --- arrival in Buenos Aires xxxx local (you know that better than me, semipro and professional pilots don't measure the local time...) --- time in the air 13 hours and 50 minutes.

    During such a night flight, a PF is on duty for .. let's say 3 hours without a break. That means, on such super long haul flights (5,000 nmi and more), there are at least three 747 pilots on board.
    Pilot 1 -- 0-3 hrs,
    Pilot 2 -- 4-6 hrs,
    Pilot 3 -- 7-9 hrs,
    Pilot 1 -- 10-12 hrs,
    Pilot 2 -- 13-15 hrs,

    If that were a real LH plan, how many hours is Pilot 1 in duty on the way to Argentina? 6 hours. But let's assume that he does not have a nine-to five job, with 16 hours for his private leisure, between five and nine!
    Somebody has to fly the 747 back to Germany. Let's assume how that could work:
    Pilot 3 -- 16-18 hrs,
    Pilot 1 -- 19-21 hrs,
    Pilot 2 --

    During 30 hours, such a pilot is theoretically 12 hours on duty. But when he's not on duty, that does not mean that he's at home, not by far. So, I don't like to compare a PF with a 'normal job' in an office!

    But for simplicity...
    Let's assume 40 hours on duty in one week, for a normal nine to five job. 22 work days in a month, 176 hours on duty in a month.
    Thus, you n me theoretically need ... 5 months to gain 880 flight hours (5 x 176).

    So, the captain who we talk about here knows "his" 747-400 for less than five months?!

    PS: One thing is right, when the 747 was invented by Chief Engineer Joe Sutter in 1969, then nobody on Earth was able to have flown the 747 for 800 flight hours or more. But Sutters newest invention, the 747-800, was inaugurated in 2011.
    So, you can call me a bad calculator, but in 4 years even a totally new pilot on the 747-800 gathers, let's say 500 per year, thus,

    2000 flight hours, and we discuss about a B744 flight captain, not about a F/O or Second Officer!
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •