Hey Ró,

 

Yes standard Boeing SOP to leave the A/T in approach, I have also not come across a 777 operator that does otherwise. I will tell you something even more strange, most 777 operators (that I know off) train engine failures in the sim with TAC engaged!  And guess what, first real major engine failure on the 777 took out the TAC.

 

Only reason why I can think Boeing changed philosophy on the 777 is due to the FBW being path stable even with thrust changes, same thing with the Bus, you still get operators wanting A/THR in 99% of time.  Fortunately it sounds like your airline isn't one of them!

 

That just sounds counter intuitive to me.

 

Yeh, we're not really one of them, basically the Ops Manual states "The aircraft can be flown manually with the AT engaged, this is permitted however we ask pilots to bear in mind that regular practice is required of manual flight and manual operation of the thrust levers and you should whenever possible disconnect the AT when flying manually to maintain currency".

 

A lot of things at my operation are left down to the pilot flying, we try and give as much freedom to them as possible while still advising them what we would think it the best course of action. Works well I think.

 

Regards,

Ró.

PAPI and LOC were working; G/S was INOP.

I'm taken aback that you don't realize there are threats residing within that evolution.  Southwest at Burbank, FedEx at Tallahasee, they've all lost aircraft on easy visual approaches.  One too high, one too low.  Often the setups are less than ideal because ATC can clear you for one from wherever you are, instead of having to meet stricter guidlines of your positioning before clearing you for an instrument approach.  You should talk to your training department about it.

 

I am the training department...  :mellow:  We put a very big emphasis on regularly doing visual approaches and if you're ever on frequency you'll often hear us requesting visuals over an ILS.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Where did that information come from? The amateur video that CNN got hold of yesterday does not show the aircraft early enough to determine that.

 

 

http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/

Rónán O Cadhain, on 08 Jul 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

If that's the case you're doing something wrong, something very wrong. This notion that visual approaches challenging is baffling to me, I'm very taken aback by it.

 

Regards,

Ró.

I agree. In this case, there was PAPI, operational DME, FMS-based distance-to-field info and possibly even a HUD with visual approach path reference available. It's basic technique on a visual or nonprecision approach to keep an eye on your distance to the field with the DME or FMS and check your altitude against a target altitude of 300'/nm from the field--especially on an approach over water or an unlit area at night. And the PAPI? Was he ignoring all-red PAPI indications, or was the deck angle so friggin' high he couldn't even SEE the PAPIs??

 

Gross...lethal...incompetence.

 

Regards

I am the training department...  :mellow:  We put a very big emphasis on regularly doing visual approaches and if you're ever on frequency you'll often hear us requesting visuals over an ILS.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Why the emphasis on doing visuals?

Why the emphasis on doing visuals?

And therein lies the problem..

Problem is, this isn't the FAA world...it's a foreign crew on an international carrier--their rules. The airline is referring to the PF as the captain, and other pilot as the FO. And even under US rules...this guy already has a whopping 43 hours in type, so he could have legally been in command even under our rules.

 

I agree that little emphasis is placed on flying basics in recurrent sim training--what precious little of it there is. Pilots flying short-haul aircraft get plenty of hands-on opportunity on the line to remain proficient. Pilots flying long-range international routes with augmented crews often do not. When I was in the 89th Airlift Wing in the USAF, we recognized that and started scheduling our VC-32 (B-757) crews to fly additional quarterly proficiency sims above and beyond the minimum required recurrent training.

 

Bottom line, though, is that if you're not proficient in basic flying skills, you don't belong on the flight deck. There's no excuse for a crew with over 20,000 hours of combined flying time to kill people in a fully-operational jet on a visual approach in clear weather. And there's no excuse for an airline to allow the proficiency of their crews to degrade to that point. None.

 

Regards

 

The airline also said that he was "in training."

 

There may be no excuse for killing people like this, but it happens.  What are you going to do about it?  That is the question.  No use just sitting there pounding on no excuses.  Until humans are taken out of the cockpit, this kind of stuff is going to happen.  The only thing you can do to mitigate the risk is to recognize the risks inherent with each operation from the CAT III to the visual on a clear day.  Anytime you dismiss anything as something that should be cake is an indication that you are at risk for an accident doing it.

Why the emphasis on doing visuals?

 

We basically figured that if pilots used the AP more and more, then they'd lose their skills for flying manually, which has pretty much been proven over the last number of years in other airlines. As such we place emphasis on a type of flying that allows no automatics, ie visual flying.

 

Knowing how to engage an AP mode isn't difficult, if you've done it once you've done it a thousand times, I could go 3 months without flying my aircraft and when I get back I'd still know exactly where the AP button was. Hands on flying is not something that if you've done once you've done a thousand times, you need to keep practising it to both maintain it but also to improve and refine it.

 

We place a very strong emphasis on both manual and visual flying. They're the two pillar stones of our emphasis on the physical side of flying. I'd like to think it stands to us. If you hand fly and fly visually you get a much better feel for your aircraft and as such, should it ever hit the fan, you'll be in a much better place to deal with it, as knowing your aircraft and it's capabilities is essential when dealing with emergencies.

 

Regards,

Ró.

And therein lies the problem..

 

Huh? I don't understand what you mean.

QuoteThey weren't too low ages before touchdown: They were above their theoretical glide path and that's why they were going down steeply. That's why the throttles went back to idle and stayed there while the 777 increased its vertical speed down to 600 ft AGL.

They must have been way below the glidepath at the start of that video. Surely there was enough time from then to get the engines spooled up again?

We basically figured that if pilots used the AP more and more, then they'd lose their skills for flying manually, which has pretty much been proven over the last number of years in other airlines. As such we place emphasis on a type of flying that allows no automatics, ie visual flying. Knowing how to engage an AP mode isn't difficult, if you've done it once you've done it a thousand times, I could go 3 months without flying my aircraft and when I get back I'd still know exactly where the AP button was. Hands on flying is not something that if you've done once you've done a thousand times, you need to keep practising it to both maintain it but also to improve and refine it.

 

We place a very strong emphasis on both manual and visual flying. They're the two pillar stones of our emphasis on the physical side of flying. I'd like to think it stands to us. If you hand fly and fly visually you get a much better feel for your aircraft and as such, should it ever hit the fan, you'll be in a much better place to deal with it, as knowing your aircraft and it's capabilities is essential when dealing with emergencies.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Yes, and that is exactly why I've been saying the visual approach is a threat in the airline world. Most airline pilots rarely do the kind of manual flying where you have no help from automation and no guidance from navigation for the landing approach. Therefore, whenever put in that situation, the results are often some kind of unstable approach since it is not done often. That's good that you conscientiously try to emphasize turning everything off for practice. Obviously, you do recognize that there is an inherent threat in the visual approach. Otherwise, you wouldn't be emphasizing it.

Huh? I don't understand what you mean.

Have a look for children of the magenta line and it will make sense. I think Ro summed it up anyway, whenever conditions are favourable click off the AP and AT and fly the plane. I am only 35 but can see a whole new generation of pilots rolling out, too scared to hand fly and consider a non precision approach to be a complicated burden.

The airline also said that he was "in training."

 

There may be no excuse for killing people like this, but it happens.  What are you going to do about it?  That is the question.  No use just sitting there pounding on no excuses.  Until humans are taken out of the cockpit, this kind of stuff is going to happen.  The only thing you can do to mitigate the risk is to recognize the risks inherent with each operation from the CAT III to the visual on a clear day.  Anytime you dismiss anything as something that should be cake is an indication that you are at risk for an accident doing it.

No, I am not dismissing "something that should be cake." I am pointing out that allowing proficiency to degrade on the most basic flying maneuvers is dangerous and reckless. I'm saying that if you can't handle a visual approach into a major international airport on a clear day with light winds, then you have no business on the flight deck. I'm saying that if your judgement is so poor that you can't recognize danger at >20 KIAS slow, skimming the waves, with a deck angle of 20+ degrees and go around, you have no business on the flight deck. I'm saying that training departments need to take an approach as Ronan describes where hands-on flying is encouraged to keep proficient, and I'm saying that semi-annual recurrent sims aren't enough to keep a pilot getting one landing a month anywhere close to proficient.

 

Regards

Yes, and that is exactly why I've been saying the visual approach is a threat in the airline world. Most airline pilots rarely do the kind of manual flying where you have no help from automation and no guidance from navigation for the landing approach. Therefore, whenever put in that situation, the results are often some kind of unstable approach since it is not done often. That's good that you conscientiously try to emphasize turning everything off for practice. Obviously, you do recognize that there is an inherent threat in the visual approach. Otherwise, you wouldn't be emphasizing it.

 

But that's the thing, if you do it often enough, it's not a threat. It only becomes a threat if you let it. What we emphasise is that failure to remain current is a threat, so we remain current, and as such, there is no threat. That means I can safely say for any pilot where I work, carrying out a visual approach is second nature and would never be considered a threat unless in marginal VMC.

 

Regards,

Ró.