Details about the near-crash in Germany

[F/O]

OK, so she f-ed up royally. But what i really want to know is how does she look??!!

See the link in post #1 for that.

Once again, I don't get how these fools are being lauded as heroes. The media needs to be reminded of the old adage...
"A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skill." Or in this case inferior skill.

 

[jonjuan]

Was it ab-initio? Is there any chance she could have 4,000 hours to include 1,000 turbine PIC under her belt? If she had these hours, then where does this thread go from here?

 

[viper548]

If she had 4000 hours then how many more would it take to learn to land in a crosswind? The question of why the captain wasn't flying would still be unanswered.

 

[say again]

See the link in post #1 for that.

I tried, but for some reason my POS computer will not open the link.

 

[Bigoober]

I'd say that there is nearly irrefutable evidence that too little roll control rather than too much was the most obvious technical error here.

I disagree.

To me it looks like the classic, inexperienced crosswind "technique" of crabbing in until the last minute and then rolling to point the nose down the runway and hoping to catch a mainmount on the runway before the aircraft gets pushed off the side. Too much roll.

Captain should have felt some rudder input to point the nose down the centerline not some upwind wing down which is what I see.

I can see where we are trying to say the same thing here though.

 

[Lear70]

Cali, Columbia - AA
Little Rock, AR - AA
Pinnacle CRJ ferry flight
Eastern Airlines in south Florida
United DC-8, Portland, OR
Comair CRJ - Lexington, KY
Southwest 737 - Burbank, CA
Air France A340 - Toronto
Southwest 737 - Chicago, IL


All preventable. All had an all male crew.

Please educate yourself to avoid looking like an idiot.

GP

Please post relevant accidents to avoid looking like an idiot.

Specifically, post an accident where the weather was the primary cause of the accident, the F/O should not have been flying the leg, and the CA for some unknown reason elected to let the F/O fly the leg in the face of all good judgment.

That's what I thought.

Idiot.

 

[Lear70]

AV8OR, you're absolutely right, bad thread title. My apologies... like I said, wasn't trying to infer anything, had good and bad in both male and female crews.

You're also right that I would take advantage of anything that got me a great job sooner, just like anyone else would. I don't like the EEOC because it's completely unnecessary in aviation and, sometimes, unsafe.

Then again, I don't make the rules... If I did, we'd all be making 6 figures with 18 days off a month and 36 hour layovers in Cozumel and Cabo.

 

[ultrarunner]

http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-forum.de/showthread.php?tid=763&pid=2607#pid2607

 

[Redmeat]

AV8OR, you're absolutely right, bad thread title. My apologies... like I said, wasn't trying to infer anything, had good and bad in both male and female crews.

What? chicks aren't chicks anymore? What are they dudes then? So we must refer to the respective Homosapien groups as either (pronounced I-ther) Man or Woman.

Stupid.

This whole PC thing is WAY outta hand people.

 

[MalteseX]

ab initio and experience is an even-keeled argument. Though i still think nothing replaces talent and good training in this gig. (There are plenty of 10,000 hour wonders who have been struggling through training events ever since they struggled through flight school- they aren't automatically better...)

Chick F/O??...That's the reason organizations like women in aviation and OBAP need to exist. When a white male sucks at his job- and there are plenty- they just suck. When a girl or minority is awful- it's BECAUSE they are a girl. Or it's BECAUSE they are black. Get rid of that unfairness and we can start talking about getting rid of the 'unfairness' of preferential hiring.

Maybe i just got lucky and had a black female be one of my first captains - who is still one of the best i've flown with.

When people get put into positions that have people "in line" that are more qualified--- and organizations etc lobby and push to get those people in---the criticism is justly deserved. Your one anecdtotal data point does not make people's comments that people were unjustly "put in front" of others invalid. The video shows a crew screw up on a routine crosswind landing.... and the fact that the F/O was young and inexperienced was probably a factor in the mishap. Although it's early, and hasn't been investigated yet; the fact remains that it was NOT a 10,000 hour pilot that made a flying error. Although it was the WHITE MALE Captain that possibly made the JUDGEMENT error (subject to the results of the investigation).

 

[Lear70]

Originally Posted by waveflyer

Chick F/O??...That's the reason organizations like women in aviation and OBAP need to exist. When a white male sucks at his job- and there are plenty- they just suck. When a girl or minority is awful- it's BECAUSE they are a girl. Or it's BECAUSE they are black. Get rid of that unfairness and we can start talking about getting rid of the 'unfairness' of preferential hiring.

Jeez, lady... take a pill.

The only time I've had to take the airplane from an F/O in the 121 world was with a white male. It does happen to both men and women, white, black, whatever.

Just because the post didn't come with a disclaimer stating the fallacies of all genders/races doesn't mean it automatically was gender-biased/racist.

Relax already...

p.s. I contribute to WIA, although I rarely go to the conferences (recruited at one once). Whoever has been to one understands the recruiting bias FOR women and minorities and all of us understand that it's pretty unnecessary to push these special-interest groups in order to drum up pilots in those genders / races.

If people want to be pilots, they will. There IS NO discrimination in hiring anymore, thus, no need for those organizations to exist. But they still do.

Maybe someone should found WOWMP (World Organization for White Male Pilots). Somehow I bet *THAT* would make the news.

 

[get2flyin]

How does the airbus handle the CA and FO fighting each other on the controls?

The Airbus is SO hard to learn to competently land with a crosswind. In a Boeing, the CA can sorta ride the controls and add little inputs the FO can feel. That helps the FO know how much input on the yoke is required but the FO can still be "flying" the plane. On the 'Bus, the side-sticks work independently, so if the FO doesn't have the proper input, the CA pretty much has to just take the plane away. Otherwise, if the captain adds aileron, the plane just announces, "Dual Input" and adds the two together but the FO can't tell how much was added. My bet is that's what happened and that when things fell apart.

What I don't understand is I'm hearing stories about how MASSIVE the crosswind really was. Does anyone know what it actually was? Doesn't the company have any cross-wind limitations? If so, what are they and were they exceeded?

 

[Sandstorm]

Here is a better translation if one is needed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,539373,00.html

 

[ALIMBO]

Sorry for being a newb but for the toy planes I fly we have 2 options for dealing with a cross wind. Wing low method which is Aileron into the direction of the wind and applying rudder to keep the nose down the centerline. Or crab it down to the runway and then rudder to straighten it down the centerline. For high wing Cessna's this works fine but in a large low wing airplane like the ones most of you guys fly is option 1 not ppssible due to the possibility of a wing strike like the one that happened in the video. Thanks for the answers.

 

[Redmeat]

Sorry for being a newb but for the toy planes I fly we have 2 options for dealing with a cross wind. Wing low method which is Aileron into the direction of the wind and applying rudder to keep the nose down the centerline. Or crab it down to the runway and then rudder to straighten it down the centerline. For high wing Cessna's this works fine but in a large low wing airplane like the ones most of you guys fly is option 1 not ppssible due to the possibility of a wing strike like the one that happened in the video. Thanks for the answers.

Everything was fine until she kicked a lot of left rudder to align... without puttin the correct amount of right aileron to counter act the rolling affect of the rudder and the wind.

I'm so lazy at this point in my career I would have landed with the crab.

 

[ALIMBO]

Thats what I thought but I mean in all honesty how windy/gusty was it. Ive exceeded the demonstrated x-wind limit in 152's and 172's quite often and it really wasn't bad makes me wonder why the numbers are so low. I'm sure the 320 has pretty high limits.

 

[Tweaker]

DOH (not date of hire)

I read somewhere earlier what the exact conditions were at the time. 60 degrees at 35 or so knots with gusts. So about 28 kts. direct crosswind.

I doubt that the short bus has a crosswind limit below that, but I have no idea. We read that many others landed before and after this flight.

I know that my A/C's limit is 36 kts. My very first trip after initial FO SOE I completed the last leg of the trip into an airport with only one runway. The wind happened to be 36 kts. at 90 degrees, of course.

My captain asked me if I was comfortable performing the approach. I took that to mean that he was comfortable letting me if I said yes. I landed and it was a challenge for sure, but "the succesful outcome of the maneuver was never in doubt," as the saying goes.

Had I bollixed it all up, I am sure that he would have had his azz in a sling. Perhaps rightfully so.

I think this is a good example of a scenario that should be considered for any new PIC. If anything goes south, the PIC will always pay the price.

I think this is one of the things I enjoy about the profession actually. I like that personal accountability exists, and I am free to continue to the final destination as long as the situation is one that I am comfortable with.

Actually, I have yet to take over the controls from a an FO. I have suggested on a few occasions to them that they may wish to allow me to perform an approach, and they to a man(gender inclusive, of course) have taken me up on my offer.

The point is, I asked, only because I felt the pilot was capable enough to handle it. If they didn't feel confident in themselves, or just want to be responsable for the maneuver, well then I didn't want to have them fly it either.

Currently, my airline has many new hires with < 250 TT, and I am having to "offer my services" with increasing frequency. There a couple pilots that I would definitely not permit to land in conditions like this, but the bad weather always seems to be happen on my leg. Not a coincidence, but I don't think they realize I planned this in advance.

Everyone was inexperienced at some point, just not typically on a Part 121 airliner. It comes down to a Captain's judgement, experience, risk tolerance, and even psychology to make a decision to give someone a chance to improve or prove themselves. If you want to deny the FO any challenging legs, that is your right, and who cares who doesn't appreciate it. In this career, sometimes you do control your own destiny, and that is fine by me.

 

[instructordude]

The pilot needs to be retrained on their crosswind controls. Basic skills here folks, kick in the rudder at 30-10 ft add some aileron to kill the wing rock and don't flare much. It scares me sometimes thinking about the quality of candidates some airlines hire. Unbelievable.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

I hope instructordude comments on this thread. :laugh:

The pilot needs to be retrained on their crosswind controls. Basic skills here folks, kick in the rudder at 30-10 ft add some aileron to kill the wing rock and don't flare much. It scares me sometimes thinking about the quality of candidates some airlines hire. Unbelievable.

What took you so long?

 

[ableone]

The dudes who say; "When the conditions are rough I tell the FO I will fly." are usually the weak sisters.

Unless the FO is brand new he/she should be (and usually is) as qualified as the captain to physically fly the airplane.

Statistics show that most accidents/incidents occur when the captain is the PF.

A captain will always be more likely to offer guidance or take over than an FO will. Generally speaking the more challenging the situation the safer it is for the FO to be the pilot flying.

As we now are required to use a certain degree of automation we will one day probably be required to have the FO be the primary PF.