Details about the near-crash in Germany

[ableone]

The weak sister is the Captain who thinks that everybody is created equal and can fly a jet with the same level of skill just because they have a commercial license and a company ID badge.

Typical flamebait response. No facts or logic just kicking sand.

Most FOs can fly as well as the captain. If they can't where you work then your company has a problem.

 

[viper548]

Most FOs can fly as well as the captain. If they can't where you work then your company has a problem.

After getting some experience in the plane maybe. FO's don't just walk out of the sim having the same flying ability as captains, especially if it is their first time in a jet.

 

[PositiveRate]

huncowboy,

The airplane won't maintain zero roll. It is correct, though, that it is easier to crab it in and kick it straight with minimal need for aileron. Remember < 50' you have a direct stick to surface control. The only thing the airbus will do in the flair that's not like any other plane is it induces a gradual nose down pitch to make the flair 'feel' more realistic.

My personal back seat driver opinion after watching the video a couple times is it looked fine until she tried to straighten it out. Looks like she left the crab in just long enough to be on the upwind side of the centerline.

Combine the instinct to correct back to centerline (presumably with left aileron), a decent gust, inexperience and voila - busted winglet and a whole bunch of scared passengers.

She's very lucky she didn't plant it harder and end up in the dirt....it looked like they were past the runway edge when the TOGA oh $hit thrust really kicked in.

 

[ableone]

After getting some experience in the plane maybe. FO's don't just walk out of the sim having the same flying ability as captains

If you are at a major the brand new FO probably has 5000tt and jet experience. He/she is up to speed fairly quickly. If not, it should take no more than a year, or 18 months at the most, for a pilot to match the CA's airplane handling.

Unless you are at a rapidly growing company or your senior pilots are being hired away rapidly most of your fos have probably been online for a while.

The only place I can think of that may look like this right now is MESA. I have never considered them a respectable airline and will grant that they may be the exception to the rule.

 

[viper548]

The FO in this case is 24 years old. It's unlikely she has very much flight time in jets.

A FO at a US major probably has at least 5000 hours, jet experience and most likely has some turbine PIC time too. I would expect that they'd catch on quickly

 

[labbats]

If you are at a major the brand new FO probably has 5000tt and jet experience. He/she is up to speed fairly quickly. If not, it should take no more than a year, or 18 months at the most, for a pilot to match the CA's airplane handling.

Unless you are at a rapidly growing company or your senior pilots are being hired away rapidly most of your fos have probably been online for a while.

The only place I can think of that may look like this right now is MESA. I have never considered them a respectable airline and will grant that they may be the exception to the rule.

You're good.

It took me until this post to even realize this was flamebait.

 

[vetrider]

Decent stick and rudder skills either show up fairly early or they never do, in my opinion. Given the same denominator, experience always counts. But, experience can't do anything for a lack of basic skills.

In my opinion, basic skills show up early and tutelage, instruction, mentoring and experience round out the package as time goes by.

Sending people from nose wheel airplanes right into a virtual jet isn't ideal. I bet that Lufthansa pilot in question could brief a mean approach and dot i's and cross t's with the best of em, the only problem is that dam crosswind....

Teach em to fly first, then teach em to dot i's and cross t's. I may be a little ignorant as to what goes on in the ab initio world, but I have a hunch they teach em to dot i's and cross t's first, and then hope the rest falls into place, which is backwards thinking the way I see it.

 

[ableone]

The FO in this case is 24 years old. It's unlikely she has very much flight time in jets.

A FO at a US major probably has at least 5000 hours, jet experience and most likely has some turbine PIC time too. I would expect that they'd catch on quickly

Now we are talking about two subjects.

1. The validity of Ab Initio traning.

2. FO flying.

If ab initio is really everything it is supposed to be and she had at least a year online, she should have been fully capable of flying.

Even if she was weak, (assumedly because of inexperience not cognitive ability.) the only way to learn is to do.

There is a reason that the FARs allow a 121 captain to operate as an instructor. He/she is expected to teach when necessary. A capt. should always be prepared to take the airplane but there are not many instances in which he/she should as a rule not allow the fo to fly.

The only blanket exception I can think of is if the CA is new to the airplane or the operation and is not yet convinced of his/her own ability.

 

[huncowboy]

Remember < 50' you have a direct stick to surface control.

Dang... You are correct. I forgot about flare mode. I mixed it up with a conversation we had about transitioning from crab to wing low on short final but still above 50'. My bad.

 

[ableone]

Dang... You are correct. I forgot about flare mode. I mixed it up with a conversation we had about transitioning from crab to wing low on short final but still above 50'. My bad.

WRONG

Flare mode is a pitch mode only. Normal roll control law applies until touchdown.

http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repo...7639/media_object_file_FLT_OPS-LAND-SEQ05.pdf

 

[vetrider]

The FO in this case is 24 years old. It's unlikely she has very much flight time in jets.

A FO at a US major probably has at least 5000 hours, jet experience and most likely has some turbine PIC time too. I would expect that they'd catch on quickly

A low time and and little experienced pilot with excellent skills could outdo your hypothetical 5,000 hr turbine pic pilot with average or less skills in a crosswind. Your point is valid, but it also assumes the same basic skill level applies to all, which isn't always the case.

 

[viper548]

If ab initio is really everything it is supposed to be and she had at least a year online, she should have been fully capable of flying.
After a year, she should be up to speed. We'll have to see if she had that much experience
Even if she was weak, (assumedly because of inexperience not cognitive ability.) the only way to learn is to do.
Of course. I'd rather learn to land in challenging conditions as a FO with an experienced captain with me. When the flying is at the limits of the airplane's capabilities the captain needs to step in and get the job done. Save the instruction for a less challenging day.
There is a reason that the FARs allow a 121 captain to operate as an instructor. He/she is expected to teach when necessary. A capt. should always be prepared to take the airplane but there are not many instances in which he/she should as a rule not allow the fo to fly.
I think crosswinds in excess of 30kts is a good example

The only blanket exception I can think of is if the CA is new to the airplane or the operation and is not yet convinced of his/her own ability.
If the captain is comfortable letting the FO fly the plane when they are not comfortable doing it themself, there's a problem

They're lucky no one got hurt

 

[brainhurts]

Guys,
Has anyone considered that possibly the Captain let her land that day so as to let her screw up and then when he had to save the day, she feels compelled to enter into sexual relations? If that was the case, I consider him a genius because by now he has gotten lucky with a 24 year old hottie, the press considers him a hero, and FI has given him 7 pages to date! Bravo!

 

[viper548]

Nice theory, did they go into holding after the go around?

 

[PositiveRate]

ABLEONE and Huncowboy,

Able is correct. Only part of what I said earlier was correct.

Flair mode is indeed normal law with the following - pitch is memorized at 50', at 30' gradual pitch down induced which makes the checking of the descent feel more natural.

The direct surface to stick is only in the ground mode or direct law.

Don't want to give you the wrong answers before you're even out of sim.


When in doubt, just fly the f^cking airplane ;-)

 

[vetrider]

When in doubt, just fly the f^cking airplane ;-)

Bingo! For a demonstration, just watch that British Airways 747 cross wind video on live leak, I'm on a hotel computer and I can't give the link at the moment. Suffice to say though, any pilot should just watch that guy and make it his or her goal to do so well.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

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

Great if you like 12 year old boys.

 

[BigMeat]

Why am I not surprised?

Slut! LOL

SHUT UP Pocono!! Just SHUT UP!!!!! We know you are a woman lover! Your poor, poor husband.............

 

[PositiveRate]

Here's the 747 video you were talking about.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=766_1196775900

 

[Lear70]

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

Ummm. yeahh... suuuuurrrre. Tells me you've never flown with any of the 250 hour wunderkids at the regionals.

p.s. It's not just Mesa. There are 250-300 hour pilots straight out of the puppy mills with wet commercial tickets flying at almost every regional.

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

Source?

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.

Ummm. yeahh.... I'm going to have to sort of disagree with you there... yeahh...

Keep trying though. Sometimes a CA-monitored approach is a safer method but in this case, there's no way I'd have let a low-time F/O do the approach and landing.

In this SPECIFIC case, we saw EXACTLY what happened when the CA had to take over. They bent the airplane and put the safety of the passengers in serious jeopardy. Negates the whole idea of yours that "the more challenging the situation, the safer it is for the FO to be the PF". They tried that, it didn't work.

There IS no substitute for experience. Period.

But hey, you've got your opinion. No one else seems to agree with it, but you're entitled to it.

 

[ableone]

Ummm. yeahh... suuuuurrrre. Tells me you've never flown with any of the 250 hour wunderkids at the regionals.


Source?


Ummm. yeahh.... I'm going to have to sort of disagree with you there... yeahh...

Keep trying though. Sometimes a CA-monitored approach is a safer method but in this case, there's no way I'd have let a low-time F/O do the approach and landing.

There IS no substitute for experience. Period.

But hey, you've got your opinion. No one else seems to agree with it, but you're entitled to it.

No, never worked at the regionals. Though I did flight instruct in 20 series learjets, and most of the students had no jet time.

How are they going to get the experience?

- Watching you?

- Flying with a captain who has the patience and ability to mentor them.

Source?

Look at any accident where crew error was the primary cause or the most significant contributing factor and tell me who was flying the airplane.

So you are going to tell the FO that the 40 knot wind is too much for him and you are the one who can handle it. What are the chances he is going to intervene if you screw it up?

 

[Lear70]

No, never worked at the regionals. Though I did flight instruct in 20 series learjets, and most of the students had no jet time.

How are they going to get the experience?

- Watching you?

- Flying with a captain who has the patience and ability to mentor them.

I'm flying 20-series Lears RIGHT NOW, with pilots who have no previous jet time and some who haven't flown ANYTHING in 3-5 years or more (on un-requested leave from a Major).

Sure, you let the F/O's fly and learn as they get progressively more experience. Sometimes you don't and you let them learn by watching you do it the correct way.

You have to judge where your first officer is in terms of overall experience and take the appropriate course of action to ensure a safe flight. Sometimes you let them fly the challenging leg; sometimes you don't. Depends on the person you're flying with.

In this scenario (at 24 she can't have had much experience), with winds gusting up to 59 kts around the time of the accident, I'm pretty certain I'd have elected to do the approach. Then again, we're all MMQB'ing here.

Source?

Look at any accident where crew error was the primary cause or the most significant contributing factor and tell me who was flying the airplane.

This accident, Germany.

PCL 3701, F/O was flying (the only one that Guppy Puppy got right) when the engines flamed out, although it was the CA who was stupid enough to let them get into that situation and watched the whole thing develop without taking any action to stop it.

I'd simply like to know the source where you can put a blanket statement to say that "any" accident where crew error was the primary cause "always" had the CA as the PF.

 

[instructordude]

There IS no substitute for experience. Period.

There is no substitute for hands of gold.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Well, you have a lot of experience....what happen to you?

 

[Cardinal]

The Airbus is SO hard to learn to competently land with a crosswind.

+1. One doesn't simply cross-control the Bus. Balancing a largely fixed amount of aileron against rudder can't really be done, since the rudders are comanding a deflection while the stick is commanding a roll rate. When you stand on the rudder the aircraft hears "time for crossed controls" and will counter with some aileron by itself...it's a weird voodoo system, and after 10 years of down and dirty stick and rudder flying I don't feel comfortable flying the thing in big crosswinds.

Not an excuse for the hot chick that can't land without bending the airplane, however, I'd have gone ape******************** on her ass, but just calling for the "wing low" technique is a bit simplistic.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I'd have gone ape******************** on her ass

Really.

 

[say again]

Great if you like 12 year old boys.

uke: I'll pass!!!!

 

[ableone]

I'm flying 20-series Lears RIGHT NOW, with pilots who have no previous jet time and some who haven't flown ANYTHING in 3-5 years or more (on un-requested leave from a Major).

Sure, you let the F/O's fly and learn as they get progressively more experience. Sometimes you don't and you let them learn by watching you do it the correct way.

You have to judge where your first officer is in terms of overall experience and take the appropriate course of action to ensure a safe flight. Sometimes you let them fly the challenging leg; sometimes you don't. Depends on the person you're flying with.

In this scenario (at 24 she can't have had much experience), with winds gusting up to 59 kts around the time of the accident, I'm pretty certain I'd have elected to do the approach. Then again, we're all MMQB'ing here.


This accident, Germany.

PCL 3701, F/O was flying (the only one that Guppy Puppy got right) when the engines flamed out, although it was the CA who was stupid enough to let them get into that situation and watched the whole thing develop without taking any action to stop it.

I'd simply like to know the source where you can put a blanket statement to say that "any" accident where crew error was the primary cause "always" had the CA as the PF.

First of all where did I say "always"? I said most and if you look you will see that the data supports my position.

My company's rules would not allow me to attempt a landing with a 59kt crosswind component. If they did I don't think I would try unless I had a compelling reason to land (fire).

If I thought the conditions were within legal and real limits I can't see a situation where the Fo should not be allowed to make the first attempt, unless: that person is still in training.

Keep in mind that if you think they are too weak to handle the situation you are now effectively moving yourself into a single pilot environment. You had better not make a mistake, no-one will catch you if you fall.

The pilot in question may have let the situation deteriorate too far before interfering. Here I agree with you. Captains, and for that matter FOs, should always be prepared to take the airplane or at the very least say, "Let's go around this is not good." With the exception of the most dunderheaded that is probably enough to prompt a go around from either seat.

On a final note: When I was an instructor I waited as long as possible before I interfered. On the lear I waited less than on any other airplane.

Learjet: Easy to fly - Easy to crash

I asked one student what he thought it took to fly the lear.

With a heavy accent; "Razor sharp pitch control, split second decision making."

 

[vetrider]

+1. One doesn't simply cross-control the Bus. Balancing a largely fixed amount of aileron against rudder can't really be done, since the rudders are comanding a deflection while the stick is commanding a roll rate. When you stand on the rudder the aircraft hears "time for crossed controls" and will counter with some aileron by itself...it's a weird voodoo system, and after 10 years of down and dirty stick and rudder flying I don't feel comfortable flying the thing in big crosswinds.

Not an excuse for the hot chick that can't land without bending the airplane, however, I'd have gone ape******************** on her ass, but just calling for the "wing low" technique is a bit simplistic.

Why the hell does the bus have all that goofy stuff? I'm sorry, I prefer Boeing's philosophy. The gizmo's on modern airplanes should be there to support the pilot, not try to outsmart him and give him something he doesn't want, need, or expect.

 

[ColKurtz]

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.

Two words for you.

Kara Hultgreen.

 

[say again]

Another thing is that learning proper x-wind technique (among many other aspects of flying) is crucial for low time pilots because 172's, 152's, etc are much, much more forgiving than larger, more complex aircraft. The time to learn is not when you have 50+ people in the back, but when you are learning, or better yet, teaching someone-ie. CFI'ing. Like I said earlier, its not a capability issue (for some), but a lack of experience dealing with these situations.