FAA to scrutinize AA

[chignutsak]

ruh roh:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704876104574632493767660078.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Soccer Stud]

Don't you love how the proactive the FAA is. Let's not try to be part of the solution and fix something before there is a problem. We'll just just punish the pilots or hammer the airline after the fact.

 

[Paul R. Smith]

Can't read the whole thing...
Care to paste it here?

Thanks.

 

[chignutsak]

The Federal Aviation Administration on Friday said it is stepping up oversight of American Airlines in the wake of three botched landings by the carrier over an 11-day period.
The latest incident, which prompted heightened FAA scrutiny of American's operations, involved a jetliner whose wingtip struck the ground while landing in Austin, Texas, on Christmas Eve. There were no injuries and the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft was inspected and returned to service. But the incident raised concern inside the FAA, according to people familiar with the matter, because it followed two more-serious landing mistakes on aircraft operated by the AMR Corp. unit in December.
View Full Image

Associated Press American suffered three landing mishaps in less than two weeks, including a Dec. 22 flight that careened off a runway in Kingston, Jamaica.

Based on past responses, the FAA could look through records and assess American's efforts to retrain pilots who do poorly on evaluation rides. It may increase the number of inspectors placed inside American cockpits. The FAA can open an enforcement action if it finds systemic weaknesses. In extreme cases, the agency also can impose financial penalties, it said.
On Dec. 13, an American MD-82 ended up with a damaged wingtip after part of its main landing gear veered off the runway while touching down in low visibility in Charlotte, N.C. In Kingston, Jamaica, on Dec. 22 another American Boeing 737 careened off the end of a runway while landing on the island amid heavy rain. The jet's fuselage broke into three sections and its crumpled nose slid to a halt barely feet from the shoreline. Several people were hospitalized, but there were no fatalities.
The three events prompted FAA officials to start analyzing Fort Worth, Texas-based American's data on landing incidents as well as voluntary pilot reports about such past occurrences. Agency officials are expected to focus on assessing certain aspects of the carrier's pilot-training programs, and how American's safety managers have responded to the spate of landing slip ups, the people familiar said.
"Where there may be several incidents involving a single carrier over a short period of time, FAA inspectors increase their oversight, which we're doing now, and conduct a review of those events to determine whether they might be indicative of a larger issue," the FAA spokesman said in a statement.
If that is the conclusion, according to the agency's statement, "the FAA communicates its findings to the air carrier and assists in the development of the appropriate corrective action."
The review comes as new details emerged about the Jamaica crash. The wheels of the jet first touched the runway some 4,000 feet down the nearly 9,000-foot long airstrip, according to one person familiar with the matter. Water on the runway could have made it difficult to stop, this person said.
Since the accident occurred during the Christmas holiday season, investigators are expected to look into the total weight of checked baggage and carry-on bags. They already weighed many of the suitcases and bags.
An American spokesman said the carrier is conducting internal investigations of both incidents in which wingtips scraped on the ground. Asked if American sees a trend, spokesman Tim Wagner said Thursday: "We take each event as an individual event."
Still, Mr. Wagner said, "We want a perfect landing every time."
It isn't clear whether the stepped-up oversight will result in high-level meetings between the carrier and the agency. American already is on the defensive from various FAA enforcement actions and special reviews primarily targeting compliance lapses with maintenance directives. But the latest FAA scrutiny, according to people familiar with the issue, is bound to delve more deeply into operational issues such as pilot decisions and landing procedures in stormy weather. Mechanical problems don't appear to have been major factors in any of the three recent incidents.

 

[AA717driver]

I see more bull$h!t policies, directives and procedures headed our way that detract from the safe operation rather than enhancing it.

You have a bunch of FAA people who don't fly discussing solutions with management pilots who don't fly making rules to govern those who do fly.

Not one single "real" line pilot will be consulted on these issues.

TC

 

[waveflyer]

Well- I get that- how about don't scrape wingtips. With all the automation- it takes discipline to click it all off and practice.

We all need that. AA does not have a hand flying culture. That will eventually find it's way into the landings- just like at Fedex.

At 18000' descending into the hub- where you'll get the vectors, level offs, airspeed and configuration changes- click off everything. If you're uncomfortable and can't do it while still staring out the window- or without making the aft FA puke- you need to be handflying MORE. Start with clear days and work your way into approaches to mins-

You WILL see your landings improve and get more consistent

Then try clicking off the flight director.

And if you can 150% ID the correct rwy- tune off the ILS

it's a shame as so many of us rightly complain about our pay- yet I'd question whether a majority could see a runway and land on a point with no help- no ILS, no PAPI, no FD no autopilot.

We're human and need to practice. Be worth the pay raise you seek. Be worth the lack of oversight you seek. Paycheck wise- turboprop drivers should not have better BAI skills than us and they largely do.

 

[OK3]

I don't disagree with everything you posted but airline pilots should not be "practicing" hand flying in IMC.

 

[Abernathy]

At 18000' descending into the hub- where you'll get the vectors, level offs, airspeed and configuration changes- click off everything. If you're uncomfortable and can't do it while still staring out the window- or without making the aft FA puke- you need to be handflying MORE. Start with clear days and work your way into approaches to mins-

While I see where you are coming from and agree with the sentiment, I don't see how handflying raw data into a hub taking vectors and altitude changes, such as ATL or ORD, is a good idea. Mostly I see it as a really bad idea. Oftentimes I, and many captains I fly with, depart from Class D and C airports raw data, intercepting and tracking, up to maybe 10,000 or 18,000 ft. But these are nonterminal areas with little or no traffic in the vicinity of the airport.

I really don't think these accidents had much to do with the pilots not having enough practice handflying around. It just seems like poor technique. As far as the FAA getting involved, better late than never. When we had a runway incursion over a year back, the FAA was all over our jumpseats making sure everyone was heads up paying attention when crossing any runways. Standard stuff.

 

[Rough67]

I don't disagree with everything you posted but airline pilots should not be "practicing" hand flying in IMC.

please tell me you are kidding..

 

[CaptSeth]

I'm not sure how much hand flying at altitude or while maneuvering for the approach has to do with landing in the landing zone at Vref and using proper braking and thrust reverse. I hand flew once in a while, not a whole lot, and I never put an airplane off a 8,900' foot runway....or even a 6,446' snow covered runway.