Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pilot Fighter said:
Educate me. If you are 777 FO and your visual approaches are weak, how is that addressed? I know you can't go up and do ten in a row on the same day.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can. Where I work you can request special training on anything you feel your weak on. By contract, the company is required to honor this request on a paid basis. You can get in the sim with an instructor and do ten visuals in a row if you like. Or you can work on V1 cuts. Whatever you want. This program can be forced on you after a sim ride where it's determined you a weak in a certain area, or you can can request it on a voluntary basis.

While the sim isn't a real airplane, it's close enough that you get a lot of out doing visuals, and practice different scenarios which make them challenging.
 
DE727UPS said:
Yeah you can. Where I work you can request special training on anything you feel your weak on. By contract, the company is required to honor this request on a paid basis. You can get in the sim with an instructor and do ten visuals in a row if you like. Or you can work on V1 cuts. Whatever you want. This program can be forced on you after a sim ride where it's determined you a weak in a certain area, or you can can request it on a voluntary basis.

While the sim isn't a real airplane, it's close enough that you get a lot of out doing visuals, and practice different scenarios which make them challenging.
Click to expand...

At our airline, we can "hit the gym" at any point we think it's necessary.
 
canadian_atc said:
I'd buy that argument, had they stalled the airplane at 3000', not 38,000 feet... "Maybe if I smash this square peg into this round hole harder and harder eventually it will work!"
Click to expand...


If the pilot did not have any idea what I was doing and was not aware of that accident, I could take YOU or any A-330 qualified pilot and put them in the scenario, you would be pilot monitoring, and watch you crash the airplane into the ocean. The human factors aspects are easy to see NOW, but I guarantee you that at night in IMC in the tops of convective weather, they were not at all obvious. AA 903 did the same, as did a C-5 in Diego Garcia. Expectation bias, confirmation bias and mixed signals and you are there too, unless you just get lucky.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I would retire before flying 121 because I don't think I would be as safe as I want to be. For many, 121 conditions are horrible, pilots exhausted before they take off. I know my limitations. I don't want to fly with somebody that starves to improve his game and can't. My post was a response to an attack about my attitudes towards safety. I thought it was ironic because I would rather retire than compromise. I'm sorry that pilots are stuck in situations that are uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

RTHo6NH.gif


This comes from your extensive 121 experience, and not just reading posts on webboards, right? Right?
 
SteveCostello said:
But to get that slow, it had to have happened before the 8 second mark. That's what I am getting at... why/how did they not notice that they were getting that slow (or, at the very least, that their airspeed was trending down and they would drop below Vref), and are there systems to alert the crew to that situation?

Further clarification for my uneducated mind: when are you supposed to be at Vref in a large aircraft like that? FAF? Over the numbers? DH?
Click to expand...

We set ref+5 in calm conditions like that. If they got that slow they should have had an "AIRSPEED LOW" EICAS and a master caution. If the A/T kicked off they again would have a message and a master caution.
 
rjmore said:
We set ref+5 in calm conditions like that. If they got that slow they should have had an "AIRSPEED LOW" EICAS and a master caution. If the A/T kicked off they again would have a message and a master caution.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. So... if they thought that the A/T was managing speed, from a systems perspective, how could they have missed the fact that it wasn't, and that they were WELL below target? All of that seems to be pretty hard to ignore. Is there any chance they could have been (accidentally) hand flying this without A/T, despite thinking it was on, and if so, not get any warnings at all?
 
seagull said:
If the pilot did not have any idea what I was doing and was not aware of that accident, I could take YOU or any A-330 qualified pilot and put them in the scenario, you would be pilot monitoring, and watch you crash the airplane into the ocean. The human factors aspects are easy to see NOW, but I guarantee you that at night in IMC in the tops of convective weather, they were not at all obvious. AA 903 did the same, as did a C-5 in Diego Garcia. Expectation bias, confirmation bias and mixed signals and you are there too, unless you just get lucky.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%

However, with the time the AF crew had, if like to think I'd say "hey this isn't working"
 
rjmore said:
We set ref+5 in calm conditions like that. If they got that slow they should have had an "AIRSPEED LOW" EICAS and a master caution. If the A/T kicked off they again would have a message and a master caution.
Click to expand...


They keep adding more and more automation and we still make the same basic errors... :(
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Our culture is a "blame culture" and that's why Webster dictionary still defines negligence in that way. If you want to be safer, you've got to move away from blame and move towards a just culture model.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of new-age Christ. That's what "negligence" MEANS. That's the DEFINITION of the word! What the word means is not conditional or dependent upon someone's notion of freaking "human factors".

I can't decide whether you got caught out making stuff up and are trying to hilariously backfill with that classic childhood zinger "Well, yes, Plebes like you think that's what 'negligence' means, but I have a more advanced understanding!", or whether you actually believe that the definition of words in the English language really are contingent upon the whims of the latest trendy pseudo-science, but in either case, please immediately cease your assault upon our language.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Yep, you figured it out. All I know about 121 ops I learned on this board. Thanks for your participation.
Click to expand...

Just curious how you came to the conclusion that 121 has a safety problem to the point you'd rather retire than fly 121. We operate thousands of flights like clockwork, every day, all over the world, safely.

I'm starting a pool about when your "I got hired at Eagle" post in the Member Announcements forum will show up. ;)
 
Is it me, or does this just culture thing seem a little too similar to the "everybody is a winner" concept? I mean, yeah, we're all human and make mistakes, and some of them don't deserve the punishment that had previously been dished out, but damn...lets not get to the point of doing everything except admitting that someone screwed up.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Oh for the love of new-age Christ. That's what "negligence" MEANS. That's the DEFINITION of the word! What the word means is not conditional or dependent upon someone's notion of freaking "human factors".

I can't decide whether you got caught out making stuff up and are trying to hilariously backfill with that classic childhood zinger "Well, yes, Plebes like you think that's what 'negligence' means, but I have a more advanced understanding!", or whether you actually believe that the definition of words in the English language really are contingent upon the whims of the latest trendy pseudo-science, but in either case, please immediately cease your assault upon our language.
Click to expand...
I have to admit. I'm a little jealous of your ability to verbally pimp slap people in such an entertaining manner.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Hmm. So CNN (or whatever pathetic excuse of a media organization it was) goes to a flight school and says "hey, we want to rent a plane and one of your instructors and go to SFO and do a landing."

Where's that FAA illegal charter hotline number?
Click to expand...

I was in training when JFK went down. My instructor and I took a cameraman out over the lake to show conditions. I them got to do a short field TO for the 6 o'clock news.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Is it me, or does this just culture thing seem a little too similar to the "everybody is a winner" concept? I mean, yeah, we're all human and make mistakes, and some of them don't deserve the punishment that had previously been dished out, but damn...lets not get to the point of doing everything except admitting that someone screwed up.
Click to expand...

Who is denying someone screwed up?
 
dasleben said:
Just curious how you came to the conclusion that 121 has a safety problem to the point you'd rather retire than fly 121. We operate thousands of flights like clockwork, every day, all over the world, safely.
Click to expand...

Please revisit the context. I was attacked for not having a safety attitude consistent with 121 operations, an attack on me and possibly non-121 operations. I defended myself, and provided an example of where some non-121 operations have more resources to throw at a small number of pilots. I was simply making the point that 121 safety standards can be equalled or exceeded. The safety of 121 speaks for itself.

Beyond that, I was partially speaking to a recognition of my own limitations. At 50, I don't think I could handle the lifestyle and pace of some 121 operations. I don't perform as well as I used to when tired, for example. Having had the luxury I flying with people I know and trust exclusively, I don't think I would be comfortable in another setting. I'm not really saying as much as you thought I was saying when I said that I would rather retire than fly 121.

Edit: Eagle? Can I fly part-time, when I want?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top