Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO
- Thread starter SeanD
- Start date
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
If I'm not mistaken, FOQA data provided to the FAA does not identify airline or pilot. So, if an airline had problems that they weren't addressing, how does FOQA data help?
So, the difference between the Navy and the airlines is about accountability.
pete2800
'Member?
What you're doing here is speculating on why they go around.
All I've done is try to make the point that investigating go-around numbers could be productive.
It seems we've got the roles a bit backwards. Come to think of it, I think I actually agree with most of what you've said in earlier posts.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
If an airline had problems that they weren't addressing, how does FOQA data help? It doesn't.
Minuteman
I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING!
It's interesting to me that some of the most literally perfect flying I see (from a flight data analysis standpoint) is done by an Asian corporate jet operator. They almost never have any kind of exceptional operation. And when they do it draws the notice of their chief pilot. I am reminded of a student who got a B instead of an A.
Conversely, there is a charter operator who flies the same equipment in the western world and does some concerning things on a regular basis — beyond simply not meeting stable approach criteria.
I have wondered if the difference boils down to money. One operator probably has a large pool of pilots retired from an airline or military career, the other may be a group that has relatively high attrition and little to no experience in a large/established group where some form of professional standards are stressed. Or one may have no strong consideration for the extra time/fuel associated with flying a visual ten mile final vs. turning base-to-final at 450 feet.
I'm not trying to put all the credit on the guys sitting up front, either. Guidance and expectations are influenced by the folks who have to write checks, and my understanding is that experience and training beyond minimum standards costs money or commands better pay.
Conversely, there is a charter operator who flies the same equipment in the western world and does some concerning things on a regular basis — beyond simply not meeting stable approach criteria.
I have wondered if the difference boils down to money. One operator probably has a large pool of pilots retired from an airline or military career, the other may be a group that has relatively high attrition and little to no experience in a large/established group where some form of professional standards are stressed. Or one may have no strong consideration for the extra time/fuel associated with flying a visual ten mile final vs. turning base-to-final at 450 feet.
I'm not trying to put all the credit on the guys sitting up front, either. Guidance and expectations are influenced by the folks who have to write checks, and my understanding is that experience and training beyond minimum standards costs money or commands better pay.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Yes it does.
FOQA helps an airline know what the problems are that need to be addressed.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, oooooohhhh boy, wiping away tears of laughter with that one.
Not sure what part of his post you're laughing at, but in my opinion your delivery does...suck.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Foqa can and does do wonders once plugged into AQP. Training really is your safety backbone.
What is real neat is you can quantify your culture a bit. 135, then Colgan to Pinnacle, then Mesaba, now obviously Pinnacle again, almost Endeavor. Each pilot group has it's strengths and weaknesses and you feel it antidoquially (sorry everyone i murderd that spelling) but Foqa will show you, HOLY CRAP our guys are completely disregarding stbilized app. crieria at these four airports! Or why the hell is no one following our memo about keeping 200 to 3000ft or something like that.
Foqa won't show you a whole compamy of pilots who refuse to write up an issue on an airplane, but it may show you where procedures arent being followed and lead you to some good learning or some changes tp the book.
AQP and Foqa might be the new CRM for airlines over the next twenty years.
Something else to think about. Manufacturing has shown time nd again that safety processes save so much in the long term it can't possibly be ignored, I think aviation is the same way. Maybe Foqa isnt perfect but it is an improvment and may be our best path forward.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
In the hands of the FAA, anonymous FOQA data does little to remedy problems that airlines are unable or unwilling to address themselves.
The raw data should be public information.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Eh I don't think US airlines are THAT bad on their safety records we need that level of attention from the general public. You would be surprised what AQP with Foqa can do for a training deptartment.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The Internet quickly creates false polarities. I haven't said anything really negative about FOQA. It is a powerful tool and i think it has contributed to airline safety. It wasn't created as a regulatory tool. I am suggesting that this data might be leveraged for better oversight.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Edited: Not sure about public disclosure.
How does the FAA use anonymous FOQA data to address specific airline deficiencies? I asked you earlier to correct me if my understanding of the anonymous nature of this data was flawed.
I read the law about a decade ago. Educate me.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Not surprised at all. Airline safety isn't an accident.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Here's a little story for those who do not understand how it can work for a pilot's benefit:
http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/03/cockpit-chronicles-foqa-kept-these-pilots-out-of-trouble-in-pan/
The majors have been using this data for a while now along with ASAP and it does work. Even many of the regional carriers have them. (not up to speed on which ones don't currently) Before FOQA daily operations were a much bigger mystery/surprise. It is a huge benefit to safety, training and to pilots. Along with programs such as LOSA and FRMS, the benefits and improvements can be excellent. This not about the FAA using the data, it is the carriers themselves who when monitoring the data and using it to seek out the pluses and minuses and develop ways to correct and avoid issues.
http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/03/cockpit-chronicles-foqa-kept-these-pilots-out-of-trouble-in-pan/
The majors have been using this data for a while now along with ASAP and it does work. Even many of the regional carriers have them. (not up to speed on which ones don't currently) Before FOQA daily operations were a much bigger mystery/surprise. It is a huge benefit to safety, training and to pilots. Along with programs such as LOSA and FRMS, the benefits and improvements can be excellent. This not about the FAA using the data, it is the carriers themselves who when monitoring the data and using it to seek out the pluses and minuses and develop ways to correct and avoid issues.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
It might but the FAA is still reactive, and when they get in that mode it becomes ready...fire...aim! It is an interesting idea but I'm afraid the feds will take it out on the pilots and not the company. There may be an agrument that the feds are competant enough to decide who the 3% of guys are which need a open LOI to straighten them up, I dont trust them with a paper and pen honestly. I feel like the unintended consequences of your idea may do more harm than good.
The feds get pushed around by companies all the time... airline and manufacturers all beat up on them. They never seem to be able to do anything meaningful when it comes to precision surgery that this would require. The FAA does a good job as the broad sword, but this would be delicate work.
Anyway, just an opinion from my years in the industry.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Before bailing out of this thread, I return to the subject of the thread and ask, can we improve safety through closer examination of the data?
Beyond an airline's internal use of flight data, should regulatory bodies further utilize data?
Beyond an airline's internal use of flight data, should regulatory bodies further utilize data?
jynxyjoe
Queso King
To me it seems like nuking a tent in the desert. With that said I hope I've been respectful about my disagreeing with you.
Let me make it clear, that post was PERSONAL opinion, not an attempt at forum moderation.
Forgot to use the [/mod] tag.
