Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seven years later and nothing has been learned?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Vnav View Post
    Either way, this can be summed up thusly. Crew encountered serious malfunction. Crew stabilizes situation and handles malfunction. Crew lands safely and pax go on to fruitful lives. Seat 22B know-it-alls explain how they would have provided an even better outcome.
    This was undoubtedly the mentality behind the 13 documented (and untold undocumented) occurrences of UAS prior to AF447: No harm, no foul.

    What was overlooked was the uneven skill level of pilots, particularly under startle effect and overwhelming workload. Sooner or later a not-so-adept crew was going to mess this up.

    Airbus forsaw this and created a foolproof memory procedure with the airlines. Many of the airlines didn't train for it. Sooner or later a not-so-adept crew was going to mess this up.

    Some of the prior incidents had gotten pretty tangled up riding it out. Then It happened. It was probably inevitable.

    In the wake of the crash, a very obvious lesson was learned. A STANDARDIZED memory procedure was needed to allow ALL crews to stabilize until they can regain full situational awareness.

    Why, because good pilots cannot simply use their flawless airmanship? No, because not-so-good pilots (or good pilots on a not-so-good day) do not have flawless airmanship.

    As the passenger in 22B, I have to demand that these procedures are adhered to, because I don't get to vet my pilots from seat 22B.

    If pilots are still improvising UAS procedure, we still haven't learned the very obvious lesson.

    Essentially the procedure should be:

    - Stabilize at flight level

    - Remain stabilized at flight level for at least four minutes to allow transient UAS to clear

    - Use those four minutes to get full situational awareness

    - If UAS persists, consider changing flight level using the QRH values. But first weigh the benefits against the risks.

    - Be aware that the potential for ice contamination increases at lower altitudes and any vector away from relatively stable flight adds risk.


    If the JetStar crew followed this procedure, than no harm, no foul. If they didn't, we still have a big lesson to learn.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Vnav View Post
      Where you somehow under the impression that a given power/pitch setting was going to provide a perfect level flight under all conditions?
      I don't know who is "you" in the sentence above, but it absolutely it is not me. And I don't remember anybody implying that either.
      Why do you have that impression?

      Either way, this can be summed up thusly. Crew encountered serious malfunction. Crew stabilizes situation and handles malfunction. Crew lands safely and pax go on to fruitful lives. Seat 22B know-it-alls explain how they would have provided an even better outcome.
      Wow. A sample size of 1.
      Come on, you know that this mentality is not how aviation safety works.
      And do you really call an UAS a serious malfunction?

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Essentially the procedure should be:

        - Stabilize at flight level

        - Remain stabilized at flight level for at least four minutes to allow transient UAS to clear

        - Use those four minutes to get full situational awareness

        - If UAS persists, consider changing flight level using the QRH values. But first weigh the benefits against the risks.

        - Be aware that the potential for ice contamination increases at lower altitudes and any vector away from relatively stable flight adds risk.


        If the JetStar crew followed this procedure, than no harm, no foul. If they didn't, we still have a big lesson to learn.
        These are Evan's Procedures and Training philosophies. The real procedures and training philosophies at Airbus and Boeing have no such requirement that you must maintain the altitude that you were at when the malfunction occurred. Furthermore, you are making an assumption off a 2-3 sentence blurb of a description. We have no real idea what portion of the QRH the crew performed, how much time elapsed, or what the current flight conditions were (Both Boeing and Airbus mention the importance of finding and maintaining day VMC in successful outcomes for UAS). Since we don't know any of the details and only know that the results were a safe and successful outcome, I'm really having trouble understanding your angst.
        Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          I don't know who is "you" in the sentence above, but it absolutely it is not me. And I don't remember anybody implying that either.
          Why do you have that impression?


          Wow. A sample size of 1.
          Come on, you know that this mentality is not how aviation safety works.
          And do you really call an UAS a serious malfunction?

          We now have 2 pages worth of posts regarding a crew's unsafe handling of this situation based off the claim that they must maintain altitude during a UAS situation. I know of no such requirement and the account is so short and lacking in any facts or details that I don't see how we can draw any conclusions in the first place other than that there was a successful outcome.


          And yes, UAS has caused numerous fatal accidents. By definition, it is a serious malfunction. Sorry Gabe, you don't get to define what should be easy to handle and what shouldn't. I can't tell you the number of people who say go-arounds are a basic maneuver and easily trained and yet facts in the form of FOQA and ASAP data continue to show that they are frequently screwed up in impressive fashion. If something continues to result in bad outcomes, it is 'serious' regardless of how easy you think it should be.
          Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Vnav View Post
            ...Seat 22B know-it-alls explain how they would have provided an even better outcome...
            ...AND...you may not be aware of the thousands of hours of flightsim experience backing this up!

            Love ya man... try and get runway 6 at Flyover sometime... the Southwest boys do it on occasion and make a nice low sweeping turn off the "11/12 downwind" and shorten their flights by a whole county... the view from the back yard is nice except it's not a Mad Dog.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Vnav View Post
              We now have 2 pages worth of posts regarding a crew's unsafe handling of this situation based off the claim that they must maintain altitude during a UAS situation. I know of no such requirement and the account is so short and lacking in any facts or details that I don't see how we can draw any conclusions in the first place other than that there was a successful outcome.
              Actually I agree. I don't have enough info (none of us does) to see exactly what was the sequence of events or how stable was the descent. But there is no reason to say that they didn't and, in my particular case, I've already stated here that I cannot say that what they did was wrong.

              The problem, as Evan said, is that not all pilots are equally competent or react the same under stress and startle. Which bring us to...

              And yes, UAS has caused numerous fatal accidents. By definition, it is a serious malfunction. Sorry Gabe, you don't get to define what should be easy to handle and what shouldn't. I can't tell you the number of people who say go-arounds are a basic maneuver and easily trained and yet facts in the form of FOQA and ASAP data continue to show that they are frequently screwed up in impressive fashion. If something continues to result in bad outcomes, it is 'serious' regardless of how easy you think it should be.
              Actually I agree with that too. Let me restate: UAS should not be a serious problem.
              I was thinking more in relative terms, the lines of, if UAS is a serious problem, what's left for other problems.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Vnav View Post
                Both Boeing and Airbus mention the importance of finding and maintaining day VMC in successful outcomes for UAS.


                I really want to see that mention, especially regarding finding and maintaining day!!!

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Vnav View Post
                  Furthermore, you are making an assumption off a 2-3 sentence blurb of a description. We have no real idea what portion of the QRH the crew performed, how much time elapsed, or what the current flight conditions were
                  Yes, agreed, and I've said this twice on this thread. My angst is conditional to the assumption that they descended as an initial course of action. That might not be the case here:

                  Originally posted by Evan
                  If the JetStar crew followed this procedure, than no harm, no foul. If they didn't, we still have a big lesson to learn.
                  But THE LESSON that should have been learned and clearly hasn't been learned by some people on this forum is that aviation safety requires standardized procedures for certain situations that are highly fertile to fatal pilot error. UAS is one of those situations. If ALL pilots do not adhere to these procedures, they are meaningless.

                  I can't say if they did or didn't in this instance. But hopefully investigators will find out.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post


                    I really want to see that mention, especially regarding finding and maintaining day!!!
                    Well geez, it shouldn't be that hard... it encompasses half the planet at any given time!
                    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                    Eric Law

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gabe
                      I really want to see that [procedure], especially regarding finding and maintaining day!!!
                      Originally posted by Eric
                      Well geez, it shouldn't be that hard... it encompasses half the planet at any given time!
                      But would the pilot be allowed to use his existing knowledge of time of day to know whether to steer East or West, or must he only consult a table in the FCOM written scientifically by engineers (after waiting the prescribed 4 minutes, of course).
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Vnav View Post
                        We now have 2 pages worth of posts regarding a crew's unsafe handling of this situation...
                        And no one asking why these damn crackerboxes keep losing airspeed indications.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          It's been brought to my attention that they remained at FL370 for six minutes and four seconds, so it's all good. Evan, you can stand down now, the conditions for your conditional angst appear not to have been met.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            It's been brought to my attention that they remained at FL370 for six minutes and four seconds, so it's all good. Evan, you can stand down now, the conditions for your conditional angst appear not to have been met.
                            Sorry, but you're wrong.

                            It's 4 minutes. Procedures MUST be followed. NO DEVIATIONS!
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Sorry, but you're wrong.

                              It's 4 minutes. Procedures MUST be followed. NO DEVIATIONS!
                              Originally posted by Evan
                              - Remain stabilized at flight level for at least four minutes to allow transient UAS to clear
                              All words matter 3WE.

                              Anyway, I'm relieved to hear that this wasn't simply another case of flawed improvisation.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                I'm relieved to hear that this wasn't simply another case of flawed improvisation.
                                Well, I don't know. How did they pull the trick to hold FL 370 for six minutes? Or at least initially until they got the right pitch & thrust from the table?

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X