EK 521 Interim Report Released
-
TundraTire
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:42 am
Listening to non-airline pilots pontificate about how they are smarter than Boeing engineers makes as much sense as me saying I'm a better air show pilot than Marcus Paine.
-
Nark1
I dunno...
I saw this same accident in the sim with my partner years ago.
My partner came from the CRJ, where the go-around button is on the top thrust levers. The exact same spot on the E170/190 (Airbus too) where the auto-thrust disconnect is. On the 170 the go around button is about 2/3 up the thrust lever.
We were at mins, called go-around, he pressed the auto thrust disconnect and removed his hand from the thrust levers to use both to pull back on the yoke.
I called my callouts as required, (Flaps, positive rate , for the gear). It was about that time I noticed he had pitched up for the go-around but the flight director didn't sequence and airspeed was decaying rapidly.
I called out airspeed, which was the same time the instructor stopped the sim. (Not going into detail, but one of many reasons my partner didn't make it through training)
I learned a valuable lesson. Go-Arounds are extremely critical. PM has their hands full during a rarely executed maneuver.
I saw this same accident in the sim with my partner years ago.
My partner came from the CRJ, where the go-around button is on the top thrust levers. The exact same spot on the E170/190 (Airbus too) where the auto-thrust disconnect is. On the 170 the go around button is about 2/3 up the thrust lever.
We were at mins, called go-around, he pressed the auto thrust disconnect and removed his hand from the thrust levers to use both to pull back on the yoke.
I called my callouts as required, (Flaps, positive rate , for the gear). It was about that time I noticed he had pitched up for the go-around but the flight director didn't sequence and airspeed was decaying rapidly.
I called out airspeed, which was the same time the instructor stopped the sim. (Not going into detail, but one of many reasons my partner didn't make it through training)
I learned a valuable lesson. Go-Arounds are extremely critical. PM has their hands full during a rarely executed maneuver.
-
TundraTire
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:42 am
Sounds like you had a good sim learning experience Nark.
Most non-jet pilots are surprised to learn that an all-engines-operating go around is one of the most difficult exercises, especially if the missed approach requires a low altitude level off.
Most non-jet pilots are surprised to learn that an all-engines-operating go around is one of the most difficult exercises, especially if the missed approach requires a low altitude level off.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I don't know if this is true but I have heard there is a reluctance by many pilots to do a go around.
Other than pressure from the company partially due to the fuel cost on the big planes. I think it's more difficult to understand that for me.
If I think, this is getting ugly maybe I should go around. I'm getting ready to do it, not thinking about how to squeeze out a bouncy landing. If things don't start looking like I can easily continue to a good landing right away, we're doing another circuit.
Then again I hate using the brakes on the little planes I fly. Except just after take of if a wheel is shaking, I like to step on the brakes to stop that.
Other than pressure from the company partially due to the fuel cost on the big planes. I think it's more difficult to understand that for me.
If I think, this is getting ugly maybe I should go around. I'm getting ready to do it, not thinking about how to squeeze out a bouncy landing. If things don't start looking like I can easily continue to a good landing right away, we're doing another circuit.
Then again I hate using the brakes on the little planes I fly. Except just after take of if a wheel is shaking, I like to step on the brakes to stop that.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Non airline pilots do understand that the pilot should be in control...even in those superman big jets.
Or they end up wrecked like those two 777's.
Or they end up wrecked like those two 777's.
-
TundraTire
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:42 am
Great contribution Chuck, thanks.
My point regarding the difficulty of go arounds is this: pilots will focus most of their energy studying emergency procedures, V1 cuts, single engine approaches, etc. But what exercise results most often in a paused sim due to things like forgotten gear, oversped flaps, busted altitude/lateral nav, etc? The 2 engine go around.
It doesn't require superhuman effort, it just happens to be one of the most difficult exercises of all the exercises you must complete.
As far as reluctance to do a go around in real life? I would say it's similar for most pilots in the sense that they put all that pressure on themselves. Very few, if any companies, will fault a pilot for going around from an unstable or unsafe approach. Because of the stable approach criteria, I would guess that go arounds should be more automatic.
My point regarding the difficulty of go arounds is this: pilots will focus most of their energy studying emergency procedures, V1 cuts, single engine approaches, etc. But what exercise results most often in a paused sim due to things like forgotten gear, oversped flaps, busted altitude/lateral nav, etc? The 2 engine go around.
It doesn't require superhuman effort, it just happens to be one of the most difficult exercises of all the exercises you must complete.
As far as reluctance to do a go around in real life? I would say it's similar for most pilots in the sense that they put all that pressure on themselves. Very few, if any companies, will fault a pilot for going around from an unstable or unsafe approach. Because of the stable approach criteria, I would guess that go arounds should be more automatic.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]Most non-jet pilots[/quote]
Golly! You fly a jet? You must be some kind
of fucking superhuman. BTW, how many jet
type ratings have you issued?
[quote]an all-engines-operating go around is one of the most difficult exercises[/quote]
You're making my argument for me. I think
Boeing needs to work on their interface.
So do two wrecked 777's.
[quote]how they are smarter than Boeing engineers[/quote]
Jesus, you're dense.
B707 dutch roll problem. Boeing shipped the airplane
with not enough area behind of the C of P and crashes
followed when crews that were not up to snuff could
not damp out of coupled oscillation. A stupid fucking
airshow pilot called Tex Johnston - I'm sure you're a
much hotter stick than he is, he was just Boeing
chief test pilot and rolled the 367-80 at 1500 feet -
went to the board of directors and forced them to
add the fin, saving hundreds of lives.
B737 rudder reversal - shock-cooling actuator.
B777 fuel heater plugs up the FCU's with ice -
see LHR.
Boeing engineers are people, too, and I think
they could do a better job on the interface.
People who are too stupid or lazy to learn
history are going to relive it, and that's
what you're doing.
Now, you think I'm just a dumb fucking idiot
because I fly airshows.
Newflash, junior. Queen's Engineering, 1986.
Thirty fucking years of critical real-time software
development as a graduate engineer, sonny.
My software runs on the core routers of the
internet, nuclear power plants, offshore drilling
rigs (the ones that don't blow up) and [b]tens of
millions[/b] of cars. Trains. You name it.
How many fucking millions of cars does [i]your[/i]
real-time software run in?
I have been writing critical real-time software
since before you ejaculated for the first time,
and I think I know a little bit about it compared
to some SOP monkey in a white shirt.
Cisco. GE. Caterpillar. The list goes on and
on.
So yes, spotty-faced one, I will gladly go toe
to toe with any fucking Boeing engineer when
it comes to the design of and the interface to
real-time software.
[quote]correct procedure[/quote]
Jesus, you SOP monkeys are just too dumb
to realize when shit is broken.
Golly! You fly a jet? You must be some kind
of fucking superhuman. BTW, how many jet
type ratings have you issued?
[quote]an all-engines-operating go around is one of the most difficult exercises[/quote]
You're making my argument for me. I think
Boeing needs to work on their interface.
So do two wrecked 777's.
[quote]how they are smarter than Boeing engineers[/quote]
Jesus, you're dense.
B707 dutch roll problem. Boeing shipped the airplane
with not enough area behind of the C of P and crashes
followed when crews that were not up to snuff could
not damp out of coupled oscillation. A stupid fucking
airshow pilot called Tex Johnston - I'm sure you're a
much hotter stick than he is, he was just Boeing
chief test pilot and rolled the 367-80 at 1500 feet -
went to the board of directors and forced them to
add the fin, saving hundreds of lives.
B737 rudder reversal - shock-cooling actuator.
B777 fuel heater plugs up the FCU's with ice -
see LHR.
Boeing engineers are people, too, and I think
they could do a better job on the interface.
People who are too stupid or lazy to learn
history are going to relive it, and that's
what you're doing.
Now, you think I'm just a dumb fucking idiot
because I fly airshows.
Newflash, junior. Queen's Engineering, 1986.
Thirty fucking years of critical real-time software
development as a graduate engineer, sonny.
My software runs on the core routers of the
internet, nuclear power plants, offshore drilling
rigs (the ones that don't blow up) and [b]tens of
millions[/b] of cars. Trains. You name it.
How many fucking millions of cars does [i]your[/i]
real-time software run in?
I have been writing critical real-time software
since before you ejaculated for the first time,
and I think I know a little bit about it compared
to some SOP monkey in a white shirt.
Cisco. GE. Caterpillar. The list goes on and
on.
So yes, spotty-faced one, I will gladly go toe
to toe with any fucking Boeing engineer when
it comes to the design of and the interface to
real-time software.
[quote]correct procedure[/quote]
Jesus, you SOP monkeys are just too dumb
to realize when shit is broken.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Colonel the world has changed, it started with every child in school gets a trophy regardless of what they learn or do not learn.
They are not really SOP monkeys they are only doing what the new age system teaches them to do, most of them were taught by instructors who were ignorant of the subject they were teaching.
My question for today's airline types is this.
We hand flew the big piston pounders such as the DC6 with no problems keeping ahead of them.
Why are the big jets so much harder to stay ahead of?
Has aviation gone backwards in aircraft design?
They are not really SOP monkeys they are only doing what the new age system teaches them to do, most of them were taught by instructors who were ignorant of the subject they were teaching.
My question for today's airline types is this.
We hand flew the big piston pounders such as the DC6 with no problems keeping ahead of them.
Why are the big jets so much harder to stay ahead of?
Has aviation gone backwards in aircraft design?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]Has aviation gone backwards in aircraft design?[/quote]
No. But the bottom 10% of pilots today have
truly atrocious skills, and those are the ones that
we must design for.
The SOP monkeys here just don't understand that.
We can't get rid of the bad pilots, so we have to
build airplanes that they can't hurt themselves in.
No. But the bottom 10% of pilots today have
truly atrocious skills, and those are the ones that
we must design for.
The SOP monkeys here just don't understand that.
We can't get rid of the bad pilots, so we have to
build airplanes that they can't hurt themselves in.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Yes I am very aware of the struggle to design an idiot proof airplane, it was the first thing they told me at the airbus factory when they had me get in their sim ad teach myself how to fly it with zero manuals and zero briefings on how to fly the thing.
They gave me six instructors to ask questions when I couldnt figure something out.
They sure designed a close to idiot proof machine because it only took me a few hours to learn how to fly it.
It is simple to start and easy to fly compared to the old piston engine heavies we flew for a living.
They gave me six instructors to ask questions when I couldnt figure something out.
They sure designed a close to idiot proof machine because it only took me a few hours to learn how to fly it.
It is simple to start and easy to fly compared to the old piston engine heavies we flew for a living.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 6 Replies
- 4133 Views
-
Last post by Eric Janson
-
- 5 Replies
- 4045 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 5 Replies
- 2850 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
