Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5733182/

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 09:39:47 and read 52403 times.

I just read that Air France pilots momentarily lost control of the aircrafts trajectory during a poorly managed go around in low visibility at CDG:s runway 08R. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 777-200. Is it just a coincindence that we see another incident induced by poor pilot performance at Air France?

We have seen a number of pilot errors on Air France, some resulting in accidents in recent years.

Do I need to worry if I go on Air France? Your thoughts? Is Air France no worse than for instance Lufthansa or do they need to shape up in AF training?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: womenbeshopping
Posted 2013-04-08 09:42:23 and read 52476 times.

Where is the Article??? I just read that I flew a plane to the moon, but I can not find the article either. Bold Statements for sure.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: tp1040
Posted 2013-04-08 09:44:20 and read 52602 times.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=460700a7&opt=0

The incident happened in 2011.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 09:49:24 and read 52294 times.

Quoting womenbeshopping (Reply 1):
Where is the Article??? I just read that I flew a plane to the moon, but I can not find the article either. Bold Statements for sure.

The article is in Flight International 2-8 april. It did not look good

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2013-04-08 10:00:27 and read 52032 times.

Dear god that sounds awful. 63ft is nothing, you cross the threshold at 80ft. The 777 is very forgiving during a go-around because the pitch-power couple* is tuned out by the FBW software.

Should you be worried about flying AF? Honestly yes - three awful pilot-error** crashes in nine years (00-09) and some shocking near-misses eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND). This goes back a long way - in the 60s they crashed six 707s (a record), five with no survivors, two in the same mountain in Guadalope, two in the same month (inc one of the Guadalope crashes). In the credits on the Fleetwood Mac album Tusk, there is a reference to "Air Chance". So even Stevie Nicks knows - avoid this airline.

* with engines mounted low, an analog aircraft wants to pitch up when power is applied; the FBW on the 777 tunes it out so the aircraft maintains it's original trajectory (even though the elevators are actually commanding quite a bit of nose-down pitch to make this possible).

** yes Conc too - they accepted a tailwind, aircaft was 9t overweight, possibly overfuelled, FE shut down an engine without telling anyone; not saying the accident wouldn't have happened but with all thus against them they never stood a chance.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 10:10:28 and read 51739 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Should you be worried about flying AF? Honestly yes - three awful pilot-error** crashes in nine years (00-09) and some shocking near-misses eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND)

I was hoping you would say that I am out of line this time and that AF pilottraining is as safe as it could be. But somehow they seem to need to shape up in some areas. Or do they?

I think this statement from this incident looks familiar to other AF incidents and accidents in recent years:

"inadequate monitoring of flight parameters by the flight crew"

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-04-08 10:11:34 and read 51761 times.

And don't forget this A340 incident last spring on approach... http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-near-loss-control-paris-explained

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-08 10:17:12 and read 51569 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):

You are being unduly harsh, IMO. For Concorde, there was a minor overweight (probably burned in taxi), and small tailwind that did not affect anything. They were victims of the aircraft design, garbage on the runway, Concorde's high speed, and the unrecoverable damage sustained by the aircraft.

Not all the crashes AF has had were pilot errors.

That being said, the AF record is still amazingly poor, particularly their "first to crash" series:

First to crash Concorde: mechanical problem.

First to crash A320: pilot error.

First to crash A330: pilot error, including substantial CRM failure (not just one pilot's problem).

First to crash A340: I forget the exact cause, but I think this too was mostly about crew problems. Luckily no victims.

Not crashed A380. Yet. Or does collision with another aircraft while taxiing at JFK count? Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.

Did they order A350?

Not crashed a B777. But apparently trying very hard.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 10:19:54 and read 51476 times.

Do they have any safety improvement program running at Air France that anyone here knows of or do they just continue as usual?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: as739x
Posted 2013-04-08 10:39:59 and read 51044 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.

Wait what, how?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-08 10:55:40 and read 50699 times.

I remember that AF had no problem with their pilots having a glass of wine with lunch while flying. I'm not saying that the glass of wine is the problem, it's the attitude towards their pilots amongst management and amongst the pilots themselves that might need adjusting. Perhaps they feel that they are untouchable? Some would call that arrogance. If I'm not mistaken the French built a gigantic set of defenses along their border with Germany after WW1 which they felt would never be penetrated. The Germans just went through Belgium instead. Another oops moment in the history of the French Republic.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 11:00:15 and read 50563 times.

I did not mean to make this an argument against french attitudes in general. I think we better stick to the aviation related side of things and AF pilot training. Do they do improvements in pilot training now?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cubastar
Posted 2013-04-08 11:04:08 and read 50451 times.

OK, assuming that the Avherald post mentioned in reply 2 above is accurate, and they decided to go around (even though evidently it was okay to continue the approach in "Land 2") it appears once again some pilots are not being sufficiently trained to be able to fully hand fly their aircraft out of an abnormal situation. IMHO, Automation is Wonderful, Efficient, and Economical but you still should be able demonstrate that you can control (FLY) the aircraft when all else fails.

I know that there are many differences in CAT 1/2/3/3a approaches, but when you can't handle the automation, how about reverting to the basic go around procedure? Power, rotation, positive rate, gear up, etc., etc. Surely a pilot can fly an escape procedure without autopilot and auto throttles.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-08 11:05:04 and read 50447 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND).

I haven't heard about this. Can you provide the flight # or a link to investigation transcripts? (Not questioning you, just curious for more info.)

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-08 11:15:43 and read 50240 times.

Quoting cubastar (Reply 12):
Surely a pilot can fly an escape procedure without autopilot and auto throttles.

It has been demonstrated in some accidents in recent years that pilot traing in this area needs to be improved. Didn´t a Gulfair A320 have a go around accident that could have been avoided?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-08 11:21:04 and read 50125 times.

What I find the most interesting in the avHerald's report is this line "The French BEA released their final report in French complaining, that the cockpit voice had been deleted prior to the BEA getting access to it although the crew initially had preserved the recordings"

Who would delete the voice recording and why?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 9MMPQ
Posted 2013-04-08 11:31:24 and read 49807 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND).
Quoting davs5032 (Reply 13):
I haven't heard about this. Can you provide the flight # or a link to investigation transcripts? (Not questioning you, just curious for more info.)

I'm not buying it, if true it would have been SPECTACULAR and a recovery from it would practically be a miracle. I stand ready to be corrected of course but if this actually happened i'm certain there would have been a lot more fuss about it. Plus no doubt such a flight would have been inevitably linked to AF447 every now & then.

Not exactly a nice read but something else i found surprising was this:

The French BEA released their final report in French complaining, that the cockpit voice had been deleted prior to the BEA getting access to it although the crew initially had preserved the recordings.

Call me crazy but you'd think in this case with what must have been reported that attention would also have been given to the CVR ? I'd assume they didn't just let it continue in service & overwrite since the BEA were apparently given acces which would make no sense if sufficient time for overwriting had already passed.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-08 11:39:24 and read 49357 times.

If I'm understanding the Avherald article correctly, he didn't push the TO/GA Switch, which would have automatically advanced the throttles and commanded the autopilot 15 degrees nose up.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: motif1
Posted 2013-04-08 11:41:27 and read 49253 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 5):
shocking near-misses eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND).

Could you give us a link to the story? I could not find any information regarding this incident.

Thanks,

M1

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-04-08 11:55:38 and read 48435 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
** yes Conc too - they accepted a tailwind, aircaft was 9t overweight, possibly overfuelled, FE shut down an engine without telling anyone; not saying the accident wouldn't have happened but with all thus against them they never stood a chance.

Tailwind was not a factor, read the report.

Overweight was not a factor, read the report.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
and some shocking near-misses eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND)

Never happened.

Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
First to crash A330:

No they weren't, Airbus were the first to crash an A330.

Quoting cubastar (Reply 12):

OK, assuming that the Avherald post mentioned in reply 2 above is accurate,

It is, it's from a BEA report.

Quoting cubastar (Reply 12):
it appears once again some pilots are not being sufficiently trained to be able to fully hand fly their aircraft out of an abnormal situation.

I don't think to draw that conclusion here is fair. This wasn't a case of the crew not being to hand fly. It was a case of automation confusion; the Capt accidentally disengaged the A/T instead of pressing TOGA, and advanced the throttles manually. This meant the AP, which was still engaged, stayed in LAND mode and continued to follow the ILS rather than go around. It was more of a failure to monitor instruments properly (which seems to be a common factor in AF incidents) than bad handling - although when the AP did come off, they didn't initially pitch up as much as they should have done, due to a dual control input (take that all who say that AF 447 wouldn't have happened in a 777).

This doesn't point to a lack of manual handling skills. If you'd told either of the pilots to take off the AP, press TOGA and go around, they would have done it fine. It was the confusion with the AT and the AP that got them.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Dear god that sounds awful. 63ft is nothing, you cross the threshold at 80ft.

You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: ADent
Posted 2013-04-08 12:13:32 and read 47575 times.

A340 near stall at altitude (with recovery at altitude) over the Caribbean/Atlantic - http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a


I didn't find anything about an Air France A340 over the Indian Ocean.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-04-08 12:14:16 and read 47462 times.

I traveled often to Europe in the early 70s. Always in F/C on passes. We got them on request and were written F/Y, meaning F/C is the choice first, then coach. One trip I was sitting in the upstairs lounge,747, and I remember the F/A coming up the stairs with a tray with a bottle of wine, 3 glasses, and snacks, and went right into the cockpit. It's funny I didn't think anything of it. After all, they're French you know.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: tp1040
Posted 2013-04-08 12:18:15 and read 47230 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

at TOGA power? Sounds like that could have presented another level cockpit confusion.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: RJA321
Posted 2013-04-08 12:22:50 and read 47010 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
Not crashed a B777. But apparently trying very hard.
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 10):
If I'm not mistaken the French built a gigantic set of defenses along their border with Germany after WW1 which they felt would never be penetrated. The Germans just went through Belgium instead. Another oops moment in the history of the French Republic.

   It's good to have some comic relief every now and then.

In all seriousness though, maybe Air France pilots need to brush up on their training and maybe not, but then again ever since AF447, every incident involving AF has been exaggerated a little bit.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-04-08 12:25:13 and read 47201 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND).

Total misdescription of the incident, which is bad, but not quite that bad.

In cruise at FL350. A340 encounters turbulence which causes an overspeed warning. Aircraft pitches up and gains 3000 feet, slowing down to a few knots above stall speed in the process while no one is paying attention. The crew regained control at FL380.

http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a

[Edited 2013-04-08 12:25:35]

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-04-08 12:39:08 and read 48197 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 21):

A340 near stall at altitude (with recovery at altitude) over the Caribbean/Atlantic - http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a

I read the report and also the comments, and they include one actual pax !!! they felt the drop and it states it was terrible, and felt like a roller coaster (sic).

One thing I have ofter wondered is that AF 447, everyone states that nobody felt the up first and then the drop, and in my view PAX should have felt something for sure. I guess it the nature of humans to say it was a painless death, when in reality it could have been a nightmare.

Anyways, AF is getting a really black eye on this events.

TRB

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: UAL747DEN
Posted 2013-04-08 12:50:45 and read 47622 times.

Us Americans famously hate the French for their attitude that cannot be backed up.....!

Yes I would say that there is a problem at AF and they are OBVIOUSLY more dangerous than their counterparts. Any airline can have problems and have an accident but when the same problem repeats itself over and over there is a serious problem going on. You also have to think about all the stories we don't hear....

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: HBGDS
Posted 2013-04-08 13:00:32 and read 47955 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 8):
First to crash A330: pilot error, including substantial CRM failure (not just one pilot's problem).

You need to do your homework. Airbus lost an A330 on a test flight with an ALitalia crew on board in '94.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Industrie_Flight_129

That said, yes, there is a pilot culture at AF that has been identified as problematic, but you don't change that overnight.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Caspian27
Posted 2013-04-08 13:12:08 and read 47098 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.
Quoting as739x (Reply 9):
Wait what, how?

The Comair crew was most certainly NOT at fault in the JFK incident. This is like you rear-ending another car and then saying it was the other drivers fault because he stopped.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-04-08 13:12:59 and read 46933 times.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 24):
Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
Not crashed a B777. But apparently trying very hard.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):

Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
First to crash A330:

I never said either of these. My post said:

Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
And don't forget this A340 incident last spring on approach... http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ained

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-04-08 13:15:01 and read 46775 times.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27):
Yes I would say that there is a problem at AF and they are OBVIOUSLY more dangerous than their counterparts. Any airline can have problems and have an accident but when the same problem repeats itself over and over there is a serious problem going on. You also have to think about all the stories we don't hear....

So by your rationale then we also have to think about "all the stories we don't hear" at their competitors, whom they are "obviously more dangerous than."

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-04-08 13:26:33 and read 46080 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 30):
I never said either of these. My post said:

Sorry, my fault; accidentally clicked the button above your header, and not AirlineCritic's.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: turn720
Posted 2013-04-08 13:27:54 and read 46079 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
... ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

I'm not sure what you're saying but had they attempted a go around and then decide to come back down and land would have really made the evening news. But I agree with you, a go around with A/P off is a non-event or it should be a non-event.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: turn720
Posted 2013-04-08 13:31:42 and read 45988 times.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27):
Us Americans famously hate the French for their attitude that cannot be backed up.....!

No, we do not hate the French.. We just find them irritating sometimes. I'm sure we irritate the heck out of them too.  

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: okapi
Posted 2013-04-08 13:35:38 and read 45743 times.

Best thing would be to put AF in the EU Black List. Bashing an airline and a country is just sooo easy. That said, I find the Lufthansa public safety records well above all others. History shows us that no airline is safe. BA losing a 777 on finals at LHR, Swissair, yes! Swissair and its MD11 shortly after departure from NY.

Quoting catiii (Reply 31):

There are so many untold stories. Incidents are not accidents, thank God!

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-04-08 13:35:49 and read 45746 times.

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 2):

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=460700a7&opt=0

The incident happened in 2011.

Still, very shocking. At the very least, it's bad PR. From the article, it says the Captain didn't pull back on the joystick enough to disengage the autopilot. Like how small of a force are we talking about here. Surely if he is going around, he's gonna pull (or attempt to pull) that nose up high enough to initiate a go around? If he did in fact pull back and autopilot did not engage, did he really pull back at all to any sort of degree? Sounds very disconcerting; a seemingly experienced crew on a B772.  Wow!
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):


Quoting catiii (Reply 6):
First to crash A330:

No they weren't, Airbus were the first to crash an A330.

Ya, but not accidentally.  
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):


Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Dear god that sounds awful. 63ft is nothing, you cross the threshold at 80ft.

You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

Seriously. Ya, granted the runway was in front of them but still... thats bad. Like Thank God they had the runway in front of them. Too bad they didn't have a Check Pilot on board or a better pilot haha

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 26):
Quoting ADent (Reply 21):

A340 near stall at altitude (with recovery at altitude) over the Caribbean/Atlantic - http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a

I read the report and also the comments, and they include one actual pax !!! they felt the drop and it states it was terrible, and felt like a roller coaster (sic).

IMHO, pax are always over dramatic, especially in news reports. I never really pay attention to them in news reports because they are always over dramatic, IMO.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Did they order A350?

Not crashed a B777. But apparently trying very hard.

Haha, definitely made my day LMFAO!!  

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: sandyb123
Posted 2013-04-08 13:39:08 and read 45466 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18):
he didn't push the TO/GA Switch

This does sound worrying and not standard ops(?), however the yoke input should have been enough but it initially wasn't pronounced enough for the aircraft to recognise it as manual intervention.

There seems to be a theme here. Multiple crew members advising / doing different things. The series of events here seem to focus on confusion in the cockpit as to what to do and even who was in charge. Remove any visual reference (ala AF447) and things get confusing fast. Also like AF447, more than one pilot put in an input to the flight.

Quoting ADent (Reply 21):
A340 near stall at altitude (with recovery at altitude) over the Caribbean/Atlantic
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
eg an A340 stalled over the Indian Ocean in the cruise, recovered at 3,000ft (THREE THOUSAND)

I think if an aircraft had come within 3000ft of the deck we'd have heard a lot more about it (like headline on every news network in the world). Still, loss of control again and unexpectedly gaining 3000ft sounds scary. I noticed that a passenger quoted on AVherald saying that it was terrifying.

Sandyb123

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cuban8
Posted 2013-04-08 13:39:42 and read 45559 times.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 22):
One trip I was sitting in the upstairs lounge,747, and I remember the F/A coming up the stairs with a tray with a bottle of wine, 3 glasses, and snacks, and went right into the cockpit. It's funny I didn't think anything of it. After all, they're French you know.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27):
Us Americans famously hate the French for their attitude that cannot be backed up.....!

Well, that's quite amusing to hear from our American posters. When it comes to attitude and alcohol; for some reason it has mostly been American pilot's having a few too many pints before going to flights who has made it to the headlines.

Quoting catiii (Reply 31):
So by your rationale then we also have to think about "all the stories we don't hear" at their competitors, whom they are "obviously more dangerous than."

(Un)fortunately there is not enough FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA and FBI to control the background of these AF-pilots.   

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

Yes, or possibly a touch and go if still aligned with the runway and TOGA thrust.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 28):
That said, yes, there is a pilot culture at AF that has been identified as problematic, but you don't change that overnight.

The only correct and un-biased post so far which clearly explains the situation AF is in.   

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-08 13:43:41 and read 45325 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 26):
everyone states that nobody felt the up first and then the drop, and in my view PAX should have felt something for sure

Ever been in an elevator?

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 29):
The Comair crew was most certainly NOT at fault in the JFK incident.

Maybe wait until the NTSB report? What we do know is that Comair had not cleared the taxiway and had not advised ground that they were not clear. There's no way an A380 crew can tell that a tail is hanging 6 feet over the taxiway.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Markam
Posted 2013-04-08 13:49:02 and read 45062 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 10):
If I'm not mistaken the French built a gigantic set of defenses along their border with Germany after WW1 which they felt would never be penetrated. The Germans just went through Belgium instead. Another oops moment in the history of the French Republic.

That would be the Maginot Line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line   

Big oops moment, indeed, although to be fair to the French every country has had one or two of those moments, at least...  

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cubastar
Posted 2013-04-08 13:50:23 and read 44887 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
This doesn't point to a lack of manual handling skills. If you'd told either of the pilots to take off the AP, press TOGA and go around, they would have done it fine. It was the confusion with the AT and the AP that got them.

Actually, I think that it does. Confusion should not come into play during a Cat III approach. Everything is set up prior to final approach fix. Constant monitoring from that point is critical for a safe approach and landing. The aircraft is flying itself and everyone in the cockpit has the duty to be constantly monitoring. At the time of something not being just right, i.e the drop out of one autopilot computer and going to "Land 2", monitoring pilots call this out and announce to all and they continue the approach. They may have become confused, BUT they should NOT have been confused. That's what they were monitoring for. However, the captain elected to go around but made a mistake and did not hit TOGA. He pushed the throttles up manually and the speed picked up to 200+ knots but the autopilot continued its descent. Rapidly, they were approaching a very dangerous situation and both pulled back on the yokes thereby taking the autopilot out of the picture. Entirely too much "confusion" and it came close to being disastrous.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

"Probably" has no meaning in this situation at this altitude, this speed, and all of the confusion in the cockpit. They were performing an approach to minimums and the only decision at this point is to "power up, rotate and get the heck out of Dodge" and THAT would necessitate hand-flying out of the situation.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cubastar
Posted 2013-04-08 13:51:24 and read 44860 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
This doesn't point to a lack of manual handling skills. If you'd told either of the pilots to take off the AP, press TOGA and go around, they would have done it fine. It was the confusion with the AT and the AP that got them.

Actually, I think that it does. Confusion should not come into play during a Cat III approach. Everything is set up prior to final approach fix. Constant monitoring from that point is critical for a safe approach and landing. The aircraft is flying itself and everyone in the cockpit has the duty to be constantly monitoring. At the time of something not being just right, i.e the drop out of one autopilot computer and going to "Land 2", monitoring pilots call this out and announce to all and they continue the approach. They may have become confused, BUT they should NOT have been confused. That's what they were monitoring for. However, the captain elected to go around but made a mistake and did not hit TOGA. He pushed the throttles up manually and the speed picked up to 200+ knots but the autopilot continued its descent. Rapidly, they were approaching a very dangerous situation and both pulled back on the yokes thereby taking the autopilot out of the picture. Entirely too much "confusion" and it came close to being disastrous.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

"Probably" has no meaning in this situation at this altitude, this speed, and all of the confusion in the cockpit. They were performing an approach to minimums and the only decision at this point is to "power up, rotate and get the heck out of Dodge" and THAT would necessitate hand-flying out of the situation.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: N505FX
Posted 2013-04-08 13:53:36 and read 44791 times.

Quoting okapi (Reply 34):
BA losing a 777 on finals at LHR, Swissair, yes! Swissair and its MD11 shortly after departure from NY.

I think both of those quoted instances show incredible pilot aptitude, sort of the inverse of what you are implying, correct?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-04-08 13:56:08 and read 44655 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 20):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

"Probably" has no meaning in this situation at this altitude, this speed, and all of the confusion in the cockpit. They were performing an approach to minimums and the only decision at this point is to "power up, rotate and get the heck out of Dodge" and THAT would necessitate hand-flying out of the situation.
[/quote]

   Exactly! Like I guess I am very confused but for an experienced crew, isn't performing a go-around fairly non-complex? Apply full power and get out of there?!

I'd be curious to hear the ATC transmissions during the subsequent climb out. You can learn a lot just by listening to their voices and tone.

IBOA

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2013-04-08 14:12:39 and read 44079 times.

The Ba 777 and Swiss accident are not the same as these af idiots

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-08 14:17:04 and read 44001 times.

This accident has a lot less due to training than CRM /FH and Air France is as a matter of fact a great deal more critical than the BEA.
Why !
There were at least two serious breaches of SOPs :

1/- The observer had no right to interfere with that crew by calling :" Alarm !". That simple call introduced a second breach of SOPs, this time from the F/O :
2/- The "Go Around !:" call wasn't his to say, as he wasn't PF any more since they agreed and started an autoland ( a bit of a brain fart, here )
Then we have the results of the *surprise factor * :

3/- the captain - PF, then - was completely caught by the call and reacted quickly, too quickly : he mistook the A/T buttons for the GA pallets, and though he set GA thrust, he didn't change the mode from autoland to GoAround ! the A/P was still tracking the ILS and even worse, the flight directors remained on loc/gs.
I personally have noticed that in a quickly evolving situation, pilots tend to follow the FD bars, thinking that their setting is correct ; so here we have a PF thinking he's in a goAround manoeuvre and two other guys, one shouting "Pitch......Pitch ! " and the other bent on pulling on the control column to reach a*normal* attitude for a goAround.

4/- It was only when the captain saw the ground that his course of action melded with the F/O's and rotation was achieved.

In a Cat II or III approach, with a prepared crew, the procedure is an automatic Go Around : Press the pallets,; see the throttles move to full thrust and the A/P FD change to Go Around mode. Just ask for flaps and an FMA reading, confirm acceleration altitude, and goAround altitude and there you go, you are OK.

A comment from one 'Bus driver :
This example would have been very difficult to replicate on a 'BUS :
1/- Pushing the throttles to the stop gives you the automatic GoAround you're looking for
2/- The F/O whop had a clearer strategy than the captain could have just taken the priority button and locked the captain out... no fighting over the control column
3/- If you need an A/P disconnect, the same button would have achieved it... or a force of less than 10 pouns on the sidestick would have done the same thing.

Funny how all the linked yokes and moving throttles can fail you !

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: aaexecplat
Posted 2013-04-08 14:27:30 and read 43452 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
You cross the threshold at 50ft, and they were still on runway track - ie, had they failed to go around, they would probably still have landed on the runway.

Right...at 2 degrees nose down, 180+ knots, and flaps 20. What are you smoking? In all probability, they would have crashed the airplane if they had not succeeded with the go around...Do you have any idea what the V-speed likely was at that speed and attitude?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-08 14:30:57 and read 43357 times.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 36):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18):
he didn't push the TO/GA Switch

This does sound worrying and not standard ops(?), however the yoke input should have been enough but it initially wasn't pronounced enough for the aircraft to recognise it as manual intervention.

The 777 doesn't have manual intervention. It will disconnect the Autopilot if you apply enough force on the column or wheel (I forget the exact amount of force, something like 30 pounds). You basically almost have to give it a jerk.

It's not like non-FBW Boeing airplanes where the autopilot servos will cam-out of you override the autopilot, but will not disconnect it.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: aaexecplat
Posted 2013-04-08 14:31:12 and read 43265 times.

BTW...my personal opinion is that where there is smoke, there is fire. Too many incidents, too many accidents, and too many pilot error matters. I would not fly AF until they at least acknowledge they have a problem and make a serious pledge to fix their training and cockpit culture.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-08 14:43:45 and read 42850 times.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 35):
Ya, but not accidentally.

Ok, I'll bite ... how do you crash an airplane, but not accidentally?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
1/- Pushing the throttles to the stop gives you the automatic GoAround you're looking for

I am wondering if this Captain didn't have a lot of Airbus time before the Boeing. Not that far a stretch at Air France ... then in a moment of quick reaction, he reverted to his Airbus motor memory.

I wonder, because when going from the A320 to the B767, on my first go-around in the simulator, that is exactly what I did! Instead of pressing either of the go-around switches, I pushed the thrust levers to TOGA ... just like an Airbus. Man, I'll tell you it was ugly, and I'll bet the instructor is still laughing.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-08 14:54:56 and read 42369 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
then in a moment of quick reaction, he reverted to his Airbus motor memory.

I wonder, because when going from the A320 to the B767, on my first go-around in the simulator, that is exactly what I did! Instead of pressing either of the go-around switches, I pushed the thrust levers to TOGA ... just like an Airbus. Man, I'll tell you it was ugly, and I'll bet the instructor is still laughing.

        
I've heard of such occurrences !

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-08 15:24:10 and read 41272 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
in the 60s they crashed six 707s (a record), five with no survivors,

I can only find 5 AF 707 hull losses in the 1960s, and that was over almost 9 years. Pan Am wrote off 6 707s in fatal accidents (one was a terrorist attack) in less than 3 years in the 1970s (1971-74). Five of the 6 occurred within 9 months in 1973/74.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 35):
Ya, but not accidentally.

Ok, I'll bite ... how do you crash an airplane, but not accidentally?

There have been a few crashes that resulted from intentional actions by suicidal pilots, or where that was a suspected cause where the actual cause remains in doubt. I wouldn't consider those accidents if they really were the result of intentional actions. These 3 come to mind in that category. There may be others.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820209-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991031-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19971219-0

And this PSA crash certainly wasn't an accident.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19871207-0

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-04-08 16:17:17 and read 38782 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
1/- The observer had no right to interfere with that crew by calling :" Alarm !". That simple call introduced a second breach of SOPs, this time from the F/O :
2/- The "Go Around !:" call wasn't his to say, as he wasn't PF any more since they agreed and started an autoland ( a bit of a brain fart, here )

AF doesn't have a policy of anyone on the flight deck being able to call for a go-around?

-Mir

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: DeltaB717
Posted 2013-04-08 16:30:33 and read 38219 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Not crashed A380. Yet. Or does collision with another aircraft while taxiing at JFK count? Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was this not the incident with the DelCon CRJ? Which was stopped on a taxiway until the A380's wing hit its tail? Doesn't seem like the CRJ's fault particularly... even if they were stopped somewhere a little dodgy it's up to the A380 crew to determine if they can pass safely behind.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-04-08 16:41:55 and read 37892 times.

Question? I thought after the PA/KLM crash, it was stated the other crew have the right to question a decision by the PIC. If the KLM F/O had called out the Captain, the accident would not have happened. As a passenger, I don't care who's flying....Anybody in the cockpit should speak up when something is wrong......

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-04-08 17:21:10 and read 36619 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 35):
Ya, but not accidentally.

Ok, I'll bite ... how do you crash an airplane, but not accidentally?

There have been a few crashes that resulted from intentional actions by suicidal pilots, or where that was a suspected cause where the actual cause remains in doubt. I wouldn't consider those accidents if they really were the result of intentional actions. These 3 come to mind in that category. There may be others.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820209-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991031-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19971219-0

I could say that Viscount724 took the words out of my mouth but I won't because I actually wasn't thinking of it like that... although that makes much more sense.

I meant "accidents" that are intentionally caused by the flight crew... like Test Pilot's performing intentional tail strikes, etc. In hind sight, it was poor language on my part as the above example I was thinking about is not an accident but rather a mere incident. My point being that Test Pilots for Airbus or Boeing can tail strike an aircraft purposefully vs an operator tail striking the aircraft accidentally.

IBO

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-04-08 17:32:57 and read 36246 times.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 54):
Question? I thought after the PA/KLM crash, it was stated the other crew have the right to question a decision by the PIC. If the KLM F/O had called out the Captain, the accident would not have happened. As a passenger, I don't care who's flying....Anybody in the cockpit should speak up when something is wrong......

It all comes down to CRM training, which I believe AF is lacking. In this case, the non-PF called the go-around and the PF, who was the captain, was not ready for the call (maybe because he didn't see it coming or what have you).

In regards to the Tenerife accident, there were so many variables at play that caused those two Jumbo's to collide. If you read the ATC transcripts, the F/O did stop the KLM captain from taking off but clearly that wasn't enough because they still took off without receiving ATC clearance.

Yes, I completely agree. Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn't. But think about the stress and workload and concentration required of the PF during an approach like this. The last thing he's anticipating is the Go-Around command, IMHO.But then again, that's what training is for... preparing the crew.

Quoting Mir (Reply 52):
AF doesn't have a policy of anyone on the flight deck being able to call for a go-around?

-Mir

Are you asking or telling? I would think that anyone can call the go around? But then again, I'm not an airline captain.

Just my 2 cents guys

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-04-08 17:50:20 and read 35706 times.

Ok let's say it this way. I'm sure many of you have driven with Dad, Mom, grandma, or grandpa in the right seat and said......there's a stop sign ahead...slow down....turn here...blah blah blah.......same thing

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-08 17:51:35 and read 35710 times.

So this whole mess essentially was caused by the captain pressing one button when he should have pressed another one?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
The observer had no right to interfere with that crew by calling :" Alarm !".

So the relief pilot on the flight deck cannot act as crew? Is he/she allowed to sit in the cabin for TO/landing if a seat is available?

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-08 17:55:08 and read 35667 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 52):
AF doesn't have a policy of anyone on the flight deck being able to call for a go-around?

Problemis that he was part of the crew as the second F/O and had every right to be there.
He certainly did not have the right to call for a go around... or to initiate a manoeuvre through a standard call-out. The confusion started there
The policy is that a flight deck crew member on an observer seat can only advise the crew or direct their attention to an abnormality. Here he could have said either "FMA change" or "LAND degraded to Land 2", and that would have been followed by the normal SOP.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 54):
.Anybody in the cockpit should speak up when something is wrong......

There could be quite a few exceptions to that black-and-white statement, as proved here, couldn't there ?

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
** yes Conc too - they accepted a tailwind, aircaft was 9t overweight, possibly overfuelled, FE shut down an engine without telling anyone; not saying the accident wouldn't have happened but with all thus against them they never stood a chance.

I am surprised that after thirteen years, a final report, an official tribunal report and countless discussions on this forum you could still write such garbage. In fact I'm stunned.
- They didn't take off with a tail wind : it was variable between 170° and 300° from zero to nine knots, which made it at worst at 9 kt xwind or at best at 8 knots headwind.
- 9 tons overweight ? You really are not afraid of ridicule - which is a quality... Say a maximum of 687 kg at the start of the roll.(that's some 1/14 th of your claim). Some exagggeration, perhaps ?
- What do you know about overfuelling ? They had the legal quantity on board. The 687 kg were what was left of their taxi fuel which was shorter than they expected.
- The FE shutting down the engine ? It was on the captains order for the fire drill on that engine.The FE suggested it, as it was his role.
See the CVR read-out :
14.43.22,8sec: Fire bell sounds
14.43.24,8 sec : FE : (Shall we ) "shut down #2 ?"
14.43.25.8 sec CAP¨T : "Fire drill engine 2"
14.43.27 sounds of switches... Alarm stops.


[Edited 2013-04-08 17:59:15]

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-08 18:03:47 and read 35354 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
A comment from one 'Bus driver :This example would have been very difficult to replicate on a 'BUS :1/- Pushing the throttles to the stop gives you the automatic GoAround you're looking for2/- The F/O whop had a clearer strategy than the captain could have just taken the priority button and locked the captain out... no fighting over the control column3/- If you need an A/P disconnect, the same button would have achieved it... or a force of less than 10 pouns on the sidestick would have done the same thing.Funny how all the linked yokes and moving throttles can fail you !

The Boeing FBW approach has it's own flaws and advantages, just as the Airbus systems do. We do not yet have a 'failsafe' way of managing pilots.

What was the significance of this part of the event?

"Master Caution Warning was issued and the flight mode announciators reverted from "LAND 3" to "LAND 2". "

It appears to me the observer was right to call attention to the warning.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-08 18:14:09 and read 35173 times.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn't

No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.
Once again, the extra crew member, if asked, can provide an opinion or an advice or point to an abnormality... Nothing more.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
But think about the stress and workload and concentration required of the PF during an approach like this

There isn't a lot of all these things : a good briefing and one follows the autopilot, the other one monitors and communicates... the "Alarm" call out is with a normal tone, maybe a bit more stressed but is certainly not a panic shout.
At 350 ft, there is absolutely no rush... even at 20ft, the manoeuvre is quite smooth - and if you touch, it's a non event.

Quoting hivue (Reply 58):
So the relief pilot on the flight deck cannot act as crew?

The procedures have been designed for a two-pilot crew, and no more.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-08 18:17:40 and read 34996 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 60):
It appears to me the observer was right to call attention to the warning.

He did not. He called "ALARM" which could have meant a lot of things, froman advisory message to a full blown emergency. His call was the trigger for confusion.
See my post above.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-04-08 18:20:32 and read 34795 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 47):

It's not like non-FBW Boeing airplanes where the autopilot servos will cam-out of you override the autopilot, but will not disconnect it.

That's like just about any autopilot on just about any airplane built since the end of World War II that's not FBW   Although I was told not to do this often with Cessna's autopilot, as it is very hard on the servos...

Newer Cessna's (like the new production ones since the late 1990's) have a disconnect that gives you a disconnect chime if you overpower the autopilot.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-08 18:24:38 and read 34659 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 60):
What was the significance of this part of the event?

"Master Caution Warning was issued and the flight mode announciators reverted from "LAND 3" to "LAND 2". "

It may mean you are no longer legal to autoland at the current minimums, in which case you'd be required to go-around. That's called the "Autoland Status, and has to do with the redundancy of the autoland related systems. In general the 777 is certified to Cat 3B minimums if in a LAND 3 autoland status. This of course depends on a lot of other factors. At an LAND 2 autoland status, at most it's certified to Cat 3A.

There are about 30 different things that could degrade you from Land 3 to Land 2, such as a failure of one of the three Radio Altimeters, or ILS receivers, or Autopilot Computer....and so on.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-08 18:27:35 and read 34653 times.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 63):
Newer Cessna's (like the new production ones since the late 1990's) have a disconnect that gives you a disconnect chime if you overpower the autopilot.

Yeah, the 777 and 787 autopilots will disconnect if you override them. Basically, you are overriding the backdrive actuator, not servos like a cable airplane. It takes twice as much force to do so during an autoland for reasons that I'm sure are obvious. It still take a lot of force, not just like bumping a control column accidentally.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-04-08 18:43:31 and read 34185 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 17):

If I'm understanding the Avherald article correctly, he didn't push the TO/GA Switch, which would have automatically advanced the throttles and commanded the autopilot 15 degrees nose up.


The whole time reading that article I am thinking TOGA button. The 777 is so easy to initiate a go around in. Hit the TOGA button and it does everything for you with throttle an pitch. All you have to do is gear and flaps which it seems like the first officer was doing. The captain hit the wrong switch.

To me it sounds like good CRM with the relief pilot monitoring the pitch.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-04-08 18:55:23 and read 33825 times.

How about this....I'm in the cockpit as a relief crew or deadheading...whatever...and I see something wrong, I'm going to say something.....I'm not going to die because some jerk can't cut it......

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-08 18:55:54 and read 33823 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.

I do not agree. What you are saying, is that the F/O is PM, he/she cannot call go-around? That is rubbish CRM if thats the case in your airline.

I want my F/O to call go-around if they feel it is needed. Sometimes explaining that they are unhappy etc... would take too long and in a stressful moment I am sure you know that the first sense to go is your hearing. You may not hear anything other than 'blah blah blah" from the other seat. "GO AROUND" is clear and concise and the words I want to hear if a situation warrants it. If I as captain am PF then ultimately it is my decision. I can either go-around as recommended or say negative and continue and explain why if there is time.

Personally I would have a long and hard think before flying Air France but thats just me. Incidents happen at all airlines and most of them never see the light of day in public, however I hear about too many from Air France to make me feel comfortable about flying them. I have flown with many a Frenchman in my airline that feels the same way.

[Edited 2013-04-08 19:33:27]

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-08 19:00:08 and read 33610 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):

Ok, those make sense.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 55):
I meant "accidents" that are intentionally caused by the flight crew... like Test Pilot's performing intentional tail strikes, etc. In hind sight, it was poor language on my part as the above example I was thinking about is not an accident but rather a mere incident.

I thought maybe you were thinking about the A330 that was lost doing an engine failure during ALT* near TLS. Although being flown by Airbus pilots, and it was intentional, I would still consider it an accident, as the outcome certainly was not intentional.

Topic: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: dynamo12
Posted 2013-04-08 19:22:40 and read 32960 times.

The fact that they deleted the cockpit voice recording speaks to the value they put on safety. Near ZERO!

Why, in a safety critical incident, would you go around deleting the CVR? I'd like to think in the US you would be immediately fired. In Air France, you probably get a raise.

Remember that the pilots union (supposedly to protect safety), really has gotten angry at the BEA for some of the prior "outrageous" comments (one of which was I think to simply follow proper procedures).

Would I fly Air France? Hell no, and I fly anyone!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-04-08 20:03:31 and read 31934 times.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 67):

Fortunately for the flying public you're NOT in any cockpits. Get a lot of CRM where they that kind of attitude as a property manager?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-04-08 20:25:20 and read 31404 times.

Why such harsh comments about the French? Seems like we are showing arrogance. AF has some amazing pilots. Perhaps there is a need for better training. I wouldnt hesitate flying on them!  

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Unflug
Posted 2013-04-08 20:46:52 and read 30843 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
What I find the most interesting in the avHerald's report is this line "The French BEA released their final report in French complaining, that the cockpit voice had been deleted prior to the BEA getting access to it although the crew initially had preserved the recordings"

Who would delete the voice recording and why?

Avherald has that slightly wrong. There is no "complaining" in the report, just the factual statement that the CVR had been accidentially erased before it could be exploited by the BEA.

Here is the actual report:

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2011/f-pp111116/pdf/f-pp111116.pdf

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: IBOAviator
Posted 2013-04-08 20:54:42 and read 30686 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 59):
Problemis that he was part of the crew as the second F/O and had every right to be there.
He certainly did not have the right to call for a go around... or to initiate a manoeuvre through a standard call-out.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn't

No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.

I was talking about the crew at the controls in front (Captain and F/O). Regardless of who ever is flying, either the Captain or F/O must call that Go Around if deemed necessary. Otherwise, all progress made to CRM has been for nothing.

I 100% agree with CX Flyboy. If the F/O is the PF, then him or the Captain have authority to call the go around, just like if the Captain was the PF, the F/O would have the same authority. I agree that any relief pilot sitting on the flight deck should only advise (at most) but certainly not call any decisions, but most certainly the two pilots at the controls have that authority. Is that not common policy amongst airline CRM?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 66):
The whole time reading that article I am thinking TOGA button. The 777 is so easy to initiate a go around in. Hit the TOGA button and it does everything for you with throttle an pitch. All you have to do is gear and flaps which it seems like the first officer was doing. The captain hit the wrong switch.

 Wow! I didn't know it was that easy!!!??? Like really? My god, then that looks really bad on the part of AF. Wow!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 69):

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 55):
I meant "accidents" that are intentionally caused by the flight crew... like Test Pilot's performing intentional tail strikes, etc. In hind sight, it was poor language on my part as the above example I was thinking about is not an accident but rather a mere incident.

I thought maybe you were thinking about the A330 that was lost doing an engine failure during ALT* near TLS. Although being flown by Airbus pilots, and it was intentional, I would still consider it an accident, as the outcome certainly was not intentional.

Lol, I know. Just never crossed my mind but definitely a prime example of an accidental accident.

Quoting dynamo12 (Reply 70):
The fact that they deleted the cockpit voice recording speaks to the value they put on safety. Near ZERO!

Why, in a safety critical incident, would you go around deleting the CVR? I'd like to think in the US you would be immediately fired. In Air France, you probably get a raise.

First question. How would anyone know if they actually deleted the CVR from the flight and secondly, WHAT??! Ya, AF. Definitely the gold standard  

IBO

edit: 'is' to 'if' and asked an additional question

[Edited 2013-04-08 20:59:01]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2013-04-08 21:17:50 and read 30209 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 72):
Why such harsh comments about the French? Seems like we are showing arrogance.

Very nicely put! Thank you.
Let's not forget how many MILLIONS of passengers have deplaned safely off AF flights, and how many tens of thousands do it every day.
In all honesty, most deaths involving an AF flights probably happened to passengers driving to an airport. Remember they fly to lots of cities, notably in Africa, where traffic is no so safe.

Perhaps there is a training or an attitude problem at AF that needs to be improved but 1. this does not happen overnight, 2. should not be blamed on the pilots alone and 3. even less so on the French. Nationalities are not at stakes here, possibly a business culture is, at the most.

I'd fly AF again with no hesitation on my next round across the pond if their schedules and fares are adequate.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-04-08 22:54:08 and read 28111 times.

It seems no one has understood Pihero's post.

I believed there is a misunderstanding between calling for a G/A and initiating one.
Anybody can suggest a G/A if he sees something wrong. But it is up to the PF to then perform the manoeuvre, unless there is a clear transfer of control somewhere in the mix.

Having someone in the cockpit who's not flying The plane initiate the manoeuvre, especially without getting the other guys in the loop, is asking for trouble.

That's valid in every airline as far as I know...

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-08 22:56:49 and read 27958 times.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 73):
Avherald has that slightly wrong. There is no "complaining" in the report, just the factual statement that the CVR had been accidentially erased

Thanks.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
I am wondering if this Captain didn't have a lot of Airbus time before the Boeing. Not that far a stretch at Air France ... then in a moment of quick reaction, he reverted to his Airbus motor memory.

The final report that Unflug linked to states the PF has over 6,000 hours on type with his last Go Around training barely three weeks before. With so many hours on type, I suppose it is safe to assume the latest GA training wasn't the first...

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
Man, I'll tell you it was ugly

You cannot leave it at that!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: EK413
Posted 2013-04-09 00:33:52 and read 25789 times.

Quoting Navigator (Thread starter):
Do I need to worry if I go on Air France? Your thoughts? Is Air France no worse than for instance Lufthansa or do they need to shape up in AF training?

If the price of the airfare isn't an issue then I'll certainly avoid flying AF! Terrible safety record if you ask me.

EK413

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-09 00:40:02 and read 25702 times.

All right folks,

You might want the original http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2011/f-pp111116/pdf/f-pp111116.pdf

Slightly off topic

AF : founded 1933
BA : founded 1974
Pan Am : RIP
TWA : RIP

It would have been hard for BA to crash caravelles  
Indeed first 777 crash belongs to BA (without any severe casualty hopefully).

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 9MMPQ
Posted 2013-04-09 01:15:26 and read 24932 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 76):
I believed there is a misunderstanding between calling for a G/A and initiating one.
Anybody can suggest a G/A if he sees something wrong. But it is up to the PF to then perform the manoeuvre, unless there is a clear transfer of control somewhere in the mix.

No misunderstanding on this, the pilot flying initiated the G/A as per the AV herald article:

The captain (ATPL, 14,370 hours total, 6,645 hours on type) was pilot flying.

The captain responded by pushing the throttles forward to initiate the go-around.


So far Pihero's response have been quite clear, it is either the pilot flying or the captain who makes the G/A call. As the captain was also the pilot flying then by his words the F/O here would not have been allowed to call G/A in this case.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
2/- The "Go Around !:" call wasn't his to say, as he wasn't PF any more
Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself.

We should leave it to Pihero to clarify now if the pilot monitoring (F/O in this case) has had any right to call the G/A. Although i can hardly believe that the pilot monitoring wouldn't be allowed to call it in today's CRM world.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-09 01:24:05 and read 24707 times.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 23):
In all seriousness though, maybe Air France pilots need to brush up on their training and maybe not, but then again ever since AF447, every incident involving AF has been exaggerated a little bit.

No I do not think so. Each of those incidents related are serious indeed. Most information is from incident reports.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Unflug
Posted 2013-04-09 02:23:44 and read 23578 times.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 27):
That said, yes, there is a pilot culture at AF that has been identified as problematic, but you don't change that overnight.

Has this been identified by AF to be problematic? If yes, are they working on it?

I was wondering recently if something is wrong at AF, but not because of accidents or incidents: we have an anet-member claiming to be an AF pilot who believes the AF-447 pilots were not at fault. Given the evidence I find that rather disturbing and would not want to be exposed to this pilots judgement. Am I wrong?

He has not posted in this thread and please don't ask for the name, I do not want this to be a personal attack.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-04-09 02:35:38 and read 23340 times.

To me I wouldn't blame Air France over this or severely question the airline. The captain hit the wrong button, but they soon discovered this and corrected it. The FCOM instructs the pilot to hit the TOGA switch, but he hit the disconnect switch. It was a human factors mistake. Maybe more training would help, or it could have been him resorting back to Aurbus procedures. This isn't a systemic Air France problem to me and actually sounded like relatively good CRM before and after the mistake, but that is just my opinion.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn't

No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.
Once again, the extra crew member, if asked, can provide an opinion or an advice or point to an abnormality... Nothing more.

I am confused. Everything that was done prior to the captain hitting the wrong button sounds exactly like what should happen according to the flight crew operations manual as I read it. Maybe I am interpreting it wrong or differently.

The observer commented on a warning by saying alert. He did not call for a go around, but rather advised the crew of an observed problem. Is there anything in your FCOM about that? Then the first officer commanded Go Around, by saying it, but did not physically initiate it because he was not the pilot flying. I agree the observes should not call go around, but he can advise of problems. The only problem I see is that the captain pushed the wrong switch.

If the air France FCOM does not permit the first officer to call for a go around as you imply, correct me if I am wrong, but that contradicts with the guidance in the FCOM that Boeing publishes. Air France can do that, but at the airline where I worked, such decisions had to be made by the chief pilots office of the fleet at the airline and the FAA ( not sure about EASA) wants a very good reason to deviate from standard industry practice.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 02:48:14 and read 23058 times.

Wow, this is a bog standard G/A in Cat 3 conditions, no doubt they do this once a year in the same minimum, and the captain had 6000 hours on type. Don't want to be an arm chair pilot but this is a major failure in flying the aircraft correctly and monitoring flight path. The latter is essentially the PRIME job of any pilot. I wonder if fatigue had something to do with it, a long flight and then a CAT3 approach, not something that you would look forward to.

During a normal landing you are going to land unless something goes wrong and you go around. During a CAT 3 approach you are Go-Around minded unless all conditions exist for a landing.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
1/- The observer had no right to interfere with that crew by calling :" Alarm !". That simple call introduced a second breach of SOPs, this time from the F/O :
2/- The "Go Around !:" call wasn't his to say, as he wasn't PF any more since they agreed and started an autoland ( a bit of a brain fart, here )
Then we have the results of the *surprise factor * :

Ok, I don't see why a qualified pilot in the jumpseat doesn't have the right to speak up when its clear that neither of the two pilots in the front have caught a mistake. If you read the report it says there was some 9 seconds between when the alarm went off and the jumpseater spoke up. In a cockpit that's a massive amount of time to remain silent when there is an alarm going off. The F/O in the jumpseat spoke up, I don't see why that's considered wrong.

Having flown jumpseat observation flights the captain always stresses that you are part of the team, when you see something wrong you speak up. CRM, use the extra resource.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 49):
I am wondering if this Captain didn't have a lot of Airbus time before the Boeing. Not that far a stretch at Air France ... then in a moment of quick reaction, he reverted to his Airbus motor memory.

It says he had 6000+ hours on the 777, if he still thinks he's on an Airbus then I think the regulators should consider never letting an Airbus pilot touch a Boeing or vice versa

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
It all comes down to CRM training, which I believe AF is lacking. In this case, the non-PF called the go-around and the PF, who was the captain, was not ready for the call (maybe because he didn't see it coming or what have you).
Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.
Once again, the extra crew member, if asked, can provide an opinion or an advice or point to an abnormality... Nothing more.

So the F/O when PM is essentially a radio operator? When you are close to the ground and the F/O sees something that clearly puts the aircraft in jeopardy I don't think its time to be having a conversation with the Captain about a decision to G/A. The call is G/A and then you discuss it later. No harm in trying another approach. If this is the culture in AF then perhaps there is a clue as to why they have so many incidents. i.e. creating a massive authority gradient which makes the F/O feel like he's just there for the ride and leaves everything to one man, i.e. the captain, who can and will make mistakes. This is why airlines all around the world are training their F/Os to be active members of the crew, its not 1950.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 03:22:39 and read 22498 times.

My ! My ! My !
The sharks are in a feeding frenzy again !
One of the problems is that quite a few posters - some of them airline pilots !- mistake CRM with SOP.
In an ideal word, they supplement each other and give greater *synergy* to the flight-deck efficiency.
Here, it's patently not the case :
- The captain, as the manager of the approach was left completely out of the loop of totally inappropriate procedure.
Normally, the progress of the approach is in silence, only broken by the co-pilot announcing FMA changes and theautomatic radio altitude call-outs.
If there's an FMA change, or a warning of whatever nature, the co-pilot calls out "Alarme" - which translates from French as **Warning** and not as the English **ALARM** that has a much higher degree of urgency.
The captain then announces " Remise de Gaz " - **Go Around** - and initiates the procedure : "Flaps 20"... the co-pilot monitors the pitch and thrust change, announces the FMA changes and the positive rate of climb.

- Here, besides the startling effect, the captain got more of a confusion : he had the runway in sight and his strategy was to land... but the go-around order had to be - in terms of procedures - followed... as he normally had the initiative of the go around, he probably thought of a higher emergency, which he couldn't see and which he did not understand.

- The copilot was in charge of monitoring and announcing the FMA changes... he did not announce the important fact that they were still tracking the ILS, now with a vastly inappropriate amount of thrust.

- The captain, thinking ha was established on a go-around, with FD pitch bar available couldn't understand he had to *push* on the control column to stay on the FD command................

-During all that time, the observer participated in the confusion in calling " Pitch.... Pitch..." whereas the best call would have been to say : "you're still on autoland".

In view of all the above CRM - where as I understand most posters think as **everybody has the right to call what they see** goes a lot further than that. AF procedures demand the captain to brief his co-pîlots as to their own function and usefulness : the point I was making earlier is thgat the observer should not interfere with the conduct of the flight : his role is to bring another pair of eyes in the cockpit and point at what the flying crew have missed.
If anyone believes that the observer brought - in this case - anything positive in the events, he understands bloody s$%#@ in how a flight deck should be managed... and I, for one wouldn't wish to fly with him, whatever airline he's flying for...

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-04-09 03:30:47 and read 22258 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 84):
So the F/O when PM is essentially a radio operator? When you are close to the ground and the F/O sees something that clearly puts the aircraft in jeopardy I don't think its time to be having a conversation with the Captain about a decision to G/A. The call is G/A and then you discuss it later. No harm in trying another approach. If this is the culture in AF then perhaps there is a clue as to why they have so many incidents. i.e. creating a massive authority gradient which makes the F/O feel like he's just there for the ride and leaves everything to one man, i.e. the captain, who can and will make mistakes. This is why airlines all around the world are training their F/Os to be active members of the crew, its not 1950.

I agree. There should be nothing stopping the FO from calling a go around. The captain does not have to listen if he is pilot flying, but nothing in my mind should stop an FO from calling out go around. There are many things to monitor in a CAT III landing and the pilot flying can't be expected to be first to catch everything. The FCOM is written for two pilots, not a captain and radio operator.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 04:08:11 and read 21453 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 86):
There are many things to monitor in a CAT III landing and the pilot flying can't be expected to be first to catch everything. The FCOM is written for two pilots, not a captain and radio operator.

You're a bit in a contradiction, here : If he's doing his job as PM, he just repeats the "Warning" call-out and we're back in SOPs.
Don't you see that this event comes from a major breach in SOPs ?
Repeating the mantra that " bla bla blah eevryone should have a say in the conduct of the aircraft" is counter-productive : The SOPs have been designed for a two-man crew operation. To deviate from SOPs is asking for trouble and I posit that this event is a great example on what to say and what not to say in a flight deck.
What your perceived idea of CRM has done is to completely break the chain of decision, and worse the possibility of a normal flow of actions in this manoeuvre : as per SOPs, the one calling "Go Around" is the one executing it. That's how crews have been trained for years. In a CatII /III autoland the captain announces and execute the Go around procedure... So with this contradiction, the captain could have been really confused.
On the other hand, had the copilot confirmed the warning, by just repeating it, once again, we would have been back to normal procedures.
Subsequently, the copilot never announced Pitch, Thrust or FMA changes, which his his very important role. Instead, he gives full attention to the flap retraction progress, and then struggles the yoke against the captain, again without any call-out whatsoever.... yes, in this case, he might bloody well have been a frakking radio operator for the help he gave his captain.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-04-09 04:35:04 and read 20839 times.

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 80):
Although i can hardly believe that the pilot monitoring wouldn't be allowed to call it in today's CRM world.

Again: Call it (as in: ask for it) - Yes. Initiate it -No the PF does that, he's flying. Whether the PF wants to take a second and confirm the reason for the go around, that's his call.

I suspect that a PF F/O would likely be more prompt in initiating a G/A is the captain called for it, but I would expect a Captain to take a second look at the picture before he initiated a G/A called by an F/O or observer, given there time is not overly sensitive, and it generally isn't.

It seems the Captain was, or felt, rushed to initiate the G/A and subsequently made mistakes which started the communication breakdown.
There are stories and witch tales going around the crew hotel bars that the cockpit authority gradient in AF tends to be too level. I have no idea whether this is an illustration of that or not.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 04:49:14 and read 20511 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
Repeating the mantra that " bla bla blah eevryone should have a say in the conduct of the aircraft" is counter-productive : The SOPs have been designed for a two-man crew operation. To deviate from SOPs is asking for trouble and I posit that this event is a great example on what to say and what not to say in a flight deck

I am not saying that the observer should be involved in the regular SOP between the two flying pilots, but when there is a warning and neither of the two flying pilots have said or done anything then it is the job of the observer to make mention of it.

From the report:

"The relief pilot reported that after seeing "NO LAND3" on the EICAS he saw no reaction by the flight crew and called "Alarm" in accordance with the category III procedures for any anomaly below 1000 feet AGL, the first officer responded by calling "go-around"

Key words there: "He saw no reaction by the flight crew"

Please could you tell us what the proper conduct of the observer should have been in that situation?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
as per SOPs, the one calling "Go Around" is the one executing it. That's how crews have been trained for years

Are you referring to AF or to the industry as a whole?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Flyhigh1982
Posted 2013-04-09 04:50:58 and read 20487 times.

These pilots are crazy ill will never fly airfrance they have had to many incidences and I'm not going to be in the next one people are starting to call them air chance instead of airfrance

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2013-04-09 04:53:33 and read 20438 times.

After reading all the posts here, I think a big part of the problem here was, again, the use of non standard phraseology. ( I say again thinking in the recent incident of a Go Around instruction issued by ATC and ignored by an AC crew, discussed here not so long ago ). I fail to understand why, having very well established words for every situation, some crew members ( and ATC too ) of all over the world insist in the use of words that can lead to confusion, with multiple possible interpretations and, in short, non standard. I guess is a cultural issue and is hard to change that in the people's mind.

On a side note, If I may ask, I read in an earlier reply that the BEA couldn't heard the CVR recordings because an "accidental" erasure... how easy / hard is to "accidentally" erase a CVR ??? I would expect that considering how important are this devices in the investigations / overall safety of the industry, the recordings should be protected and not exposed to "ooooops I pushed the wrong button" and you lost everything ??


Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2013-04-09 04:57:38]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 05:06:58 and read 20128 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 89):
Please could you tell us what the proper conduct of the observer should have been in that situation?

I have already said it TWICE :
He should have pointed the FMA change from Land 3 to Land 2. That was his duty , and not interfere with a call-out that confused the flight crew.
I have seen many occasions where the observer, seeing an abnormality would just give the PNF a nudge and point at the screens... and that is a good CRM.
Furthermore : There was no urgency as 1/ they were at some 450 feet from the runway and 2/ in any case the go around procedure is straightforward and very smooth ( yes, even at 20 ft rad alt !)

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 89):

Are you referring to AF or to the industry as a whole?

I am referring to company procedures. The main point of these procedures is to get both pilots on the same picture and the same action project :" I see something, I tell you about it, and you and I know that the SOPs require a go around in this case...I expect you to announce and execute it."
I am really amazed that for a very vague point of CRM that any twelve year old knows, there is so much religious fundamuntalism without even trying to understand what is a two-man crew flight deck, and how it functions.

[Edited 2013-04-09 05:20:25]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: comorin
Posted 2013-04-09 05:17:28 and read 19825 times.

As mentioned by the OP, there is some concern over the recent rash of incidents at AF by the flying public. Hopefully this thread will help the rest of us newbies understand if these are mere statistical anomalies, or if there is a deeper problem.

Air France is a legendary airline and a trailblazer of intercontinental travel. However, even AF, for that very reason, could also be susceptible to problematic rigidities. Also AF447 looms on our minds so we are particularly sensitized to any AF incidents.


It's great to see the a.net pilot pantheon joining in and shedding some light here.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 06:28:27 and read 18050 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 93):
he should have pointed the FMA change from Land 3 to Land 2. That was his duty , and not interfere with a call-out that confused the flight crew.

I appreciate this point. But there is a case to be made that sticking to words that elicit certain responses is better than making comments which might be construed one way or another. It was not as though he reached forward and hit the TOGA button for the captain. "First was the first 8 seconds following the indication which went undetected until the relief pilot called out "Alarm". 8 seconds is a long time to wait. I understand your point and again, I agree that the two men in front should be handling the flight, and all the calls, but this is a case where clearly they missed something, not a case of the observer jumping in where he shouldn't have been. Maybe he could have said something else, but we weren't there.

As for AF procedure of allowing only the PF or Captain to call G/A this is a changing trend in most airlines and the norm is now that anyone can call G/A below 1000ft. and whoever is flying must G/A. There is no arguing or debating.

As for the actual G/A it was error after error from the Capt and F/O. How do you blame the observer for this? Was it really his initial call that caused the Capt to be confused? Its AF policy that he can't call a G/A so he didn't, I know other companies where he simply could have said G/A and they would have, even if the call is from the relief pilot. Is he less of a pilot because he is sitting in the observers seat?

And if its company policy for only PF or Capt to call G/A why did the FO call G/A? And then why didn't anyone read the FMA? And do you really blame the observer for calling pitch? With your aircraft at TOGA thrust and heading straight for the ground what do you want him to do? Stick to SOPs? It's a pretty frightening situation to be in, calling pitch is almost a motor reflex and I wouldn't say it was wrong. In fact if you read the report they were about to fly into the ground until the relief pilot called "pitch" at which time they actually did something.

[Edited 2013-04-09 06:32:41]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-09 06:33:44 and read 17998 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
as per SOPs, the one calling "Go Around" is the one executing it. That's how crews have been trained for years. In a CatII /III autoland the captain announces and execute the Go around procedure... So with this contradiction, the captain could have been really confused.

it is clear that not many of us know what AF SOPs are. What is clear to me is that when you refer to "SOPs", they are not necessarily the same as everyone else's SOPs. So essentially there is a good possibility that you are arguing different procedures to what everyone else is arguing.

At my airline, anyone can say 'go-around'. Only when it comes from the captain's mouth is it a command to be followed. When it comes from anyone else's mouth (Jumpseater included), it is something for the captain to quickly assess then act upon, whether is be to continue or not. In my opinion I think this works quite well. It is clear and concise and the subsequent actions to be followed are unambiguous.

Perhaps we should all be clear when making statements who's SOPs they are referring to, and perhaps if referring to non-AF SOPs, it should be stated that they are different. A discussion on whether AF SOPs can be improved upon is a debate one step further and a potentially very interesting one.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 06:58:48 and read 17381 times.

Sstrange idea of a debate to always repeat what you've said already and not - absolutely not - consider the opponent's argument.
In terms of CRM that's called intransigeant / psycho rigid behaviour.
But still, I'd like to answer some of your questions :

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
this is a case where clearly they missed something, not a case of the observer jumping in where he shouldn't have been.

Yes, he did : he initiated a chain of confusion that shouldn't have been happening.
Where was the emergency ? the urgency ? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to announce the FMA : Land 2 ? or better, "Guys, you've lost land 3 capability " ?
We are *programmed* to react to some cue words ; here "Alarme" is one... and as the copilot wasn't PF, and should have reiterated the "Alarme" call, pavlovian reraction was : there's an "Alarme" call, the following call is then mine and it's " Remise de gaz"... captain was out of the loop. To say that could be beneficial to the conduct of the flight is to have a very dangerous pair of blinkers in a flight deckK.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
that anyone can call G/A below 1000f

I challenge yoiu to give us a copy of an FCOM that says that the observer can do it.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
Is he less of a pilot because he is sitting in the observers seat?

No. He's just not in the flight conduct loop. And that's a big difference.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
calling pitch is almost a motor reflex

Your problem is that you don't really stick your mind to one purpose : either you participate in an efficient manner - see my multiple posts above - by giving clear messages on what is happening, or - as you say - you act on a motor reflex : You've got it wrong because *Pitch* doesn't mean a thing for someone who is busy keeping the bars crossed - especially the pitch bar. The most efficient way would have been to tell him that the automatics were not set for GA.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
In fact if you read the report they were about to fly into the ground until the relief pilot called "pitch" at which time they actually did something.

No. According to the captain, it happened when he saw that he was almost at the threshold. Note that at the first "Pitch" call out, there was an initial reaction to pull up, soon cancelled... the call out had been obviously dismissed.

[Edited 2013-04-09 07:03:00]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 07:01:20 and read 17354 times.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 95):
A discussion on whether AF SOPs can be improved upon is a debate one step further and a potentially very interesting one.

Because, of course ! CX SOPs are perfect and not subject to any argument ?
What a load of rubbish !

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: aaexecplat
Posted 2013-04-09 07:10:41 and read 17053 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 97):

It doesn't serve you well to get defensive and mock an airline that has a far better safety record than your employer...

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 9MMPQ
Posted 2013-04-09 07:16:10 and read 16892 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 88):
Again: Call it (as in: ask for it) - Yes. Initiate it -No the PF does that, he's flying. Whether the PF wants to take a second and confirm the reason for the go around, that's his call.

Francoflier, i have only talked about making the go around call. Trust me that we are clearly on the same page when it come to intiating a go around which as i had underlined was in fact done by the captain who was the pilot flying. As it should be.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 92):
I have already said it TWICE :
He should have pointed the FMA change from Land 3 to Land 2. That was his duty , and not interfere with a call-out that confused the flight crew.

Yet apparently the relief pilot followed procedure by calling out Alarme, referting to his statement: The relief pilot reported that after seeing "NO LAND3" on the EICAS he saw no reaction by the flight crew and called "Alarm" in accordance with the category III procedures for any anomaly below 1000 feet AGL

Lets just step back a second and acknowledge that this was a crew who in the end were not sure if all of them were on the same page as things started to develop more & more rapidly. The relief pilot called out when neither Captain of F/O seemd to respond to the EICAS alert. The F/O after that had his mind on the go aroud & worked the flaps while the captain wasn't catching the fact they were still on the G/S, leaving only the relief pilot to notice & call on it.

While a pilot monitoring should normally not take over without indication the captain then pushed the yoke forward again after both pilots were pulling back in response to the first ''Pitch'' call by the relief pilot. It was the F/O's continued actions that then started the climb out and the captain then released the yoke. I think the F/O wasn't convinced the captain had his mind fully set on a go around and we can argue till we're blue in the face about proper phraseology or up to this point but at such a low height and with probable doubts about the pilot flying's mindset i doubt any pilot monitoring would sit back and leave it at that. Seeing as at their lowest point they were at 63 feet they didn't seem to have any room to leave it much longer either.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 9MMPQ
Posted 2013-04-09 07:24:24 and read 16668 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
Is he (the relief pilot) less of a pilot because he is sitting in the observers seat?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 96):
No. He's just not in the flight conduct loop. And that's a big difference.
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 94):
this is a case where clearly they missed something, not a case of the observer jumping in where he shouldn't have been. Maybe he could have said something else, but we weren't there.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 96):
Yes, he did : he initiated a chain of confusion that shouldn't have been happening.

Yet we read the relief pilot/observer followed procedure by calling out ?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-04-09 07:26:34 and read 16666 times.

Pihero welcome to my R list!

As a guy who used to jumpseat in the cabin, and saw all kinds of weird behavior from the pilots, I agree completely with your view here SOP is something and CRM is a different thing in reality.

As one of those pilots put it once (on a 752), more than 2 pilots in the cockpit are a crowd.

Regards

TRB

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-09 07:40:34 and read 16261 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 79):
BA : founded 1974

This isn't totally correct. BA was formed in 1974 as a result of a merger between two long established airlines.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 07:58:11 and read 15792 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 97):
Yes, he did : he initiated a chain of confusion that shouldn't have been happening.

This is the fundamental difference, how do you blame the relief pilot for initiating a chain of confusion? Arguing that only the PM is allowed to say "Alarme" because its SOPs is fairly pedantic especially when the PM sat there and didn't make the call when he should have and the guy in the observers seat is part of crew.

Had the observer been interrupting the flying pilots while they were doing their jobs normally I would agree with you, but he reacted because of a failure of SOPs in the first place. That failure consisted of one word which should have been called, so he decided to call it himself, its absolutely harmless, it shouldn't have lead to the confusion that ensued, and blaming him is ridiculous.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 97):
Wouldn't it have been more efficient to announce the FMA : Land 2 ? or better, "Guys, you've lost land 3 capability " ?

No absolutely not, because by definition efficiency is gaining the most output with the least amount of inputs. So saying "Guys, you've lost land 3 capability" should've elicit the captain to G/A. However the word "Alarme" is much shorter and should have elicited the exact same response, so technically "Alarme" is by definition more efficient. Wait isn't AF procedure to say ALARME and not, "excuse me captain, you've lost LAND 3 capability perhaps you should consider a go-around". I guess AF agrees with me that ALARME is more efficient and that's why its in the manuals and that's why a trained AF pilots said it. Now how is it his fault that the Captain and FO screwed it all up after that?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: richierich
Posted 2013-04-09 07:59:45 and read 15801 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
That being said, the AF record is still amazingly poor, particularly their "first to crash" series:

First to crash Concorde: mechanical problem.

First to crash A320: pilot error.

First to crash A330: pilot error, including substantial CRM failure (not just one pilot's problem).

First to crash A340: I forget the exact cause, but I think this too was mostly about crew problems. Luckily no victims.

Not crashed A380. Yet. Or does collision with another aircraft while taxiing at JFK count? Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.

Did they order A350?

Not crashed a B777. But apparently trying very hard.

You complain that cedarjet is being overly harsh - I think your 'first to crash' series indicates you are being harsh too. While I cannot argue about the results of your list, let's not forget that AF is a large airline and is often one of the first to fly new aircraft types. They crashed the A320 first because I dont think anybody else had them back then! Have they crashed any since?
The A330 crash was troublesome, yes, but let's call it as it is. AF has one of the largest A330 fleets in the world..and they "only" missed being the first by a few months...I think the Afriqiyah crash was less than a year later. No excuses, AF 447 was a terrible accident, perhaps one that could have been avoided but I'm showing that your list doesnt tell the whole story.
As for Concorde, as you know AF and BA were the only two airlines to fly the aircraft. One crash changed everything about that aircraft and, unfortunately, tainted the memory of the aircraft especially while in Air France colors. I think the crash of the Concorde has been one of the most discussed and disputed crashes in the past 20 years and not all the faults lie with AF, and certainly not all the faults lie with the pilots.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-09 08:06:17 and read 15597 times.

If a G/A was SOP in this situation, why was it a violation of SOP for the FO to say the words "go around" ("remise de gaz")?

As someone who simply rides in the back as a paying passenger, if I had to make the choice between a breakdown in well established SOP and a breakdown in CRM I would take the latter any day.

[edited for phrasing]

[Edited 2013-04-09 08:07:24]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: DalDC9Bos
Posted 2013-04-09 08:12:42 and read 15478 times.

After the AF447 disaster, didn't they hire for consulting Delta's Safety Team to come in look at their pilot safety procedures and policies? How long did this last?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cuban8
Posted 2013-04-09 08:14:48 and read 15422 times.

Pihero, I do agree with most of your statements regarding the lack of call-outs/clear communication from F/O and observer related to this approach. Where I seriously disagree with you is this:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
No ! No ! and No !The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
What your perceived idea of CRM has done is to completely break the chain of decision, and worse the possibility of a normal flow of actions in this manoeuvre : as per SOPs, the one calling "Go Around" is the one executing it. That's how crews have been trained for years. In a CatII /III autoland the captain announces and execute the Go around procedure...

The way I understand your post, you wish to have a more autocratic decision making style in the cockpit giving the "go around call" only to PF, or Captain if he wishes to take over the controls. I also do believe that's against the principles of CRM. I don't think anybody argues that the captain has the final decision in all phases of flight. That being said, I rather have a F/O telling me "GO AROUND", (even if the F/O might be wrong), and do a standard missed approach, than second guess his call-out while evaluating a situation which might potentially put me in an even worse position. As far as I know, that is still the standard procedure in Lufthansa (no offence to other company SOP's). As for AF's SOP's. Are they written in English or in French and may that have a confusing effect when being translated on the flight deck under these circumstances?

Finally, not to be nitpicking but a CatII approach is not an autoland.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-09 08:29:34 and read 15096 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 14):
It has been demonstrated in some accidents in recent years that pilot traing in this area needs to be improved. Didn´t a Gulfair A320 have a go around accident that could have been avoided?
Quoting N505FX (Reply 42):
Quoting okapi (Reply 34): BA losing a 777 on finals at LHR, Swissair, yes! Swissair and its MD11 shortly after departure from NY.I think both of those quoted instances show incredible pilot aptitude, sort of the inverse of what you are implying, correct?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56): Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn'tNo ! No ! and No !The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.Once again, the extra crew member, if asked, can provide an opinion or an advice or point to an abnormality... Nothing more.
Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 68):
I do not agree. What you are saying, is that the F/O is PM, he/she cannot call go-around? That is rubbish CRM if thats the case in your airline.I want my F/O to call go-around if they feel it is needed. Sometimes explaining that they are unhappy etc... would take too long and in a stressful moment I am sure you know that the first sense to go is your hearing. You may not hear anything other than 'blah blah blah" from the other seat. "GO AROUND" is clear and concise and the words I want to hear if a situation warrants it. If I as captain am PF then ultimately it is my decision. I can either go-around as recommended or say negative and continue and explain why if there is time.

An interesting debate.

Pihero, I had an exchange with several pilots who responded in a different thread (following another incident, where the co-pilot (PNF) called a "go around", and again a second time after the pilot ignored the first call). The thread is here:

CZ 738 Close Call, F/O And GPWS Saved The Day (by Gonzalo Mar 5 2013 in Civil Aviation)

two pilots (longhauler and cubastar) both commented that such calls are encouraged, and would be heeded no matter what, on the basis that they might have seen something that they (PF, captain) did not. Your thoughts on the same question? Is this type of thing left to individual airlines, really?

I don't mean this as criticism (I have admiration for the professionalism shown by commercial pilots - including you! - and appreciate your input), but am just trying to understand how these things work.

Thanks for all of your insight.

YYZYYT

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-09 08:31:45 and read 15021 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):

Funny how all the linked yokes and moving throttles can fail you !

Unfortunately, there is no perfect system. ANY system designed by people has modes where it will fail; that is why there are so many different ones. Boeing and Airbus have very different philosophies, and there have been accidents in both that probably would not have happened if they had been flying the other one. Personally, as a pilot (private), I prefer the Boeing approach, but I fully recognize that it too has its limitations. For example, the AA 757 that crashed in the Andes probably would not have done so had it been an Airbus. But I also feel that it is likely that AF447 would not have happened in a Boeing.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-09 08:41:54 and read 14756 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 97):
Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 95):
A discussion on whether AF SOPs can be improved upon is a debate one step further and a potentially very interesting one.

Because, of course ! CX SOPs are perfect and not subject to any argument ?
What a load of rubbish !

I never said that. There is no need to get so defensive. I am not attacking you!! If you believe that I am wrong and that a debate about AF's SOPs being improved upon would not be interesting then that is your choice.

All airline SOPs can and are often changed and normally for the better. Even the world's best operators are constantly seeking to improve their SOPs. You cannot deny however that some airlines have a better safety record than others. Some operate in high threat environments, some don't. Some airlines that operate in high threat environments have better standards and records than airlines that operate in low threat environments. Are you telling me that when an ICAO LOSA study is done in AF, there are no recommendations for improvement? Even airlines with excellent safety records always have things to improve upon. No doubt AF does too.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-04-09 08:43:47 and read 14677 times.

So what would have happened were there no one in the jump seat?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-09 08:45:33 and read 14671 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 109):
For example, the AA 757 that crashed in the Andes probably would not have done so had it been an Airbus.

Sure it would have. On what basis do you say that? The 757 crew didn't retract the speedbrakes, but it was stated that they wouldn't have cleared the next peak even if it did auto-retract them. The 787 will autoretract the speedbrakes in that scenario, incidentally.

The near miss on the runway with the US 733 and EI A332 at BOS several years ago might have been an accident if the 733 had been an A320. The F/O saw EI and pushed the column forward, practically out of the captain's hands, to keep from rotating and hitting the A332. In a A320 the captain would have pulled back the stick, the F/O would have pushed it forward and the commands would have summed. If the A320 had gotten airborne it probably would have hit the A332.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 08:48:57 and read 14539 times.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 111):
So what would have happened were there no one in the jump seat?

Probably nothing, the aircraft would have continued to land safely. But its a moot point, SOPs and procedures are established for a reason. Someone had to make mention of the fact that there was a warning of degraded landing capabilities the argument now moves on to how, where, why, what and who should have said it.

[Edited 2013-04-09 08:50:54]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: nicoeddf
Posted 2013-04-09 08:53:25 and read 14487 times.

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 98):
It doesn't serve you well to get defensive and mock an airline that has a far better safety record than your employer...

Actually, he isn't mocking CX at all. He is just stating the plain obvious that while AFs SOPs aren't perfect, those of CX aren't perfect as well. And why should they? There is no such thing as perfection when it comes to humans interpreting procedures, rules and norms.

I personally find it rather intriguing that one of the most respected members and a pilot as well, which might be helpful for the task at hand, has to defend himself against comments as yours.

And I certainly understand his frustration to answer again and again the same questions without, apparently, the other discussers realizing it.
All the same while everybody has taken the "easy target" Air France as their victim, when unfortunately Airbus (oh - also french) is not blamable this time.

Just missing the thread and a guy asking if the plane would have spectacularly crashed if it would have been an Airbus.

How pathetic this all is...

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: nicoeddf
Posted 2013-04-09 08:56:42 and read 14361 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 112):
In a A320 the captain would have pulled back the stick, the F/O would have pushed it forward and the commands would have summed.

Exactly. Plus 10 and minus 10 is?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-09 09:05:49 and read 14191 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 112):
In a A320 the captain would have pulled back the stick, the F/O would have pushed it forward and the commands would have summed.

There's a take over push button that would have given the F/O complete control of the aircraft and disengaged the Capt's sidestick

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-09 09:14:03 and read 13914 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 112):

Sure it would have. On what basis do you say that? The 757 crew didn't retract the speedbrakes, but it was stated that they wouldn't have cleared the next peak even if it did auto-retract them.

My understanding was that it could have cleared had the speedbrakes been retracted; but I could be wrong.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: aaexecplat
Posted 2013-04-09 09:31:55 and read 13549 times.

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 114):
Actually, he isn't mocking CX at all. He is just stating the plain obvious that while AFs SOPs aren't perfect, those of CX aren't perfect as well. And why should they? There is no such thing as perfection when it comes to humans interpreting procedures, rules and norms.

The problem is that CX isn't the airline that continues to have incidents and accidents. So while their SOPs may not be perfect, they certainly seem to exist at a safer airline. Causality? I don't know.

But if you don't think that Pihero was defensive and used his quip as a lame excuse for deflecting attention away from the safety track record of his employer, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell to you.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-09 10:21:43 and read 12952 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 85):

Great post! Thanks!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
Subsequently, the copilot never announced Pitch, Thrust or FMA changes, which his his very important role. Instead, he gives full attention to the flap retraction progress, and then struggles the yoke against the captain, again without any call-out whatsoever.... yes, in this case, he might bloody well have been a frakking radio operator for the help he gave his captain.

Hmm. Sounds eerily familiar. If only the pilots had linked yokes and not those Airbus joysticks. Oh wait....

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
First to crash A330:

No they weren't, Airbus were the first to crash an A330.

I am aware of the crash during flight testing. I chose to count first accidents by the operators themselves, in commercial service. Or, as in the case of the A320, in an airshow but with passengers.

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 28):
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.
Quoting as739x (Reply 9):
Wait what, how?

The Comair crew was most certainly NOT at fault in the JFK incident. This is like you rear-ending another car and then saying it was the other drivers fault because he stopped.

This is a probably off-topic, so I do not want to pursue it further. You may be right. I thought the issue was that the Comair had stopped in a place where they were not fully out of the taxiway. Maybe that was not the case. Perhaps the AF crew was then at fault. Sorry.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-04-09 10:31:49 and read 12878 times.

Quoting richierich (Reply 104):
I think your 'first to crash' series indicates you are being harsh too. While I cannot argue about the results of your list, let's not forget that AF is a large airline and is often one of the first to fly new aircraft types. They crashed the A320 first because I dont think anybody else had them back then! Have they crashed any since?

That's a fair comment. For the record, I do agree that AF is a large airline, has a very long - and great - history, and was also the first and in Concorde's case one of the only airlines flying some of these aircraft. So there are factors that make it likely for them to be hit with a problem, if anyone is hit with it. The A320 accident, for instance, probably had to happen to someone before the all the pilots in the world would understand that the protections do not magically save you in all situations, for instance.

Quoting richierich (Reply 104):
I'm showing that your list doesnt tell the whole story.

Absolutely true. And I didn't want to claim it as the full story either.

Someone better than me in statistics could calculate whether the fact that they've had these crashes is significant or just a matter of bad luck. It would be an interesting analysis.

Quoting richierich (Reply 104):
As for Concorde, as you know AF and BA were the only two airlines to fly the aircraft. One crash changed everything about that aircraft

True.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-09 10:37:52 and read 12841 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 109):
But I also feel that it is likely that AF447 would not have happened in a Boeing.

I definitely do not want to hijack this very intresting thread, but what magic device is it exactly that Boeing aircraft have which prevents the crew from ignoring stall warnings?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-09 10:57:21 and read 12699 times.

I definitely do not want to hijack this very intresting thread, but what magic device is it exactly that Boeing aircraft have which prevents the crew from ignoring stall warnings?
[/quote]

A very loud and tactile input to both pilots when the large control column starts shaking when the Stick Shaker activates. It's kind of hard to ignore. Further, the other pilot can clearly see what the other is doing (or what the autoflight system is doing) with the backdriven linked controls. Captain Sullenberger himself said that AF447 would have less likely happened in a Boeing airplane since the relief pilot in the left seat would have clearly seen that the pilot in the right seat was pulling back on the stick, and been better equipped to take action. The column would have been in the other guy's lap.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-09 11:01:06 and read 12670 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 120):
That's a fair comment. For the record, I do agree that AF is a large airline, has a very long - and great - history, and was also the first and in Concorde's case one of the only airlines flying some of these aircraft. So there are factors that make it likely for them to be hit with a problem, if anyone is hit with it. The A320 accident, for instance, probably had to happen to someone before the all the pilots in the world would understand that the protections do not magically save you in all situations, for instance.

I did not start this thread to speculate that Air France has been unsafe throughout its history. I do not at all think that is the case. What could be asked however and what this thread is all about, is if they need to shape up in the flight training department right now. From reading all entries here I would answer yes. Air France needs to better its performance in flight training especially when it comes to basic manual flying skills and instrument monitoring.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 11:32:26 and read 12537 times.

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 118):
But if you don't think that Pihero was defensive and used his quip as a lame excuse for deflecting attention away from the safety track record of his employer
OK. Then show us all where I did that ? This could be interesting.... and it's a challenge as well.

Quoting hivue (Reply 105):
if I had to make the choice between a breakdown in well established SOP and a breakdown in CRM I would take the latter any day.

Your choice... It will be difficult to make IMHO

Quoting cuban8 (Reply 107):
you wish to have a more autocratic decision making style in the cockpit giving the "go around call" only to PF, or Captain if he wishes to take over the controls. I also do believe that's against the principles of CRM

Not at all : my point is that SOPs are there to get - and to keep - both pilots on the same project of action. Break that down and you're left with nothing but shambles and confusion... as demonstrated here.

Quoting cuban8 (Reply 107):
Finally, not to be nitpicking but a CatII approach is not an autoland.

Not to be nitpicking but they were on an autoland approach, CatIII first then degraded.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 111):
So what would have happened were there no one in the jump seat?

very probably an "alarme" call by the copilot and a smooth go around.

I'd like to recap on this incident.
A first comment is about CRM and SOPs. Where to start differentiating them as a very quick look at any FCTM would convince you that procedures nowadays are based on CRM concepts, even more so when cockpits were deserted by the flight engineers : we could no longer afford to shunt one of the three for procedures ( I remember the days of the 747 classic, most of the procedures were on a Capt / FE diagonal leaving the F/O totally out of the loop ).
If one read carefully, there are loads of accidents in which the captain disregarded his F/O's input - see the Gul Air A320 in Bahrain for instance, or the Air India 747 out of Bom .
Contrarily to what most posters here think, CRM is in the SOPs so that in training - and because of the training - there wouldn't be frustration from any part : who has the hand on the throttles when F/O takes off... Who taxies...who calls for a Go Around... and who executes it...

If the FCOM is our Bible, it comes to evidence that SOPs are the mass rituals.

And there is absolutely no way around it.

This is how NASA described it in 1979 :

" The NASA research presented at this meeting found that the primary cause of the majority of aviation accidents was human error, and that the main problems were failures of interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit. CRM training encompasses a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitudes including communications, situational awareness, problem solving, decision making, and teamwork..."

We could elaborate further but the principles are very clear : they are about teamwork, situational awareness, communications and decision making in this case.

1/ Communications :
The emitter should control his message and reduce as much as possible any ambigity.
He should also consider how available the attention of the receiver (s) is.
On the other hand, the receiver has to :
- hear the message (vwhich implies mobilising perceptive resources)
- Correctly interpret the message
- Acknowledge he's received the message

2/ Situational awareness :
It can't be done unless there is a common project of action, which will totally determine the way we understand the world ( here the conduct of the flight and the environment - terrain, weather... etc...)
So... the absence of a common project of action automatically leads to an impossible comprehension of a given situation... rings a bell ?

3/ Decision making :
We have here to distinguish between long term decisions which are the captain's exclusive responsibility and short term decisions which can be delegated to the F/O.
Among the factors influencing this decision-making process, access to information is paramount.

Now, before I wrote too long a post, and considering the company SOPs on a Go Around are in this order
PNF : "Alarme" ("Warning" )
PF :"Remise de gaz, volets 20" ("Go Around, Flap 20")

Do you really think that both copilots - PM and OBS - were into the principles of good CRM ?

[Edited 2013-04-09 11:36:10]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2013-04-09 11:40:57 and read 12457 times.

Regarding the incident I referred to near the beginning of this thread, about the AF A340 that stalled on a flight from Paris to Antananarivo:

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 13):
I haven't heard about this. Can you provide the flight # or a link to investigation transcripts?
Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 16):
I stand ready to be corrected of course but if this actually happened i'm certain there would have been a lot more fuss about it.
Quoting motif1 (Reply 18):
Could you give us a link to the story?

Etc.

I have found references to it, e.g.
http://www.airfrance447crash.com/index.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/air-fran...n-a-year-report-20090612-c55k.html

I may have been wrong about how much altitude was lost; nonetheless a serious incident, a "dress rehearsal for 447" it says here.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 12:21:47 and read 12259 times.

I think a few people here are missing the point that Pihero is trying to make.

I don't think he is saying that input from other crew-members is not encouraged, as long as it is per SOP, not just various things thrown out there in the cockpit during a critical time. But, what he appears to be saying is that only one person can perform the Go-Around, and that is the person flying.

If the PF is the Captain, he will Go-Around if he feels it is warranted. If the PF is the First Officer, he too can perform a Go-Around if he thinks it is warranted. If the Captain feels a Go-Around is warranted, and he is not the PF, he can command the F/O to Go-Around. The F/O can suggest a Go-Around to the Captain when the Captain is flying, but still it is his (the Captain's) decision.

The point I was making on another thread is that often the PNF can see something the other does not, and makes an SOP call to start a Go-Around. That is not wrong, and even if the PNF was wrong, the right thing was done ... a Go-Around. Sort it out from a higher altitude. But ... notice I said SOP call, not something vague.

There are many SOP, standard calls to initiate a Go-Around from a normal approach, like "Ground Contact lost, Go-Around" ... and there are many more for an auto-land, all SOP calls.

But in all cases only ONE person is performing the Go-Around, and why is that? This is an excellent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_2033

That accident was caused by the F/O hitting the Go Levers when the Captain was not expecting it!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 12:22:40 and read 12335 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 122):
A very loud and tactile input to both pilots when the large control column starts shaking when the Stick Shaker activates. It's kind of hard to ignore.

So's the stall warning, which the AF447 crew managed to ignore.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 122):
Captain Sullenberger himself said that AF447 would have less likely happened in a Boeing airplane since the relief pilot in the left seat would have clearly seen that the pilot in the right seat was pulling back on the stick

If you read the BEA report, there's every indication that the PM knew what inputs the PF was making. The unanswered (or perhaps partially answered) question is why he didn't intervene more directly. The fact that Sullenberger successfully ditched in broad daylight in completely different circumstances does not make him an expert on what might have transpired on AF447.


Quoting cedarjet (Reply 125):
I have found references to it

The first article is full of technical inaccuracies. The second was written by the uninitiated for the ignorant. The facts are that other crews (including AF crews) with the same training successfully dealt with the same issue. The AF447 crew applied the wrong pitch/power, and failed to run the speeds checklist. The rest was a near total breakdown of CRM.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-09 12:36:08 and read 12192 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 124):
Now, before I wrote too long a post, and considering the company SOPs on a Go Around are in this order
PNF : "Alarme" ("Warning" )
PF :"Remise de gaz, volets 20" ("Go Around, Flap 20")
Quoting longhauler (Reply 126):
I think a few people here are missing the point that Pihero is trying to make.

I don't think he is saying that input from other crew-members is not encouraged, as long as it is per SOP, not just various things thrown out there in the cockpit during a critical time. But, what he appears to be saying is that only one person can perform the Go-Around, and that is the person flying.

Thank you both, for your insights.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-04-09 13:59:52 and read 11832 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.

Many operators disagree with that, and have a policy that states that either pilot may call for a go-around even if they are not PF, and that such a call will result in an immediate go-around. That means that if the FO is PM on approach and calls for a go-around, the captain's next action is to acknowledge and execute the go-around.

If I'm PF and the PM calls for a go-around, I'll do one immediately with no questions asked unless I perceive extenuating circumstances. We can sort out later why it was that the call was made and whether or not it was justified or not. It's not the time or place to do that while on approach.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87):
Don't you see that this event comes from a major breach in SOPs ?

No, I see the event coming from the captain's failure to properly execute a go-around. The FO called "go-around", the captain acted on it (the way it should be). But he didn't do the procedure correctly, and so things got confusing. I agree that what happened after that was problematic on the part of all three of the pilots present, but if the go-around is properly executed then it never gets to that point.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 96):
We are *programmed* to react to some cue words ; here "Alarme" is one... and as the copilot wasn't PF, and should have reiterated the "Alarme" call, pavlovian reraction was : there's an "Alarme" call, the following call is then mine and it's " Remise de gaz"... captain was out of the loop.

The captain should still be in the loop by performing the go-around.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 119):
I thought the issue was that the Comair had stopped in a place where they were not fully out of the taxiway. Maybe that was not the case. Perhaps the AF crew was then at fault. Sorry.

The AF crew is responsible for making sure that they have wingtip clearance, but at the same time the Comair crew should have notified ATC that they weren't completely clear of the taxiway. Mostly AF's responsibility, but there are things that OH could have done better.

-Mir

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 14:12:55 and read 11778 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 129):
Mostly AF's responsibility

I'm not so sure:
- A380 crew can't see the wingtips from the flight deck, so they have to rely on other (lateral) aircraft being where they're supposed to be
- OH switched to ramp frequency without ever telling ground they weren't clear of the taxiway, so they couldn't hear any taxi instructions relevant to the space they were still occupying.

And from the NTSB interim report:

"The pilots of the Comair airplane stated that they noticed the Air France A-380 as it taxied out of its ramp. The captain said that when he noticed the A-380 was on taxiway Alpha, he decided to move his airplane forward a few feet to give the A-380 some more room. After moving forward, he stopped the airplane and reset the parking brake. He said he thought the A-380 would be able to pass behind him."

"According to air traffic control personnel, the diamond markings on the Delta parking ramp were meant to be hold points for departing airplanes taxiing out to taxiway Alpha, via taxiway Mike. They were not intended to be hold points for airplanes taxiing into the parking ramp after flight. In addition, the diamond markings are labeled "Aircraft Start Up" on Comair Jeppesen Plate 20-0C."

"The four air traffic controllers present in the tower either shortly before or during the accident sequence of events were interviewed. Three stated that they would expect pilots to notify the tower if they stopped taxiing in the airport movement area. The fourth stated that pilots sometimes announce that they have stopped, and sometimes they do not."

Anyway, I imagine the NTSB final report can't be too far away.

[Edited 2013-04-09 14:34:03]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-09 14:37:54 and read 11682 times.

I really love it when I see people so sure of their right and so sure of their judgement... He's guilty, chop his head and to hell with a trial ! let alone a defender.
Problem is we're not talking about Mir's SOPs, or anybody else's. We are argumenting about *Air France SOPs*, the ones this crew should have applied in this incident.
If one reads carefully the go around procedure, PNF is responsible for the GA thrust set... and fine tunes the thrust output. The one in control just presses the GA levers...
To me, it is obvious that the captain was confused - who is doing what, now ? - and initially went into the PNF actions, as his initial actions were not of a PF, let alone a captain during an autoland approach... that he botched the autothrottle is another sign of confusion...
And no, Longhauler, he couldn't have motor memory of the A320 as he'd never flown it : he went from the 737 fleet to the T7 as that rating was rather *cheap* twelve years ago... he then went straight into a T7 command...which shows how much he liked it.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-09 15:54:07 and read 11447 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 130):
Quoting Mir (Reply 129):
Mostly AF's responsibility

I'm not so sure:
- A380 crew can't see the wingtips from the flight deck, so they have to rely on other (lateral) aircraft being where they're supposed to be

Actually when we are taught to taxy a large plane we are trained on imagining where the wingtips are. On the 777 from where I sit, if there is any obstruction that sits in the lower half of the side window next to me, then there is a risk the wing will not clear it. I then know to stop the aircraft and ask ATC. More than once in my career have I been given clear taxy instructions by ATC only to find that there was an unexpected aircraft in the way that I had to stop for. Funnily enough last time was JFK. This is my responsibility mainly. If I get fooled into accepting an unsafe instruction by ATC then it is still my fault. Taxying into a stationary object would be my fault. Sure there would be mitigating circumstances but still my fault. Even though an A380 has big wings, the crew would have been trained to know where their wingtips were and if they were not sure about wingtip clearance then they should have stopped simple as that. It appears from the video they were going quite fast which doesn't help either.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: stealthpilot
Posted 2013-04-10 04:11:31 and read 10626 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):

1/- The observer had no right to interfere with that crew by calling :" Alarm !". That simple call introduced a second breach of SOPs, this time from the F/O :
2/- The "Go Around !:" call wasn't his to say, as he wasn't PF any more since they agreed and started an autoland ( a bit of a brain fart, here )
Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):

No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.

Pihero, I find it very strange an experienced airline captain such as yourself believes only the PF can/should have the authority to call a go-around. I would be even more surprised if it were AF procedure.

I agree that an unexpected call from the relief crew can cause confusion- no debate there. Altho I would assume during any briefing the PF would make it clear to everyone in the flight deck to please speak up if something isn’t going as expected
As far as I understand, the augmenting FO just called “alarm” … he brought something to the attention of the operating crew who had not acknowledge the master caution for 8 seconds   
At most airlines- it’s the augmenting crew/relief FOs responsibility to bring to the attention anything abnormal. Heck even if the augmenting chap called a go-around I doubt someone would say it wasn’t his call to make!

No sharks in the feeding frenzy …. did you read the AVHerald report or do you have additional information? If you’re a captain and a master caution goes off and neither you nor the FO acknowledge it for 8 seconds (8 whole seconds a few hundred feet above alert height late into a CAT3 approach    ) … you wouldn’t have the relief FO speak out?

The link says the relief FO followed procedure- can someone shed light on that. Is that false? Even if his call did cause confusion it would be foolish to infer that neither him nor the FO had the right to call a go around.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-10 04:59:32 and read 10464 times.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 132):
It appears from the video they were going quite fast which doesn't help either.

8 kmh according to the NTSB.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-10 06:07:42 and read 10308 times.

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
. I would be even more surprised if it were AF procedure.

So read the report : it gives a copy of the SOPs for a go-around procedure.

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
As far as I understand, the augmenting FO just called “alarm” … he brought something to the attention of the operating crew who had not acknowledge the master caution for 8 seconds  

I say it again : all pilots occupying a seat in the flight deck have a right to speak up... read my posts, iIve never varied on this particular point : the problem is *how to speak up * and my post # 124, I think clarifies this particular aspect.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 92):
I have already said it TWICE :
He should have pointed the FMA change from Land 3 to Land 2. That was his duty , and not interfere with a call-out that confused the flight crew.
I have seen many occasions where the observer, seeing an abnormality would just give the PNF a nudge and point at the screens... and that is a good CRM.
Furthermore : There was no urgency as 1/ they were at some 450 feet from the runway and 2/ in any case the go around procedure is straightforward and very smooth ( yes, even at 20 ft rad alt !)

As a further comment, AF's college of trainers and safety officers have after long discussions that the airline would not follow a practice of continuing a degraded approach under 1000 ft agl. The reasons were 1/ possible confusions during any reset of the LAND parameters and 2/ to remove the stress of a go around as it's done as a matter of procedures and often at a comfortable height over the ground and 3/ consistency with the airline policy that forbids MCDU manipulations below 1000 ft.

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
Heck even if the augmenting chap called a go-around I doubt someone would say it wasn’t his call to make!
OK ... what are the situations in which the OBS would call a go around ?.. Name the level of urgency... and see if that "Go Around" yell could be replaced by a more meaningful call which would not disrupt the normal flow of command and actions by the flight crew.
I give you an example : short final and cleared to land ; a vehicle crosses your runway : you, on the observer seat have a choice :
1/- Yell "Go Around !", in which case in all probability you'll be precedingat best or saying it at the same time - at wors, 'cause yours will be interfering - the same - this time legitimate - call from the PF who's looking outside to perform his landing... or...
2/- Say - urgently if you please - " Truck on the runway "...
I posit that - again - PF is looking outside and sees the vehicle better than you do and will initiate the procedure ; But the quality of your message is such that this time PM is now aware of the reason for the overshoot ( That's how GA used to be called ). Result is a far better synergy in that cockpit and everybody is in the loop and the same project of action.

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
No sharks in the feeding frenzy ….

Oh yes, there were a lot...

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
did you read the AVHerald report or do you have additional information?

I read both the AvH report and the BEA's

Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
The link says the relief FO followed procedure

No : "t. Le pilote de renfort annonce « Alarme » (conforme à la procédure pour toute modification en dessous de 1 000 ft en CAT3)" : " the relief pilot calls out " Warning" ( consistent with the procedure for any modification below 1000 ft in a Cat 3 ) "
Note the very careful wording from the BEA...
and see again my posts # 45 and 59 on that very subject.

And I've already said that on this incident AF is a lot more critical of the circumstances than the BEA.

[Edited 2013-04-10 06:22:30]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-10 06:09:55 and read 10280 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 134):
Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 132):
It appears from the video they were going quite fast which doesn't help either.

8 kmh according to the NTSB.

Thanks. It certainly appeared faster in the video. I stand corrected!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cuban8
Posted 2013-04-10 07:19:32 and read 10052 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
I give you an example : short final and cleared to land ; a vehicle crosses your runway : you, on the observer seat have a choice :
1/- Yell "Go Around !", in which case in all probability you'll be p^receding the same - this time legitimate - call from the PF who's looking outside to perform his landing... or...
2/- Say - urgently if you please - " Truck on the runway "...
I posit that - again - PF is looking outside and sees the vehicle better than you do and will initiate the procedure ; But the quality of your message is such that this time PM is now aware of the reason for the overshoot ( That's how GA used to be called ). Result is a far better synergy in that cockpit and everybody is in the loop and the same project of action.

With the risk of getting burned by fellow posters, I would go with solution number "1". Of course, it's all depending on what your definition of short final is. If you're talking about an airplane above 1000 feet AGL, I'll more than agree with you for solution number "2".

Below 1000 feet AGL is a grey zone and might have different outcomes from case to case, but that's where most critical Go-Arounds are performed. In those critical low altitude situations, I'd rather have a "Go-Around" call from a Captain, F/O, PF or PM, than having someone trying to explain for me what's going on. A "Go-Around" call-out is a worldwide standard in aviation and applies to all kinds of aircraft types. For me, it's a very clear message for the crew on what they should do, basically fly the airplane in accordance with the missed approach procedure or follow the controller's instructions. I don't see how the PF would be out of the loop. There will be plenty of time to explain once the immediate actions are completed.

By having a crew member using a non-standard call-out or phraseology in those low altitude situations should not be recommended for the following reasons:

- delaying a possible missed approach
- time consuming
- misinterpretation ( pilot talking to fast, having a dialect/accent, non-standard phrasing / wording, increasing stress etc.)
- possible misunderstanding of the other "receiving" crew-member; leading to far worse consequences.

I trust that my co-pilot has a very high level of suspicion and is very safety minded. Unless the pilot is brand new in commercial aviation, which I would not believe an AF 777 F/O to be, I would not hesitate a split second to perform a "Go-Around" if called out. In the best case, I might save a lots of lives and in the worst, my company will lose a couple of thousand euros in burned fuel which I couldn't care less. For me the choice is easy

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-10 07:50:23 and read 9987 times.

Pihero, I understand the key reason for the difference in opinion. Air France is a French Airline with French pilots who all speak and understand the same language to a large degree (a few foreigners here or there).

However, today in the multicultural cockpits of the Middle East, India (to some degree) and the Far East, we are trained to stick to standard phraseology to the extreme, to the extent that when the call is "Flaps 1" they want just that not "Flaps at 1", or "Flaps coming to 1". The desire is extreme rigidity to standard calls and procedures. Why? Because for most of the pilots English is their second or third language. So as far as our training is concerned its a big no-no to use anything other than whats in the book, otherwise you get a lot of "What?, what did you say? uh? ah?". Many different accents and dialects, it can lead to disaster. In this AF777 incident they had a margin of 63', that might easily have been wiped away if there was confusion as to what the relief pilot had said. Just look at the Aviance crash, misunderstandings over a word can lead to crashes. That's why we seem to have this difference of opinion here. Trust me, when you are working with people who all speak the same language its completely different when you get in a cockpit with people who had to sit down in a classroom to learn the language which you are going to use in order to get the aircraft from A to B. There are a lot of things that you can take for granted as a native speaker of a language which others simply will not understand, no matter how simple you may think them to be.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-10 08:00:38 and read 9922 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 129):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 131):
Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 132):
Quoting stealthpilot (Reply 133):
Quoting cuban8 (Reply 137):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 126):

Once more, thank you all for your insight (this is informative for us armchair experts!). A few more quesrtions:

When airlines set SOP's, are they required to be vetted by regulators, or do the airlines do as they please (as long as the regulations are respected)?

And is anyone aware of other airlines which use have the same SOP re FO/PNF "go around" calls as AF?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
As a further comment, AF's college of trainers and safety officers have after long discussions that the airline would not follow a practice of continuing a degraded approach under 1000 ft agl. The reasons were 1/ possible confusions during any reset of the LAND parameters and 2/ to remove the stress of a go around as it's done as a matter of procedures and often at a comfortable height over the ground and 3/ consistency with the airline policy that forbids MCDU manipulations below 1000 ft

Do I read correctoly, then, that SOP required that the crew go around when the message appeared?

If so, what is the FO/PNF to do when the PF/captain misses the mandatory go-around? doe AF crews encourage an FO to speak up in such a case?

Thnaks in advance.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Airbus_A340
Posted 2013-04-10 08:09:53 and read 9899 times.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 136):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 134):
Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 132):
It appears from the video they were going quite fast which doesn't help either.

8 kmh according to the NTSB.

Thanks. It certainly appeared faster in the video. I stand corrected!

Kaiarahi, just a minor point, the NTSB reported 8kts not km/h. That translates to approximately 15km/h.
As cx flyboy said though, it does appear a lot faster in the video.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-04-10 08:18:13 and read 9864 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 131):
To me, it is obvious that the captain was confused - who is doing what, now ? - and initially went into the PNF actions, as his initial actions were not of a PF, let alone a captain during an autoland approach... that he botched the autothrottle is another sign of confusion...

Perhaps he was confused by why the go-around call happened, but that shouldn't matter - a go-around call means a go-around, and the steps to do so are fairly straightforward. He's still the PF, and since the PNF made no statement to the effect of having taken the controls, it was still his responsibility to fly the airplane.

I'd also point out that the SOP of having the PNF work the throttles doing a go-around seems unnecessarily complicated. The PF's hands should already be on the throttles, so why shouldn't he just move them forward himself? Then if the FO needs to fine tune them to the exact required setting, that's fine. I would think that the most logical division of tasks there is for the PF to disconnect the autopilot, move the throttles, pitch the nose up and call for flap retraction, and for the PNF to check that the appropriate modes are set, move the flaps, and verify that the appropriate thrust is set, fine-tuning if necessary.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
OK ... what are the situations in which the OBS would call a go around ?

When he perceives that a go-around is necessary, for whatever reason, but that action is not being taken by the pilots at the controls.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
I give you an example : short final and cleared to land ; a vehicle crosses your runway : you, on the observer seat have a choice :
1/- Yell "Go Around !", in which case in all probability you'll be precedingat best or saying it at the same time - at wors, 'cause yours will be interfering - the same - this time legitimate - call from the PF who's looking outside to perform his landing... or...
2/- Say - urgently if you please - " Truck on the runway "...

Why can't he do both? Announce the truck's presence, and if that doesn't get the crew to take action immediately, then call for the go-around. Maybe the crew doesn't hear him the first time. Maybe they think the truck will be clear by the time they touch down (and they could be right or wrong).

There have been several accidents where one of the crew have known that something was wrong and knew the corrective action to take but didn't call for that corrective action because they didn't think it was their place to call for the corrective action, and thus they kept hinting at things that should precipitate the required action, which was never actually taken. Sometimes it's just best to say what you mean.

-Mir

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-10 09:04:29 and read 9786 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
There have been several accidents where one of the crew have known that something was wrong and knew the corrective action to take but didn't call for that corrective action because they didn't think it was their place to call for the corrective action, and thus they kept hinting at things that should precipitate the required action, which was never actually taken.

Sounds like Tenerife.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-10 09:08:48 and read 9836 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 138):
Pihero, I understand the key reason for the difference in opinion. Air France is a French Airline with French pilots who all speak and understand the same language to a large degree (a few foreigners here or there).

Shall I tell you a secret, habibi ? I'd worked for ten years in the Gulf as a captain... so, I'm not unfamiliar with that environment.

Why do people think that their SOPs are stricter than ours ? Could it be just a shade of contempt ? The phraseology here is as strict as - if no stricter than - anywhere else. For instance, gear up is " Train sur rentré " - Gear on *UP* "- whereas I've heard all sorts of things in that airline of not so long ago : Gear up ... Wheels in... undercarriage up... clean the clogs...etc...
Here, the strictness goes as far as reading the messages as they are written on the screens : the strangest one is :"1 FD 2", read as "Un Eff Day deux" ( not very good at phonetics, I'm afraid ).
Secondly, FMA - especially - and ECAM call outs are almost a religion. One could fail a check by missing them. ( Their absence in the incident is another important sign of complete confusion : who does what ?)

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
When he perceives that a go-around is necessary, for whatever reason, but that action is not being taken by the pilots at the controls.

No, Mir : I asked for specific situations, not vague generalities.

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
There have been several accidents where one of the crew have known that something was wrong and knew the corrective action to take but didn't call for that corrective action because they didn't think it was their place to call for the corrective action, and thus they kept hinting at things that should precipitate the required action, which was never actually taken. Sometimes it's just best to say what you mean.

Can you point us at a real situation where a go-raound call from an observer saved the day ?

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
'd also point out that the SOP of having the PNF work the throttles doing a go-around seems unnecessarily complicated

No; He checks that the TOGA thrust is there and manually fine tunes the setting if necessary. I wasn't clear enough, probably.

[Edited 2013-04-10 09:46:30]

[Edited 2013-04-10 09:47:25]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-10 09:13:46 and read 9783 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 139):
When airlines set SOP's, are they required to be vetted by regulators, or do the airlines do as they please (as long as the regulations are respected)?

In Canada, all "offical" documents, like the Aircraft Operating Manual, Flight Operations Manual, MELs, etc, must be approved first by Transport Canada Air Carriers Division. This would also include any changes to these documents.

SOPs are a part of the AOM, and thus must be approved first. Sometimes it takes a long time ... years, for something to be changed!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-10 10:11:15 and read 9674 times.

Quoting Airbus_A340 (Reply 140):
Kaiarahi, just a minor point, the NTSB reported 8kts not km/h.

My mistake.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: cx flyboy
Posted 2013-04-10 10:25:55 and read 9676 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 143):
Can you point us at a real situation where a go-raound call from an observer saved the day ?

Without going into detail and airing unwanted laundry for certain individuals yes. An attempted autoland on a runway at JFK with an offset ILS where no autoland is permitted. A "Go-around" command from the jumpseat led to a missed approach with 20ft agl being the lowest point. Now whether the captain would have gone around or not is another thing but they mistakenly briefed for an autoland not realising that it was not allowed on that runway.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-10 10:32:13 and read 9640 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
I would think that the most logical division of tasks there is for the PF to disconnect the autopilot, move the throttles, pitch the nose up and call for flap retraction, and for the PNF to check that the appropriate modes are set, move the flaps, and verify that the appropriate thrust is set, fine-tuning if necessary.

On a 777 you need not do this. Push the TO/GA switch and the autothrottle commands go-around thrust (2000 feet/min for the first push; max go-around thrust for the second push) and the autopilot pitches up to 15 degrees and flies the go around automatically. Why disconnect the autopilot and move the throttles? On Boeing airplanes, the PF would call for Gear Up and Flaps 20.

Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
OK ... what are the situations in which the OBS would call a go around ?

When he perceives that a go-around is necessary, for whatever reason, but that action is not being taken by the pilots at the controls.

I would assume that if an observer saw a runway incursion, it would be appropriate for him to call a go-around. Say he was the first to see a Cessna Citation sitting in the middle of a runway they are about to land on.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-04-10 13:43:00 and read 9309 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 143):
No, Mir : I asked for specific situations, not vague generalities.

As I said, the situation where the crew does not react to something that is grounds for a go-around.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 143):
Can you point us at a real situation where a go-raound call from an observer saved the day ?

I can't, though of course you don't normally hear about days that were saved (and it does appear that CXFlyboy has heard of one).

Quoting Pihero (Reply 143):
No; He checks that the TOGA thrust is there and manually fine tunes the setting if necessary. I wasn't clear enough, probably.
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 147):
On a 777 you need not do this.

You need not physically do it, but you do need to monitor the autoflight systems and make sure that it's done. If it were me, I'd have my hands on the throttles as they moved, and my hand would be on the yoke, ready to intervene if the autopilot weren't doing exactly what I felt it should be doing.

Disconnecting the autopilot might not be necessary (though in some planes it is), but the PF should still be prepared to do it.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 147):
I would assume that if an observer saw a runway incursion, it would be appropriate for him to call a go-around. Say he was the first to see a Cessna Citation sitting in the middle of a runway they are about to land on.

That would be one instance, but it would depend on time. The only time someone not the PF or captain should be calling for a go-around is if there is imminent danger to the aircraft from a continued approach. If you see an aircraft on the runway that isn't supposed to be there and you're thirty seconds from touchdown, that's not worthy of an observer calling for a go-around. Ten seconds from touchdown, it definitely would be.

-Mir

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-10 14:08:22 and read 9234 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 148):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 147):
On a 777 you need not do this.

You need not physically do it, but you do need to monitor the autoflight systems and make sure that it's done. If it were me, I'd have my hands on the throttles as they moved, and my hand would be on the yoke, ready to intervene if the autopilot weren't doing exactly what I felt it should be doing.

Disconnecting the autopilot might not be necessary (though in some planes it is), but the PF should still be prepared to do it.

Yes, I was not implying that the PF should push TO/GA and put his feet up and read the newspaper. My observation has always been that crews will guard the yoke, autopilot disconnect switch, throttles and TO/GA switch at low altitudes if the automation is on.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-12 05:28:59 and read 8342 times.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 146):
. An attempted autoland on a runway at JFK with an offset ILS where no autoland is permitted. A "Go-around" command from the jumpseat led to a missed approach with 20ft agl being the lowest point.

Two days have passed by... and nobody has picked this interesting piece of news ?     
So let me recap on that incident - if it really happened as if fits rihght into my book as *incredible* :

- An airline crew, flying a modern jet prepared an approach into JFK

- With the airport maps and the approach chart for the runway in use, they prepared for an autoland with an offset ILS ( RWY 22R ? ).

- Someone inserted the approach into the MCDU : RWY, Decision height for a Cat 3 - which wasn't on the plate and very certainly not in the list of the company authorised runways... but 20 ft is a covenient value.

-The captain brieffed the other crew members on the project of action - he should have backed it with the chart / plate, recap of the GA procedure... etc... Did not, apparently

- On interception of the LOC, we normally confirm that the ILS track is the runway heading ( that's for the case of a false beam interception in normal times...)... did not apparently

- ... and nobody noticed anything, didn't query the validity of that descent and they went down their merry way...

- ...until the Cat 3 decision height of 20 ft when the observer called for a go around ?

- ... and of course, it has been kept secret until another AF-bashing thread finally revealed it ,

My Oh My !

So how would you call that event : BEA would say **dangerous incident **... ?

For me it's more a matter of suicidal flippant careless negligence.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2013-04-12 06:33:49 and read 8160 times.

Actually, I never said anything about CAT 3 or a 20ft DA. It was an autoland to a CAT 1 operation with good weather conditions. The Jepps chart has a small note to one side which was missed by the operating crew about it being an offset ILS. I also never said that the Captain conducted the briefing. I never said what airline this was. Do not assume it was my own. I know plenty of other pilots at other airlines and over a beer or two we often recount stories.

Incidents happen everywhere. Like I said, most never see the light of day. I am sure at AF as well there are plenty of incidents that do not see the light of day. Even if the average figure for airlines of 'public' incidents vs non-public ones are 50% then some airlines still have far more than average numbers don't they?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-12 07:01:54 and read 8140 times.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 151):
I am sure at AF as well there are plenty of incidents that do not see the light of day. Even if the average figure for airlines of 'public' incidents vs non-public ones are 50% then some airlines still have far more than average numbers don't they?

All airlines have a lot of incidents, that do not see the light of day. Of course, they are investigated internally, but they somehow don't make it into the public eye.

I have a lot of friends in a lot of airlines, and we often discuss "events" that while could be embarrassing if known publicly, do not make it there. Including some rather bizarre "events" at CX itself.

While I understand your theory of 50%, I think it is more a function of the country investigating. For example, in Canada I would put that number closer to 95% as ALL events are in the public domain through Transport Canada. That is why one sees such a high number of Canadian events on AvHerald, for example, as his source is Transport Canada.

I don't know why everyone loves to pick on AF. I personally would have no problem flying on them, as I am certain they are safe. The fact that the events of AF447 lead to the changes of stall procedures at all airlines would indicate it was not an AF trait, more that they were the first "gotcha". With regard to this incident, while a bit of a fumble, I am certain they were not the first, nor the last. I see the Captain reverted to his old principles of flying, and simply got the aircraft out of there, whether it a Cessna 150 or a Triple.

Bringing up the loss of a bunch of B707s 40 years ago is odd, as many have noted, that had happened at a lot of airlines. In fact TCA/AC lost three DC-8s between 1963 and 1970, with an additional one "almost lost" but it was extensively repaired .... only to the lost shortly after!

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-12 08:43:52 and read 7951 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 152):
I don't know why everyone loves to pick on AF.

Interesting that the thread I started yesterday AF A380 Collision With OH CRJ - A Few Facts (by Kaiarahi Apr 11 2013 in Civil Aviation) has attracted almost no comments.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-13 04:05:03 and read 7359 times.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 151):
It was an autoland to a CAT 1 operation with good weather conditions. The Jepps chart has a small note to one side which was missed by the operating crew about it being an offset ILS.

Doesn't change the fact that this important item was missed by all three pilots

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 151):
I also never said that the Captain conducted the briefing

But there was a briefing, wasn't there ? Unless SOPs were a lot shoddier than most airlines I know... and, as it is normally done with the charts and plates pertaining to the airport and the approach in hand, my point is that, for the second time they missed a very important feature of that runway...
So, the rest of my post above stands, with another very important fact : They were in good weather conditions, you said ... and not one of these three characters noticed that during the whole approach the geometry was wrong : that alone speaks oodles about vigilance, xchecks, monitoring requirements in that airline.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 151):
Incidents happen everywhere. Like I said, most never see the light of day.

This one should have : a go around was performed, which puts it into a preliminary airline / ATC investigation... I understand then that it stopped at just the exchange of letters between them... The airline / ATC should have reported it as a * serious incident* (in France or at AF, a BEA investigation would have followed ).
For me it's still a matter of suicidal flippant careless negligence.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 152):
The fact that the events of AF447 lead to the changes of stall procedures at all airlines would indicate it was not an AF trait, more that they were the first "gotcha"

  ... but it's easier to voice prejudice... nothing was ever said about the XL accident near Perpignan : the pilots were German and Neo Zelanders - they never make mistakes... and I could go on until the end of this year...

As for accidents affecting the airline record, very few have remarked that on the BA T7 LHR crash, had the engines rolled back ten seconds earlier, they would have hit the fence, punctured the wing tanks ( I let you imagine the rest... )
had it happened another 10 seconds earlier, the crash would have seen a few broken houses, jet fuel all over the place... On the other hand, had that runway in Toronto had a flat overrun surface instead of a ravine, the accident would have been just a blush on a captain's face instead of a career-and-psychological destroying mishap. (and remember, the Air France flight attendants did a sterling job evacuating all passengers from a burning cabin ).

Don't misunderstand me : There are problems at AF which other airlines don't know : Mainly the integration of two completely different safety / SOPs... cultures that takes longer than first imagined.
...but the sharks feeding frenzy is the order of the day as far as we're concerned...

Where does that contribute to air safety, I wonder... the discussion on SOPs got bogged down in generalities, strict principles and basically, even when I quoted the CRM aspects of flight procedures - including the NASA original document - I was replied to by - again - psychological rigidity . I have never seen that *quality* as improving air safety... Have you ?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-13 13:58:32 and read 6832 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
nothing was ever said about the XL accident near Perpignan : the pilots were German and Neo Zelanders

But ATC was French and it was an Airbus   . Seriously, the safety culture at NZ has always been intense, but they've nevertheless lost an Electra, a DC8, a DC10 (Erebus) and an A320 (Perpignan).

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-13 14:11:43 and read 6750 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 152):
The fact that the events of AF447 lead to the changes of stall procedures at all airlines would indicate it was not an AF trait, more that they were the first "gotcha".

Most accidents lead to overhaul of procedures to improve safety in aviation. This does not hide the fact that AF447 and the incident this thread points to the fact that there is something to be done to increase safety at Air France. The common factor at recent AF events has been pilot errors of simple nature that could be avoided with better training. It has not just been bad luck.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-13 14:21:24 and read 6738 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 156):
The common factor at recent AF events has been pilot errors of simple nature that could be avoided with better training.

If you think CRM breakdown is "simple", you've never tried to fix a dysfunctional/underperforming team/organization. I do it for a living, and "training" is not a panacea. It's made more complex in an airline environment by the fact that the "team" (flight crew) changes with each duty rotation. Teamwork training is most effective with intact teams, which can't happen in an airline environment.

[Edited 2013-04-13 15:15:42]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-04-13 14:36:30 and read 6681 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 56):
Any crew member should be able to call the Go-Around because maybe the non-PF sees something the PF doesn't

No ! No ! and No !
The "GO AROUND !" call comes only from the PF or the Captain can take over and call it himself. there is no other way.
Once again, the extra crew member, if asked, can provide an opinion or an advice or point to an abnormality... Nothing more.

So if the captain is PF, the F/O can't call the go-around? That's not right.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-13 14:40:58 and read 6670 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 158):
So if the captain is PF, the F/O can't call the go-around? That's not right.

Read the post in context instead of selective editing.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-13 16:12:40 and read 6554 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 156):
Most accidents lead to overhaul of procedures to improve safety in aviation. This does not hide the fact that AF447 and the incident this thread points to the fact that there is something to be done to increase safety at Air France. The common factor at recent AF events has been pilot errors of simple nature that could be avoided with better training. It has not just been bad luck.

It does point to a possible weakness in the Go Around selection means on a Boeing compared to Airbus. In practice, the Go Around button is infrequently, but the engine controls are. When you have to make a split second decision that could be life or death, you have to push a button you never touch. It's not something that comes naturally and quickly. In this case, he pushed the wrong button, instead he pushed one that he does use normally. On the Airbus, you just have to move a control you use all the time, and push it all the way. I'm not trying to make this an A vs B thing, just thinking of the ergonomics.

[Edited 2013-04-13 16:26:46]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-13 17:05:43 and read 6469 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 160):
When you have to make a split second decision that could be life or death, you have to push a button you never touch. It's not something that comes naturally and quickly.

No? Then what's all that recurrent training and simulator time for?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-04-13 19:44:36 and read 6293 times.

Quoting DalDC9Bos (Reply 106):

Short answer is no. There was no hiring or consulting done.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-13 20:02:05 and read 6277 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 162):
Short answer is no. There was no hiring or consulting done.

Not quite correct : They didn't use Delta ( and why should they ?    )

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-13 21:01:09 and read 6206 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 161):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 160):
When you have to make a split second decision that could be life or death, you have to push a button you never touch. It's not something that comes naturally and quickly.

No? Then what's all that recurrent training and simulator time for?

Human factors sre being studied because humans do not generally behave logically : too many *factors* are involved and there is no training captain I know who arrogantly believezs that the flock he taught / checked would *always* do the right thing.
Ergonomlics is a science that tends to replace *logic* with *natural*, *instinctive* reactions.

The best example, IMO comes from Boeing :
On this very subject of go around and for the same TOGA necessity :
the 737 uses palm switches ( behind the throttles )
the 747 classic does the same, but only on levers 2 and 3
the 767 uses thumb switches ( one for each pilot )
and for the 744 and later models ( don't know about the 787), spindly levers in front of the throttles.
It took a long time to come out with a satisfying arrangement.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-04-13 21:58:17 and read 6126 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
Although I must admit that it was the other aircraft's fault.

Must you? See this--> AF A380 Collision With OH CRJ - A Few Facts (by Kaiarahi Apr 11 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 7):
First to crash A340: I forget the exact cause, but I think this too was mostly about crew problems. Luckily no victims.

Wasn't that the Airbus crew trying to climb a fence?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-13 23:03:30 and read 6063 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 160):
It does point to a possible weakness in the Go Around selection means on a Boeing compared to Airbus. In practice, the Go Around button is infrequently, but the engine controls are. When you have to make a split second decision that could be life or death, you have to push a button you never touch. It's not something that comes naturally and quickly. In this case, he pushed the wrong button, instead he pushed one that he does use normally. On the Airbus, you just have to move a control you use all the time, and push it all the way. I'm not trying to make this an A vs B thing, just thinking of the ergonomics.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? The TO/GA Switch (not Go Around button - buttons are on the pilots shirts; switches are on the flight deck) is used pretty much every flight to set take-off thrust.

You think you have this bright idea that Boeing airplanes have a weakness in how you select the autoflight system into a Go-Around mode and no-one else has ever thought of that in the history of designing Boeing airplanes? Glad you finally pointed it out.  

I don't know the details of the AF incident, or would I be authorized to discuss it even if I did, but your statement is extemely ludicrous and shows your lack of understanding how airplane Human Machine Interfaces are designed. Boeing has more PhD and Tech Fellow level Human Factors experts that study stuff like this, than you could count.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: sturmovik
Posted 2013-04-14 05:24:18 and read 5757 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 165):
Wasn't that the Airbus crew trying to climb a fence?

That was an A346. AF lost an A343 before that while landing at Toronto. No fatalities thanks to what was generally regarded as a great example of an evacuation by the cabin crew.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2013-04-14 07:14:20 and read 5599 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
Doesn't change the fact that this important item was missed by all three pilots

The jumpseater was not part of the operating crew for that flight and as I understand it, not present for the descent brief.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
But there was a briefing, wasn't there ?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
and not one of these three characters noticed that during the whole approach the geometry was wrong : that alone speaks oodles about vigilance, xchecks, monitoring requirements in that airline.

There was a crosswind at the time. I don't know the details but I know that it helped to mark the fact they the approach was offset by a few degrees.

I am not making excuses for the crew. They screwed up and the captain no longer flies for the company. You wanted an example where the jumpseater called a go-around and I gave you one.

If you have spent much time on jumpseats you will know that you can see a lot more of the operation than sitting in a control seat. A skilled observer, unloaded from the task of flying in the 'hot seat' can notice many things before the pilots in the control seat. If you disagree with that, then you obviously have not spent much time in the jumpseat of a plane you are part of the operating crew on. When I was a Second Officer it was my job to sit on the jump seat and on many occassions I noticed things before the operating crew. Few of them were major but a qualified person on the jumpseat is a very valuable extra set of eyes and they are more than qualified to point out things to the operating crew and in extreme cases call 'go-around' if need be.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
Don't misunderstand me : There are problems at AF which other airlines don't know

Finally....

Quoting Pihero (Reply 154):
This one should have : a go around was performed, which puts it into a preliminary airline / ATC investigation.

Actually depeding on the circumstances, ATC get told a plane is going around. They file it away in their statistics after asking for a reason. The crew involved can file or not file a safety report. It is recommended if doing a go-around below minimums but if they choose never to file one, there is no investigation. Its case closed. If they do file one, the safety department assesses whether an investigation is needed and in most cases it is case closed. Our safety department alone receives several safety reports a day, be it a bird strike to ATC deficiency, to any other reason the crew feel they should file one. Most are filed away with no further investigation required.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-04-14 07:14:40 and read 5597 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 159):

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 158):
So if the captain is PF, the F/O can't call the go-around? That's not right.

Read the post in context instead of selective editing.

I think that it's rather a poor choice of words on Pihero than me. He's so caught up in the discussion that he misspelled what he means to say.... like that captain caught up in the go-around.



Let me comment on this incident.
After reading the report of the BEA, I found that the result of the actions was very close to a major disaster.

First of all, in my opinion, a qualified observer must be allowed to point to critical information that the PF and PNF aren't reacting to. Hence, the "alarm" call should be allowed. However, he should also have stated the nature of the "alarm", so that the PF who was focused on gaining the visual, could get the full situational awareness instantly.
Later on this observer would add a significant input by pointing to the nose-dow pitch twice, making the captain realise that he was doing it all wrong. The observer saved this flight's outcome.

Second, the lack of communication makes this a real amateur operation. There was no CRM at all.
The captain should have announced "TOGA" pressed, pitch set, the PNF should have checked both and said "checked TOGA and pitch", the PNF should have pushed announced Flaps 20 and the PF should have checked it "checked".
There is nothing obvious enough to not mention in CRM, because each action is critical and needs to be checked.

The PNF should have monitored the pitch instead of falling back to passiveness and should have pointed the captain to it, all while monitoring ROC and speed. The observer covered this role by his "pitch" input.

My opinion:
-The captain has despite his huge experience, made too many mistakes and errors of judgement, for something as basic as a go-around, so in my opinion, he is not suited for this job (anymore).
Re-training him won't help, since he wasn't able to convert his past training (and goa-round is very basic) into an automatism, which after 14000 hours are so obvious, regardless of whether he's surprised or not.
I don't think that bad company training would explain why he botched a simple go-around.
His lack of CRM capabilites could point to a bad CRM culture at AF. But CRM is not only a matter of training, but also about individual and group lazyness. So here, I would go as far as to blame human resources for not profiling the pilots adequately for their discipline and communication.

So I think that this captain should no longer fly.

-The PNF maintained a good judgement and situational awareness level, made the right go-around call, but failed to monitor the PF's actions or knew about it but didn't tell him out of respect (and said so in the report to lighten the load on the captain's bad actions) and just did his thing in the interest of maintaining both safety and "friendship".
This is a major failure of the PNF. A PNF should not be afraid to look over the center console to look at what the PF is doing, regardless of the PF's status or experience, and to tell him what he's doing wrong.
But excellent flying instincts of operating the yoke, regardless of his status of PNF.

I would prescribe training on monitoring, and most importantly assertiveness. I think that in reality, he knew very well what was going on, but became overly passive on communication out of respect for the captain and that that lack of assertiveness lead to bad CRM.

-The observer also reflected a lack of CRM by not providing complete information. This perhaps out of respect of his position as an observer, but when you see someone that is clearly 1 mile behind the aircraft and doing stupid things, respect should be tossed out of the window, in the interest of the safe outcome of the flight.

Some training on assertiveness would probably solve the CRM part.


I think that AF's problem is not only lack of decent CRM, but a culture where open communication and assertiveness is not allowed or promoted. A F/O shouldn't be afraid to ask a captain what the %¨*%££+ he thinks he's doing and the correct course of action to be taken.
I would also visit AF's training centre to see if the sim training is really taking place and that it's not on paper, given lack of basic handling skills and automatisms in recent incidents.

Knowing the French and having flown with French people, I think that the culture at AF's flight ops is one of prioritising the "being cool" factor based on complacency, and to reserve the real CRM only for training or checks. I'm sure that the actual CRM training is taking place, but it's not being used as it should be.

How do you fix that culture when even a crash didn't change that? In my opinion, the only way to achieve it is to make aware through corporate communication and training, monitor by registering the CRM through the recorders, and threaten to fire where it's not taking place.

So IMO, the chief pilots and management share the responsibility as they aren't doing enough to take control of this situation.


I personally won't fly AF anymore until their pilots stop caring more about themselves being cool than me arriving safely to the destination. I'll review my position after 5 to 10 years by seeing if these kinds of accidents stop happening.

[Edited 2013-04-14 07:32:59]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-04-14 08:28:40 and read 5465 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 166):
buttons are on the pilots shirts; switches are on the flight deck

Buttons are on the flight deck too. Switches have various positions that they could be in (on, off, auto, etc.), but that's not the case for the TOGA buttons - they get pressed and then return to their original position.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 169):
So I think that this captain should no longer fly.

And what exactly will that accomplish? Unless you think he was just careless (and I see no evidence to corroborate that), there should be some retraining and then he should be back on the line.

-Mir

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-14 10:02:30 and read 5316 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 170):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 166):
buttons are on the pilots shirts; switches are on the flight deck

Buttons are on the flight deck too. Switches have various positions that they could be in (on, off, auto, etc.), but that's not the case for the TOGA buttons - they get pressed and then return to their original position.

By proper terminology, at least at my company, it's a TO/GA Switch. Just because it returns to its original position doesn't make it any different. The A/P and A/T Disconnect Switches are switches also.

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 167):
That was an A346. AF lost an A343 before that while landing at Toronto. No fatalities thanks to what was generally regarded as a great example of an evacuation by the cabin crew.

Yep, AF358 educated everyone about what Flight Attendants do besides serving coffee. Airplane runs off the runway into a gully at like 80 kts and catches fire. No-one dies. Somebody was very well trained.

Now they should have done a go-around when the airplane was floating down the runway with a tailwind and poor braking action reported in the middle of a monsoon. Better yet, they should have been at their alternate, YOW.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-04-14 10:28:35 and read 5266 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 170):
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 169):
So I think that this captain should no longer fly.

And what exactly will that accomplish? Unless you think he was just careless (and I see no evidence to corroborate that), there should be some retraining and then he should be back on the line.

Like I said, all the re-training isn't going to help a guy with 14.000 hours get more proficient at go-arounds and CRM. The guy is no longer suited for the job when he pushes the wrong button for TOGA, makes the aircraft pitch down towards the ground almost crashing it, all while applying horrible CRM.
He lost all situational awareness in a very simple situation.

The captain is the guy who must maintain awareness and control of the aircraft at any moment and should be someone who knows what he's doing every step of the flight and be on top of every situation. Small errors can be allowed but this is gross negligence and almost resulted in CFIT.
Fortunately the PNF and the observer didn't get dragged into it by him and maintained their situational awareness while quickly realising that the captain lost situational awareness, leading to the safe outcome of the flight. If anything, kudo's to the observer for daring to open his mouth and indirectly criticising the captain's control inputs. Kudo's for the FO/PNF for daring to contradict the captain's control inputs, an in a company with such a difficult hierarchy culture. Kudo's to both these guys for maintaining their temper,
and trying to protect their captain in front of the BEA investigators while he had almost killed them.

If I were the observer, I wouldn't have been so nice to the captain, I'd probably have asked him what was wrong with him and "incapacitated" him if he didn't listen, way before that aircraft reached 63 feet. You never know when a man could go haywire and short final or during a go-around would be a very bad timing.

[Edited 2013-04-14 10:40:57]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-14 10:42:04 and read 5241 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 172):
a company with such a difficult hierarchy culture.

Do you have evidence to support this assertion?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-04-14 10:47:16 and read 5217 times.

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 167):
AF lost an A343 before that while landing at Toronto.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-04-14 11:17:53 and read 5142 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 172):
If anything, kudo's to the observer for daring to open his mouth and indirectly criticising the captain's control inputs. Kudo's

Does it seem like the observer saved the aircraft?

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-04-14 12:00:57 and read 5033 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 175):
Does it seem like the observer saved the aircraft?

He did, as he was the one that pointed both pilots to the undesirably low pitch attitude, twice.

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-04-14 18:34:59 and read 4388 times.

Let's go back tto the discussion here.

1/- Contrarily to some interpretations, we are in agreement on the right of all the flight deck occupants to speak up : The era of the *Lords of the Atlantic / Pacific* is long gone and CRM has changed that.

2/- The difference is that - again contrarily to some posters - the intervention of anyone in the flight deck should lead to a smooth / coordinated implementation of SOPs... designed for a two-crewmembers operation.

3/- The procedures are designed so that any call out brings a two-pilot crew a/- on the latest perception of the conduct of the flighht and b/- on the same project of action, which both pilots have trained for and which leads to a drill or a procedure... it is to note that the *Warning !* call is one of the the very few call-outs that do not need an exact, litteral reading of the FMA or the ECAM.

Any argument, so far ?

4/- The introduction of another pilot into that well laid set-up is not easy : he/she could see - sometimes better or sometimes sooner - abnormalities in the flight progress.
The very important question - at the heart of this event and this discussion - is * how to add a better synergy to this cockpit and how to speak-up without breaking the main link of perception-->strategy-->decision-->command--> procedure*
This item is of the utmost importance as an observer brings another perception in the flight deck... the problem is how to convey that perception to the flight crew., how to stay together on the same page of the book.

Here, the report says that the observer called " Warning !"
THe F/O who had normally the responsibility of that procedural call - i.e trigger - responded by calling "Go Around !", which is the *automatic* response to the warning... Problem was he wasn't PF and removed from the Capt both knowledge of the situation, the procedure and the decision which was his in the autoland procedure.

Now, the first question is : Where was the emergency ? ( they were at some 450 ft from touch-down ), and... Did the observer manage to pass his perception of an abnormality to the Capt and the F/O ? Obviously not, in the case of the F/O and certainly not, in the case of the Capt who, looking outside had no idea of what was going on in his cockpit : why a go around ? Is the F/O going to fly it ? Has he taken over ? What am I doing ? What am I going to do ?
The break-down of that cockpit functioning was quasi total.

In ideal conditions what should the observer have said, or done ?
1/- just announce the FMA change : "Land 2", or "No land 3" which is normal SOPs
2/- or just give the F/O a nudge and point his attention to the ECAM message...

... at which point, the F/O becomes knowledgeable of the changing parameters and calls-out - as the SOPs state - "Warning"... which in turn brings the captain's attention to an abnormality for which the autoland *shall* be discontinued and he calls - still according to SOPs - for a go around.

The Capt's confusion came from the succession of calls he should have been part of... but wasn't.

Please note that all the above is right into NASA's study preamble, which I again quote :
" The NASA research presented at this meeting found that the primary cause of the majority of aviation accidents was human error, and that the main problems were failures of interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit. CRM training encompasses a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitudes including communications, situational awareness, problem solving, decision making, and teamwork..."

I posit that this attitude goes a lot further into flight safety than the simplistic "everybody should have the right to speak up" we - in fact - all agree about...

But how to speak up ?]

Topic: RE: AF Pilots Lose Control Of 777 At Go Around
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-14 19:11:19 and read 4306 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 166):

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? The TO/GA Switch (not Go Around button - buttons are on the pilots shirts; switches are on the flight deck) is used pretty much every flight to set take-off thrust.

You think you have this bright idea that Boeing airplanes have a weakness in how you select the autoflight system into a Go-Around mode and no-one else has ever thought of that in the history of designing Boeing airplanes? Glad you finally pointed it out.  

Thanks for clarifying that. My concern is that, in the heat of the moment, what should be an instinctive motion didn't work, the wrong control was activated. I have no doubt that Boeing work hard at ergonomics. As someone else has pointed out, this is an ongoing process, continually being refined. We can compare the finely controlled action to activate a small switch compared to that of a whole hand on the large throttles. There may still need to be some revision of the ergonomics in light of this event. Either way, no 777 has crashed due to the error that was made this time.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/