Frequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
There had been a discussion at the end of the thread on AF 358 (YYZ rwy overrun): topic was, are pilots nowadays following SOP by the letter, and at the same time "forgetting" to trust their gut feeling and flight/airxcraft posture impressions.
I quote the following from PIHERO
Quoting Pihero (Reply 90): Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 87):
You mean, flying personnel has a tendency now to follow SOP strictly whereas they should balance it with their guts/impressions/airmanship?
You could start a long , very interesting discussion on the subject.
Put simply, I have noticed that nowadays'pilots react to a given set of anomalies/situations/circumstances... whereas airmanship allows for anticipation on the evolution of a situation, making a decision faster and easier to take.
Problem is we are fast losing these experience-teaching guys mainly because training is mostly based on SOP's. Time lacks for airmanship. Problem # 2 is we can't put everything on a check-list and that, combined with adherence to procedures which in this case don't exist can lead to flawed decisions.
RightWayUp From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
With the factual information given so far by the investigators, following Sops would have avoided the overrun. Most if not all major airlines Sops will require a go-around if you have not touched down within the touchdown zone. What we do not know at this point is whether the crew were pressured to continue the landing for fuel reasons. That may have been an airmanship call!
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 78
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
Frequent Flyer was right to take these questions out of the AF358 discussion, as they were more of a general kind.
Airmanship, as I define it , is for instance seeing a set of lenticular clouds at one's altitude and then take every action possible to avoid the -very often- associated turbulence...
It is about making sure during a dark night cruise that one's radar is correctly set to detect thunderheads ahead (replaced now by the newest site sweeping radars)...
It is about flying the upwind side of a preceding aircraft contrails...
And two quizzes :
1/- Your destination is a 7000 Ft runway. Some rain there. Your pre-descent scan shows a flat tyre on your TIPS. What do you do ? (Comments and decision ?)
2/- You've just taken off from base... Some rain there, too. You then get a hot brake warning on one wheel, followed by a wheel well fire alarm...What do you do then ? ..After your initial action, the fire warning disappears...Comments and decision (s) ?
Answers as complete as possible, please.
PS : In an ideal world, I would agree with CX flyboy. Problem is, after having seen quite a few manuals from as many airlines, my judgement is reserved...like for instance switching the A/Throttle only before T/O.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
Every FCOM I have ever seen details the importance of SOP. But, there is also a disclaimer associated with the SOP section. The disclaimer is worded to the effect that the SOPs can't cover each and every situation and the Captain has the authority to deviate from the SOP if in his estimate the SOP will not resolve the problem.
With that said, in general I agree following SOPs will keep someone out of trouble. However, good airmanship will also keep someone out of trouble. The real question is how do you resolve the conflict.
Pihero's two quizzes are fairly easy (from my perspective) for the 744 FCOM handles them very well. The second quiz is very straight forward, the checklist calls for the gear to be lowered, land as soon as conditions permit. You could dump fuel to get to a reasonable landing weight (no runway length specified) or you can leave the gear down and burn fuel off that way. Things to consider:
1) inoperative brake(s)
2) landing distance on a wet runway
The first quiz is a little more complex. What's my landing weight? What's the calculated landing distance with a wet runway? Availability of alternates?
My initial thoughts are to go to an alternate with a longer runway and better weather (dry runway). Realistically, the 744 doesn't operate into runways that short. So, it's more an academic exercise.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 78
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Actually,the second situation involves a sticking brake.
I understand that on a 16 wheel airplane, the situation is less severe, but doing normal braking in this situation could lead to an overheating brake with possible fire in the end.
So my solution is : upon landing, use maximum braking in order to spread the stopping energy over all brakes. I would also ask for a fire vehicle nearby.
Do you agree ?
On the first situation, you are right, you've lost braking on the flat tyre.Both on the 73 and the 320 family, that would preclude a landing on a contaminated runway (so the question has to asked from the tower, even in case of light rain).
These are the sort of situations that in my opinion require both a knowledge of procedures and involve some lateral thinking, which is airmanship about.
Believe me , I did not try to be pedantic.