Greg Bockelman
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,093
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Do we know if it was the Pilot of first officer who landed the plane?
Does not matter.
Do we know if it was the Pilot of first officer who landed the plane?
Clearly they should/could use "electronic means" before they start approach to decide if this is the right airport -specially that it is so easy. A chance spotting of runway is not a sufficient confirmation that this is the intended destination. Clearly some process of arriving at the decision - right/wrong airport is needed and I don't think they will be unfolding sectionals...do not use electronic means to back up visual approaches.
Right. You may note that in one of the cases I linked, the respondent was the F/O, claiming that it was all the Captain's fault. That didn't fly -- they both got suspensions.Does not matter.
What if the investigation shows flaws in SWA procedures (such as visual approach) or something such as a database error is uncovered, or a human factors event (fatigue, stress, etc) is a contributing factor?
SWA policy a contributing factor? That would never happen.....cough, Chicago Midway, ...cough....
I am not a conspiracy nut but I have to think they landed at this airport for some other reason.
Just curious if the sim training at any company includes discovering that you are about to touch down on a runway that has unexpected numbers painted on it.
Seems to me that that should be done in the sim, since we're seeing that it happens in real life.
Yep.
It's happened with other carriers, an incident or accident occurs and the investigation discovers an SOP is poorly written or doesn't adequately cover the situation. The company is then faced with a rewrite and retraining to correct it.
While in the CMO I worked several PD's (pilot deviations) of busted altitudes. These started happening with frequency. We discovered the standards department of the carrier had implemented a SOP that while climbing if a flight level was issued ( say through 10,000 feet to FL210) the crew was to set standard in the altimeter then, not wait until FL180.
You guessed it, they would set standard then get an intermediate level off (say 15,000). Then the altitude bust happens.
We "suggested" to the Standards to reevaluate their procedure to stop the PD's as well as mitigate a potential risk.
You consider them great pilots for getting out of an emergency they put themselves into?
hmmmmmm.
Is there not a FAR requirement saying a pilot needs to set the altimeter to the last known baro setting....
Does a company have the ability to alter FAR's to fit the mission..
Seems to me if they could change the rules, they could then add lower landing minimums so they had less missed approaches and save on fuel and delays... It is the whole pandora box thingie..
Is there not a FAR requirement saying a pilot needs to set the altimeter to the last known baro setting....
Does a company have the ability to alter FAR's to fit the mission..
Seems to me if they could change the rules, they could then add lower landing minimums so they had less missed approaches and save on fuel and delays... It is the whole pandora box thingie..
How is that altering the FARs? Do you wait until the exact altitude to change? I know someone who does that. Most people lead it by some amount, sometimes by a lot. It doesn't really matter unless, as R&W points out, you get an intermediate level-off.Is there not a FAR requirement saying a pilot needs to set the altimeter to the last known baro setting....
Does a company have the ability to alter FAR's to fit the mission..
They were cleared to the flight levels. The altimeter setting in the flight levels is 29.92. That is by definition the flight levels.
A company has the ability to be stricter than the FARs. NEVER less restrictive.
They can't change the rules unless it is MORE restrictive than the FARs.
How is that altering the FARs? Do you wait until the exact altitude to change? I know someone who does that. Most people lead it by some amount, sometimes by a lot. It doesn't really matter unless, as R&W points out, you get an intermediate level-off.
I guess you would be the guy that take it so literally that you would change it at the exact moment you cross 18,000'. But it doesn't really matter if you have already been cleared into the flight levels unless you get an intermediate level-off. I don't do it thousands of feet early (although I've seen people do it) but if I see a 17 on the altimeter going up or a 19 coming down I will usually change it then (unless cleared to FL180). In fact it's important to be careful coming down if you get cleared to 17,000' and the altimeter is low. You don't want to wait to long to reset it.91.121 (a) 2
My understanding is that airline operations manuals have to be FAA-approved, but I don't know whether that covers this issue.
I guess you would be the guy that take it so literally that you would change it at the exact moment you cross 18,000'. But it doesn't really matter if you have already been cleared into the flight levels unless you get an intermediate level-off. I don't do it thousands of feet early (although I've seen people do it) but if I see a 17 on the altimeter going up or a 19 coming down I will usually change it then (unless cleared to FL180). In fact it's important to be careful coming down if you get cleared to 17,000' and the altimeter is low. You don't want to wait to long to reset it.
I guess you would be the guy that take it so literally that you would change it at the exact moment you cross 18,000'.
I agree that is risky thing to do it that early as someone apparently found out, because there is a chance you might get an intermediate level-off. However I'll tell you that there is a wide variation in technique about when to change the altimeter, from a few thousand feet early to right on, but I've never seen it discussed and I never cared enough about it to bring it up to other people.No, but the premise was that if they were at...say...5,000' and got cleared to FL350, the SOP was to reset the altimeter to 29.92 almost immediately. Then, if they got an intermediate level-off at...say...15,000' they'd regularly bust altitudes.
I agree that is risky thing to do it that early as someone apparently found out, because there is a chance you might get an intermediate level-off. However I'll tell you that there is a wide variation in technique about when to change the altimeter, from a few thousand feet early to right on, but I've never seen it discussed and I never cared enough about it to bring it up to other people.
My responses were mostly to people who were wondering how such a procedure could be adopted since they think it is a violation of the FARs. I was just pointing out that most pilots don't change the altimeter right on the altitude and that the amount they lead it by differs. I've never heard of the procedure you describe, though.My point in this is a procedure (SOP) that is adopted that initially sounds good but in reality creates another problem. These happen from time to time in air carrier operations and until something bad happens goes unnoticed.
My point in this is a procedure (SOP) that is adopted that initially sounds good but in reality creates another problem. These happen from time to time in air carrier operations and until something bad happens goes unnoticed.
In the case of company policy causing pilot deviations, does the crew get hung with the violation or does the company accept that responsibility?
My responses were mostly to people who were wondering how such a procedure could be adopted since they think it is a violation of the FARs. I was just pointing out that most pilots don't change the altimeter right on the altitude and that the amount they lead it by differs. I've never heard of the procedure you describe, though.
In the case of company policy causing pilot deviations, does the crew get hung with the violation or does the company accept that responsibility?
PIC has the FINAL responsibility of the flight..... My money is on the PIC getting dinged with the offense... IMHO..
A number of years I was the PIC of a flight which overflew required maintenance. The maintenance department discovered it and self-disclosed to the FAA. No one got in trouble, in fact I never heard about it again, but we had to come up with a better method of releasing flights.
There is a BIG difference between flying a plane that didn't have "required maintenance done ( which you probably had no clue was not performed) and landing at the wrong airport.. ( which the PIC had total control over)... IMHO.....
There is a BIG difference between flying a plane that didn't have "required maintenance done ( which you probably had no clue was not performed) and landing at the wrong airport.. ( which the PIC had total control over)... IMHO.....
PIC has the FINAL responsibility of the flight..... My money is on the PIC getting dinged with the offense... IMHO..
You did post this...
Does it matter what size the offense is? I thought we were taking about the pilots who had altitude deviations because of the company procedure anyway.
There is a BIG difference between flying a plane that didn't have "required maintenance done ( which you probably had no clue was not performed) and landing at the wrong airport.. ( which the PIC had total control over)... IMHO.....
For sake of argument, what if it's discovered the FMS database had the wrong runway coordinates installed and the crew selected the runway for Branson but it was actually the other airport? And what "if" they had an SOP that stated "electronic backup of the landing runway is encouraged but not mandatory".
While there may have been reasons why he could have still avoided this mishap, do we still place all of the blame on the crew or do we use the acquired data and mitigate the risk?
I spent a good bit of time going up and down between the QNH levels and Flight Levels in the military, and I never learned to do it any other way -- when cleared from a Flight Level down below the transition level, we always set the altimeters as soon as the descent was started, and did not wait to pass FL180 to do that. Maybe that was just the military, but I can think of a number of safety reasons why that's probably the best way to do it.In ICAO world if descending and the ATC issues the clearance "descend on QNH" from the flight levels then you can change your altimeter to QNH at that time.
From the NTSB:
On Jan 17th 2014 the NTSB reported that the aircraft was piloted by a captain with about 16,000 hours of flying experience and a first officer with about 25,000 hours of flying experience. The captain was on his first approach to Branson Airport, the first officer had flown into Branson one time before however in daylight. Air Traffic Control informed the crew they were 15nm from their destination, the crew advised they had the airfield in sight, and the air traffic controller cleared the flight for a visual approach to Branson's runway 14. The crew did not realize until after landing that they were at the wrong airport. The NTSB collected two hours of good recordings from the cockpit voice recorder and about 27 hours of data from the flight data recorder. In addition to the interviews with the two pilots the NTSB also talked to a Southwest Airlines dispatcher who was occupying the observer's seat. The crew reported they had programmed the approach into the flight management system, however then saw the airport beacon and runway lights that they identified as Branson Airport. They believed to be at Branson Airport until after touchdown when they applied heavy braking to stop the aircraft on the runway, then they radioed Branson Tower that they had landed at the wrong airport.
Graham Clark Airport features a runway 12/30 with 3738 feet/1140 meters length with only GPS/RNAV approach procedures published, Airport features a runway 14/Branson32 with 7140 feet/2175 meters length with an ILS approach to runway 32 and a GPS/RNAV approach to runway 14.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA4013/history/20140112/2145Z/KMDW/KBBG
Metars:
KBBG 130246Z 18015G28KT 10SM SCT250 14/M02 A2970=
KBBG 130152Z 17010KT 10SM FEW250 14/M02 A2971=
KBBG 130055Z 18011KT 10SM FEW250 15/M02 A2971=
KBBG 122347Z 15012G23KT 10SM FEW250 17/M02 A2970=
KBBG 122245Z 17008G16KT 10SM SKC 17/M03 A2971=
KBBG 122145Z 16013G19KT 10SM SKC 18/M03 A2972=
There is a program for Part 121 carriers to set up a system in which self-disclosure of a violation the FAA did not hear about some other way first allows the carrier to fix the problem without FAA enforcement action against either the personnel or the operator. For more on the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), see http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/asap/.A number of years I was the PIC of a flight which overflew required maintenance. The maintenance department discovered it and self-disclosed to the FAA. No one got in trouble, in fact I never heard about it again, but we had to come up with a better method of releasing flights.
But this was a Part 135 company. We don't have a formal ASAP program.There is a program for Part 121 carriers to set up a system in which self-disclosure of a violation the FAA did not hear about some other way first allows the carrier to fix the problem without FAA enforcement action against either the personnel or the operator. For more on the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), see http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/asap/.