Emirates EK521 preliminary report released
09-06-2016, 10:18 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 142
Emirates EK521 preliminary report released
Just preliminary but still nice to read:
UAE Civil Aviation Authority releases preliminary report on Emirates EK521 accident
UAE Civil Aviation Authority releases preliminary report on Emirates EK521 accident
09-07-2016, 12:27 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Early Retiree SWA
Posts: 354
At EK, the culture there is to make you a robot of the automation. They seem to take out the airmanship equation to flying.
They are required under penalty of a warning letter... to turn on the autopilot by 10,000, and below that on descent. Mandatory!
The RAAS system is to be followed like the bible. It blurted out, "Long Landing" and even with 9,000 ft remaining to land, as I recall, it is a requirement to go around at EK.
Anyways, rumour around the expat world is that these guys have been asked to resign. Typical of Emirates... Shoot first, ask questions later.
K
Former EK Robot/Part number
They are required under penalty of a warning letter... to turn on the autopilot by 10,000, and below that on descent. Mandatory!
The RAAS system is to be followed like the bible. It blurted out, "Long Landing" and even with 9,000 ft remaining to land, as I recall, it is a requirement to go around at EK.
Anyways, rumour around the expat world is that these guys have been asked to resign. Typical of Emirates... Shoot first, ask questions later.
K
Former EK Robot/Part number
09-14-2016, 08:43 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 287
Not just automation reliance
Doesn't it say something about fundamental airmanship more than automation...
Yes I understand, automation reliance has caused issues...easy to blame the airline culture or the SOPs. But this is different.
What is the first thing taught from day one of flight training...especially if you have an instructor who teaches go-arounds BEFORE teaching landings? TO/GA power (or full throttle, as the case may be)...everything else second.
This terrible accident and the one at SFO both could have been so much worse, so I wonder if they will get the attention they need.
They both speak volumes about serious gaps in fundamental flying skills in some pilots at some foreign carriers...in a way that goes very far beyond a degradation in skills from over-reliance upon automation.
We need AVIATORS, not BUTTON-PUSHERS in flight decks around the world...whether its a Cessna 172 or a B777.
This is one of those issues that I fear will only get worse, given the surging global demand for pilots...
Yes I understand, automation reliance has caused issues...easy to blame the airline culture or the SOPs. But this is different.
What is the first thing taught from day one of flight training...especially if you have an instructor who teaches go-arounds BEFORE teaching landings? TO/GA power (or full throttle, as the case may be)...everything else second.
This terrible accident and the one at SFO both could have been so much worse, so I wonder if they will get the attention they need.
They both speak volumes about serious gaps in fundamental flying skills in some pilots at some foreign carriers...in a way that goes very far beyond a degradation in skills from over-reliance upon automation.
We need AVIATORS, not BUTTON-PUSHERS in flight decks around the world...whether its a Cessna 172 or a B777.
This is one of those issues that I fear will only get worse, given the surging global demand for pilots...
09-14-2016, 12:56 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B747 F/O
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by FlyingSlowly
Doesn't it say something about fundamental airmanship more than automation...
Yes I understand, automation reliance has caused issues...easy to blame the airline culture or the SOPs. But this is different.
What is the first thing taught from day one of flight training...especially if you have an instructor who teaches go-arounds BEFORE teaching landings? TO/GA power (or full throttle, as the case may be)...everything else second.
This terrible accident and the one at SFO both could have been so much worse, so I wonder if they will get the attention they need.
They both speak volumes about serious gaps in fundamental flying skills in some pilots at some foreign carriers...in a way that goes very far beyond a degradation in skills from over-reliance upon automation.
We need AVIATORS, not BUTTON-PUSHERS in flight decks around the world...whether its a Cessna 172 or a B777.
This is one of those issues that I fear will only get worse, given the surging global demand for pilots...
Yes I understand, automation reliance has caused issues...easy to blame the airline culture or the SOPs. But this is different.
What is the first thing taught from day one of flight training...especially if you have an instructor who teaches go-arounds BEFORE teaching landings? TO/GA power (or full throttle, as the case may be)...everything else second.
This terrible accident and the one at SFO both could have been so much worse, so I wonder if they will get the attention they need.
They both speak volumes about serious gaps in fundamental flying skills in some pilots at some foreign carriers...in a way that goes very far beyond a degradation in skills from over-reliance upon automation.
We need AVIATORS, not BUTTON-PUSHERS in flight decks around the world...whether its a Cessna 172 or a B777.
This is one of those issues that I fear will only get worse, given the surging global demand for pilots...
09-14-2016, 05:36 PM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant
The RAAS system is to be followed like the bible. It blurted out, "Long Landing" and even with 9,000 ft remaining to land, as I recall, it is a requirement to go around at EK.
09-14-2016, 07:45 PM
#6
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by UBA727
So you say this is only a problem at "some foreign carriers"?
One of the two airlines that merged into the current airline I work for is shockingly reliant on automation. Much more so than any US carrier I have ever seen, and I have ridden in the cockpit of every major US carrier a lot of times.
09-14-2016, 08:30 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
Reliance on automation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. If I was in the back of a Cathay B777 executing an engine out missed approach in Hong Kong, I would hope that the automation was working properly, and that the crew was using it. Quite frankly it's foolish to expect a pilot to hand-fly a complex arrival into a busy international airport after a long haul flight. All you're going to accomplish, is to overload the monitoring pilot.
For the handful of situations where automation has contributed to an accident or incident, there are likely thousands of 'situations' where automation has prevented something bad from happening.
For the most part, widebody long-haul crews may get to fly two or three legs a month. Trying to pretend that you're as proficient at hand flying as a guppy driver who flies forty legs a month into low risk airports is a fools errand.
For the handful of situations where automation has contributed to an accident or incident, there are likely thousands of 'situations' where automation has prevented something bad from happening.
For the most part, widebody long-haul crews may get to fly two or three legs a month. Trying to pretend that you're as proficient at hand flying as a guppy driver who flies forty legs a month into low risk airports is a fools errand.
09-14-2016, 10:15 PM
#8
Squawking 2000
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: Skeptical
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by tailwheel48
Reliance on automation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
Not to get bogged down in a semantic argument, but:
re·li·ance
rəˈlīəns/
noun
dependence on or trust in someone or something.
"the farmer's reliance on pesticides"
synonyms: dependence, dependency More archaic a person or thing on which someone depends.
plural noun: reliances
rəˈlīəns/
noun
dependence on or trust in someone or something.
"the farmer's reliance on pesticides"
synonyms: dependence, dependency More archaic a person or thing on which someone depends.
plural noun: reliances
There will come a day in the near future that self-driving cars will become the norm. I'm OK with that because I rationally comprehend the average increase in safety and efficiency that tech will provide, but when the poop hits the disc in ten years or so I have zero doubt that I will be less able to rise to the occasion as well as I would have been when I was 18 years old.
The sad reality is that in most quarters in the world today, we have fairly full acquiescence to the technology without it's actual technical maturation.
We live in a transitional time: pilots, REAL PILOTS are still required, but it's just so easy to let the computer do it 99.9% of the time...
09-14-2016, 11:16 PM
#9
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by tailwheel48
Reliance on automation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. If I was in the back of a Cathay B777 executing an engine out missed approach in Hong Kong, I would hope that the automation was working properly, and that the crew was using it. Quite frankly it's foolish to expect a pilot to hand-fly a complex arrival into a busy international airport after a long haul flight. All you're going to accomplish, is to overload the monitoring pilot.
For the handful of situations where automation has contributed to an accident or incident, there are likely thousands of 'situations' where automation has prevented something bad from happening.
For the most part, widebody long-haul crews may get to fly two or three legs a month. Trying to pretend that you're as proficient at hand flying as a guppy driver who flies forty legs a month into low risk airports is a fools errand.
For the handful of situations where automation has contributed to an accident or incident, there are likely thousands of 'situations' where automation has prevented something bad from happening.
For the most part, widebody long-haul crews may get to fly two or three legs a month. Trying to pretend that you're as proficient at hand flying as a guppy driver who flies forty legs a month into low risk airports is a fools errand.
We are paid what we are, not for the easy days, but for the bad ones. It is our job to do what we can to maintain our abilities as best we can, even if you only get 1-3 legs a month.
More and more companies are forcing the use of automation on their crews. This will not end well. The approach end of RW 27 at SFO, and the runway lights in Hiroshima not long after, were both taken out by crews from the same airline. Not to mention and Air France A330 and Air Asia A320 losing control in level flight, and falling 35,000 feet to their demise.
09-15-2016, 06:24 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Probe
I have a reasonable amount of long haul time, and agree that over time you lose your proficiency. But, that doesn't mean you give in, and give up. Most of us would hand fly the departure to at least 10k, if not all the way to cruising altitude, for our couple of legs a month.
We are paid what we are, not for the easy days, but for the bad ones. It is our job to do what we can to maintain our abilities as best we can, even if you only get 1-3 legs a month.
More and more companies are forcing the use of automation on their crews. This will not end well. The approach end of RW 27 at SFO, and the runway lights in Hiroshima not long after, were both taken out by crews from the same airline. Not to mention and Air France A330 and Air Asia A320 losing control in level flight, and falling 35,000 feet to their demise.
We are paid what we are, not for the easy days, but for the bad ones. It is our job to do what we can to maintain our abilities as best we can, even if you only get 1-3 legs a month.
More and more companies are forcing the use of automation on their crews. This will not end well. The approach end of RW 27 at SFO, and the runway lights in Hiroshima not long after, were both taken out by crews from the same airline. Not to mention and Air France A330 and Air Asia A320 losing control in level flight, and falling 35,000 feet to their demise.
Familiarity with, and competency in use of the automation is the best risk avoidance strategy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
