Airbus abort after airborne insight - Page 2 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#11

full of luv , 12-21-2014 02:56 AM

Banned

Quote:
Wowser. Seems like with that much time in type the guy should have known that they needed to re-enter data after a runway change...he couldn't have flown that many hours without ever changing the departure runway before.

Abort after rotation with positive rate? I think almost anyone would try the firewall before that. Maybe he thought he had the Sully scenario?

I think complacency is actually more dangerous than low experience.
The whole thing is amazing that they took off and landed on same runway and everyone slid away.
No loss of life. That takes some skills? No?

#12

cardiomd , 12-21-2014 10:44 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by HIFLYR

Also, scanning those engine gauge instruments help too 50% N1 is not a normal take off power setting. I have asked guys who have been Captains for years "how much fuel does your A300 burn a hour?" and have been shocked that some do not know. FMS = garbage in=garbage out sill need to have good references of normal settings of power, pitch and fuel burn etc.

Great post. It is kind of a second type of situation awareness. When I was an engineer we would do "sanity testing" on values spit out by the machine before critical movement - it is harder but need to retain continuous monitoring with the increased automation.

Reminds me of the Gimli Glider incident 30 years ago for those of you that remember - but I'm not sure the actual pilot got the final numbers, but IIRC there were opportunities for somebody familiar with the numbers to catch the problem.

#13

eman , 12-21-2014 10:47 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardiomd

What's iirc?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#14

Adlerdriver , 12-21-2014 11:25 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by full of luv

...The whole thing is amazing that they took off and landed on same runway and everyone slid away.
No loss of life. That takes some skills? No?

I'd say more luck than skill was involved here.

#15

cardiomd , 12-21-2014 11:51 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman

What's iirc?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I Remember Correctly

#16

rickair7777 , 12-21-2014 01:06 PM

Prime Minister/Moderator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

I'd say more luck than skill was involved here.

Me too.
.........

#17

EasternATC , 12-21-2014 03:02 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by full of luv

How did the adage go? Use superior judgement to avoid situations requiring superior skills.

#18

HIFLYR , 12-21-2014 05:59 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

If the flex temp isn't set, the engines will be at MCT- more than enough power for most takeoffs and likely higher than their would be planned power setting, just you haven't biased the flight directors and armed the A/THR via not putting it in an active takeoff detent.

The old bus A300 I fly does not work that way and I thought the flex Temp was not set right "not missing" I though the Captain had a perception he did not have enough thrust to fly. So he rejected after rotation because of a aural warming and lack of flight director???

#19

80ktsClamp , 12-21-2014 10:32 PM

Da Hudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by HIFLYR

Sounds like he was really confused after the ECAM message at 60 knots, then the personal insults at 80, then when he broke ground the FD's popped up at their current V/S and HDG. I guess he thought something was wrong with the plane and just dumped it back to earth with spectacular results.

#20

mike734 , 12-22-2014 10:18 AM

New boss = Old boss

How someone can reach the level of captain for a major airline with this level of disregard for proper procedure and this lack of system knowledge is astounding. Oh wait, no it's not.

Hopefully the "captain" will never command anything bigger than his car from now on. Sorry for the lack of sympathy but I can't stand pilots like this. They give us all a bad name and bolster the argument to replace us with automation.