Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Does Falling Asleep at the Controls Make You a Bad Pilot?



A Delta 767 gets intercepted by Greek F-16s after comm loss.
Delta 767 and Greek F-16s in formation.

Not necessarily, though it might very well make you a dead pilot if you were in a single pilot aircraft such as an F-16 or Cessna. But as far as airliners go, if the pilots take a snooze at altitude with the autopilot flying, the airplane stays on course and airspeed. Falling asleep is a physiological incident which can be due to many different reasons, but one thing it is not, is a moral failing. Let me explain.

In a recent event over Greek airspace, a Delta Airlines 767 flying a charter for the US military entered Greek airspace and did not check in with air traffic control. The Greeks then launched two F-16s which intercepted the airliner about 40 minutes after it entered into Greek airspace. Shortly after the intercept, the aircraft reestablished communications with air traffic control and proceded onto its destination of Kuwait.

There have been some unsubstantiated reports in Greek media that the fighter pilots saw the airline pilots unresponsive in their seats. The reports also claim that it was calls from the flight attendants who noticed the intercept which alerted the pilots to the situation.

Delta, for its part, reported that the aircraft couldn't make contact with Greek controllers after their handoff from a previous sector. That's plausible, though losing communications in an extremely busy part of the world for 40 minutes does seem unlikely. Maybe 5 or 10, but 40 is more difficult to swallow.

They Want You to Lose Communication


A little known fact is that many jurisdictions around the world actually love it when an airliner from a wealthy nation flies into their airspace without making contact. They then get to launch an intercept or search and rescue (SAR) forces and then send the bill to whoever has the deepest pockets. That would be Delta and the US government in this case.

Notice that it only took 18 minutes from the time the airliner entered Greek airspace to the launch of the fighters. There are rumors around that Greece itself is in some financial straits. They're smelling a payday. Sure there are legitimate reasons to intercept a comm-out airliner in today's crazy terrorist besotted world, but money also makes a good motivator as well. Win-win I suppose.

At any rate, any pilots worth their salt flying in this part of the world must know that going comm-out while crossing a flight identification region (FIR) boundary while bound for the Middle East will not be good.

So what other reason might there be?

They Were Snoozing (Maybe)


The nature of this job is many days and time zones away from home, back side of the clock flying, lousy diet, and hotel beds which only get the straw changed every other year. I jest about the straw beds, but I often feel like I've slept on one as my back will let me know when trying to roll out of bed. 

My point is that getting a reasonable amount of sleep on the road is a serious challenge, and that is if everything goes right. A noisy or inop air conditioner, maids knocking on the door early in the morning after a late night arrival or my personal favorite, hammer drills in a nearby room from construction crews can make a good night of sleep nearly impossible.

Even though most airlines have good fatigue policies which allow pilots to decline a flight with no sanction, there is no guarantee that halfway through a flight which you felt fine to start that you won't simply find it impossible to keep your eyes open. This can be in the middle of the day, perhaps right after lunch while sitting on the sunny side of the jet.

Do you do what you can to prevent this? Sure. Get up and stretch, get a cup of coffee, or take a restroom break. Even after all that you might still be droopy. So it is by far from implausible that this happened to both of the guys or gals up front.

Are They in Trouble?


No, they are not. As I mentioned above, falling asleep is a physiological incident and not a moral failing. There will be no scene from 12 O'clock High with Gregory Peck chewing out a guard who has fallen asleep at his post. What will happen is the crew will fill out various safety and fatigue reports (if that indeed is what happened) and life will go on. And if it was merely a case of lost comm, mostly the same thing will happen.

Their reports will go into a safety database where de-identified safety data will hopefully guide any policy changes which need to be made. Yea, that may be somewhat idealistic, but the point is the crew will live to fly another day.

And as I always brief to my copilots, I never want to wake up and find them sleeping! (Just kidding!)

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Egyptair 804



Egyptair 804 was lost over the Mediterranean Sea
Egyptair A320


Egyptair 804 disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea last week. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, was carrying 56 passengers and 10 crew when it vanished from radar screens at about 2:30 am local time (00:30Z). There were no survivors.

While recovery of the wreckage is underway, the only other notable factor concerning the accident was a flurry of automated maintenance messages received from the aircraft shortly before its disappearance.

The system, known as Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), is used to send data messages about the operational and mechanical status of an airliner to the company for various uses. For instance, when you bring up the arrival status of your flight on your phone, that exact arrival time is derived from data sent over ACARS. The system also sends maintenance status reports to help track the mechanical status of the aircraft and also to alert ground maintenance personnel of impending problems.

This system sent the following messages:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received.


These messages indicate that smoke was detected by the lavatory and avionics smoke detectors and that the window heat computer detected an overheat condition. The avionics bay is an area below the cockpit where most of the aircraft's computers and radios are located. What these messages mean when taken together is anyone's guess. They could possibly indicate the presence of an onboard fire or might only indicate multiple erroneous inputs from a failure of the reporting system.

At this point no determination can be made about the nature of the malfunctions or their origins. This will no doubt have to wait until the data and voice recorders are recovered. This recovery effort is underway.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

How to Dodge a Thunderstorm and Not Spill Your Coffee



Very few aircraft will survive an encounter with one of these big guys
They have big teeth too!

Well it's spring. It is a time when, according to Tennyson, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. Being an old grizzled coot firmly in the grip of matrimony for more than a score of years now, my fancy begrudgingly turns instead to the spring return of every pilot's nemesis, the thunderstorm.

I fondly recall a time years ago while sitting in Air Force ground school in Lubbock, Texas. The instructor drew a shape on the board and asked us students to identify the shape. It looked like the state of Texas which some brave soul ventured to point out. The instructor corrected him with a shouted "NO". "That," he exclaimed, "is an airborne emergency!"

His meaning was that flying in the state of Texas in the spring meant doing battle with, or rather attempting to avoid doing battle with the towering giants which would daily sweep across the panhandle. Because even today, with all of our technology and shiny fast moving flying machines, there is still virtually no airplane that can survive a thunderstorm penetration. And I'm including everything from fighters to helicopters to especially airliners in this category.

But wait, you cry! How about those hurricane hunter planes? Aren't hurricanes worse than thunderstorms? Actually no, they're not. At least not in an airplane. A hurricane can certainly muss your hair while airborne, but they are mostly lower altitude phenomena and have limited vertical development. There may be thunderstorms embedded in a hurricane which the hunter aircraft are careful to avoid, but overall, nothing on earth can match the fury of a well developed hammer-headed storm reaching to over 50,000 ft.

Ok, but can't we just fly over them? No, again. Most airliners can only climb up to the low 40s whereas I mentioned above, a large storm can easily reach to 50k. Even should the storm be a "smaller" one and top out in the 30s, the area above the storm can be quite turbulent as the storm grows and should hail get ejected out of the top of one of these babies, that's exactly where you'll find it. So no, going over a developing cumulonimbus is never a good idea. It is always best to avoid a storm laterally.

Wandering into one of these bad boys will easily make the top of your list of worst things to happen in an airplane. The gusts from violent up and down drafts will produce severe turbulence and the volume of rain your engines will swallow can easily put the fire out. An encounter with hail will scratch your shiny paint job just microseconds before it permanently bashes your radome and the leading edges of your wings into a very non aerodynamic shape. And that is if your windshield doesn't shatter.

Thunderstorms are to be avoided at all cost.

Houston to Chicago


Our trip had us returning from an international destination to be followed by the last leg to Chicago. Then we were done. My F/O lived in base so he was just going home while due to the late arrival time, I was going to the crash pad to be followed by an early morning flight home. We parked the jet at the international terminal, cleared customs and went to look for some dinner before meeting another jet in the domestic terminal. My F/O was diverted away from the automated kiosk into the longer line to an agent for some reason so I'd catch up with him later.

My big decision now became where to eat. The oriental place is good but expensive, while the Mexican place had a long line. I opted for Subway. Nothing like living on airport food. The other option is to carry a food bag, which many crew members do, but an international flight means no fresh food can pass. Little wonder that so many airline pilots are fat. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)

I made a quick trip by the pilot lounge and then went to the gate to meet the incoming aircraft. We were supposed to push at 8:00 pm but the board said the flight was expected out at 8:25. It pulled into the gate dutifully at 7:50 meaning that this was planned for a 35 minute turn. We used to do these in as little as 15 or 20 minutes, but the planes are bigger and people are slower and carry more stuff to stow, hence the 35 minute turn.

Weather Reroute


The reason I stopped by the pilot lounge was to get a wifi signal to update the weather app on my iPad. The company spent a ton of money to give us all iPads with a comprehensive weather app. The only problem is that it's useless without a wifi connection, and we're not allowed to use the onboard wifi. This makes the whole thing quite useless for weather. Rumor has it that this will change soon but I'm not holding my breath.

What I did see during my brief lounge visit was that a large system of thunderstorms was camped out just east of the Mississippi river valley, stretching from perhaps eastern Arkansas up to southern Michigan. I guessed that this meant that we were not going to be flying the most direct route. It turns out I was correct.

When I got the flight plan, it showed that we were going to take a very circuitous route to Chicago. We were routed north over Oklahoma City and then to Omaha followed by Fort Dodge, IA at which point we'd make a turn to the east. I don't know if our dispatcher came up with this route by himself or whether it was given to him by air traffic control, but it was what we were given.

What we were also given was a ton of fuel. The normal route should take about two hours, but this roundabout route was going to be 2+45. The 737 burns about five thousand pounds an hour, plus we have to have our required reserves of 45 minutes of extra gas. On top of that we had gas for two alternates listed as Detroit and Columbus, and also extra fuel in case we had to hold. All of that fuel added up to about 27 thousand pounds.

Now it has been said that the only time you've got too much fuel on board is if you are on fire. While true, having too much fuel when you're trying to land on a short runway in bad weather can be a problem as well. More gas means a heavier airplane. And the Chicago weather was forecast to be ok for our arrival, but thunderstorms were threatening. Another limitation is our structural landing weight limit. There is an upper weight limit for landing that must be met. Carrying too much fuel might put us above that limit in which case we'd have to burn it off or divert. 737s cannot dump fuel like many other aircraft.

The dispatcher put a note on the release to pump us up to 29 thousand pounds if other limits were met, but come push time, the extra fuel never showed up. I was fine going without it as we were planned to land with 12 thousand pounds, about double what we normally have on landing.

Off We Go!


After a last minute runway change requiring new takeoff data, we blasted off at about 8:45. The sun had set and there was a beautiful blue orange glow to the west. Also visible was a rather large storm several hundred miles distant. It turned out to be over central Texas but we could see it perfectly from Houston. Air traffic control stopped our climb at 37,000 feet, 2000 feet shy of our planned 39,000 ft. I assumed that this was due to other traffic conflicts.

My hat is off to the controllers who must not only keep all the airplanes separate, but who must also thread all their traffic through a constantly shifting map of storms. As an additional challenge, their radar systems do not show weather very well. They rely upon pilots to tell them where they can and cannot go. It's crazy, but I have apps on my phone that have better weather readouts than that.

We watched the lights of the Dallas Metroplex go by followed by Ok City and Kansas City off to our right. Prior to getting to Omaha we were cleared to cut the corner to Fort Dodge. It was at this point that things started getting funky. We were first cleared one arrival over Joliet, and then quickly by another arrival farther to the north. Finally, the controller just gave us a northeasterly heading and a descent.

Storms were approaching Chicago from the west and were closing the normal arrival routes. Controllers have to get very creative when this happens. We were lucky that our arrival was so late as the traffic flows were diminished. Had this happened during peak arrival times, we would likely have held or diverted. The new plan was to take us in north of the city, over the lake and south to Midway. The controller's challenge was to get us across the arrival traffic going into O'Hare. For this he had us expedite our descent to below their arrivals.

I was also thinking about my possible options should Midway get hit by a storm. One of our alternates, Columbus, was already being hit by a storm but Detroit was still good. Since we were only a few miles south of Milwaukee by this point, I checked the weather there. Their visibility was only 1/8th of a mile which made that not a great choice. Behind us, though, was Minnie which had good weather.

Like a quarterback, you're always keeping an eye on your open receivers while you avoid the linebackers.

Smooth as Butter!


We got fussed at several times to expedite our descent below the O'Hare arrival corridor. The problem is that to increase descent, one must increase airspeed by pointing the nose lower. We were also getting the poop knocked out of us by turbulence, and our turbulence airspeed is only 280 kts. So we do the best we can to get down without beating ourselves or our passengers up too much.

Once we were below the bumps and over the lake we broke out of the weather and everything smoothed out. We were given a turn to the south and enjoyed a beautiful view of downtown Chicago from the north which we almost never see. After passing downtown we were given a vector to the downwind to runway 4R at Midway. 

Abeam the airport the controller cut us loose and cleared us for the visual. This rarely happens any more and I used the opportunity to hand fly the approach just like we always did in years gone by. Off went the autopilot and autothrottles. My flying skills may get a little rusty when using all the magic day after day, but the rust knocks right off and I rolled out on glidepath right at a thousand feet fully configured.

The aviation gods smiled upon me because I had one of the best touchdowns at Midway that I've had in a long time. The runways are short, so you normally just try to not land long and accept whatever kind of touchdown you can manage.

Well, we taxied clear, contacted ground and the company to let them know we were there, and of course, as day follows night, after a long day and delays, we have to hold out for our gate. Then we get assigned another gate, then back to yet a third gate, and then we wait for marshallers to guide us in. The important point here to remember is that if you shut down an engine, you will then likely be required to turn into your running engine. Think of trying to turn left on ice when only your left rear tire is turning. It doesn't want to go.

Anyway, we get it shut down, I even get a compliment about the landing, and then it's off to the crash pad for about four hours of shuteye before my flight home. Well as they say, it's hard work, but it still beats working for a living.


Dodging thunderstorms for fun and profit















Sunday, May 01, 2016

How to Fly with a Jerk





Yea, they're out there. The perfectionists, the disgruntled, the narcissists and especially the ones who are going to teach you the "proper" way to fly. Spend enough time in the front of an airliner and sooner or later you will be paired to fly with a jerk. Short of calling in sick, you will have to spend the next several days locked in a closet sized space for hours on end with the south side of a northbound horse.

So how will you cope? Remember that you have an important job to do and to do it well, you have to work with the other pilot. There was a time when the standard method of dealing with a jerk was to simply not deal with him or her. This could've meant each pilot scanning the 10 or 2 o'clock positions permanently while never interacting save for required checklist callouts.

That strategy clearly has drawbacks and can seriously degrade safety. There's a reason that airliners still have two pilots (for now). You're a professional even if the other guy or gal is less so, and the folks in back are counting on both pilots up front to conduct themselves as such. With all that in mind, here's the Captain's guide to surviving a pairing with a jerk! (Me included.)

Don't Keep It to Yourself


I think that most people are generally conflict averse. I know I am. Most of us don't go around looking for a fight or trying to cause trouble, especially on the job. We want to get through our day, finish with zero airspeed at the correct gate and go to the hotel. So when a situation crops up that causes us some consternation, a first reaction may be to just keep it to ourselves. After all we place a high value on good cockpit relations and rationalize that some internal discomfort is not too high a price to maintain a cordial cockpit atmosphere.

Don't fall for this rationalization. It is built on a fallacy. For starters, if the other guy is doing something that bothers you, he may not even realize it. Secondly, your discomfort won't go away. It will only fester and get worse. Trust me on this. And if you keep your feelings to yourself for any length of time, it can get really awkward when you finally do speak up. It is always best to get things off of your chest as early as possible.

Don't Ever Accept Non-Standard Operation


Again, there may have been a time in the distant past where the Captain was omnipotent and not to be questioned no matter what he did, even if it fell outside of standard operating procedures (SOP). Those times are absolutely long gone. You have a legal and moral duty to make sure that the aircraft is always operated by the book. Does this mean that you must become a pecksniff and point out every deviation no matter how minor? No it does not; there is a middle ground between being a bag of sand in the seat and what we sometimes refer to as a "check F/O".

Getting back to the professionalism part, when the aircraft is operated in a non-standard fashion and something bad happens, claiming that the other guy was flying is of course no defense. My advice is to predetermine your own personal boundaries and then stick to them. You'll sleep better at night. If push comes to shove, which it hopefully never will, take the airplane if you must, and after landing grab your gear and get off the airplane. This will of course involve scheduling and chief pilots but your career is worth it.

And I want to add a note here about bringing in third parties to a dispute. I believe in handling conflict personally whenever possible. The outside resources available to you are your union's professional standards people and your chief pilot. The first thing either of these people will ask is whether you discussed the matter with the other person. If you reply in the negative, your credibility drops. Nobody will care about your issue more than you, so start there. 

The pro standards folks and (most) chiefs are great, but my thoughts are that if the guy you're flying with is that big of a jerk, the pro standards folks are probably already well acquainted with him. Taking an issue to a chief pilot should be an absolute last resort. You don't want to be known as the guy who runs to management with a personality conflict. Gross or continued non-standard flying? Maybe. Just be ready to defend your actions.

Sometimes You Have to Just Suck it Up


I personally like to let my F/Os fly the airplane any way they'd like as long as it is within SOP, but that's just me. Some cappies like to dictate how the plane should be flown or how a system should be operated. According to most airlines' procedures and FARs, they are within their rights to have it done the way they want it done, again as long as it is within SOP.

As an F/O, you learn to become a chameleon and do it the way the boss likes it to be done. For instance, in the age old argument of whether or not to run the packs on high on a hot day in a 737, everyone has an opinion. But if the guy in the left seat has a preference, his vote is the one that counts. Hopefully he will be willing to listen to your reasons. If not, there's not much that can be done until you upgrade yourself.

My airline has a "bid avoidance" feature that can be used by F/Os to avoid people with whom they really don't want to fly, but it comes with the price of subrogating their own seniority. This feature didn't exist when I was in the right seat so the "suck it up" or "talk it out" methods were all that were available. It did, though, in some measure force people to get along to some degree.

Take a Look in the Mirror


If you find that you seem to end up having more than a few tiffs in the cockpit, then perhaps the problem doesn't lie with the other guy. If it seems to you that everyone you fly with is a pig-headed jerk, then that may become a clue for you. I think this advice is especially useful for captains. F/Os are naturally inclined to become chameleons, so if you find that your cockpit has a tense atmosphere or you spend a lot of time eating alone in the hotel, perhaps some introspection is merited.

Captains, on the other hand, really get very little feedback. Some are conscientious enough to ask how they're doing, but many are not. Most people with a blind spot are unaware that they have one, which is why my above advice to not keep things to yourself may be more useful than first thought.

Do I have war stories about conflict in the cockpit? Yes I do. I think conflict of some sort with another pilot is inevitable given enough time. My personal technique is to try to not bring up topics which might be touchy such as union issues or politics. I'll talk about that stuff all day long if it comes up, but it is much easier to "kick someone's anthill over" when discussing those things as opposed to Da Bears. And I'm not a huge sports fan, but being at least somewhat conversant in sports can be helpful.

In Conclusion


Unlike many other workplace environments, a cockpit is an especially bad place for conflict. Both pilots must make an effort to recognize and to quarantine conflict. Getting things on the table early and using techniques such as humor can go a long way to defuse the bad feels. Pilots aren't necessarily known for being great "people people" but getting along up front should be considered as essential a skill as maintaining airspeed on final.

 Of course, I always get to fly with my favorite jerk.





Thursday, April 21, 2016

A Troubling Report from Rostov



An interim report on the crash of FZ981 has been released
Reconstruction of the FlyDubai 737-800 wreckage



The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee has published an interim report on their investigation into the crash of FlyDubai FZ981. The report is quite troubling as it suggests that the aircraft did not suffer a low speed event or stall, but rather hit the ground with flying airspeed in an extreme nose down attitude. The report is here.

The report starts with the facts that are already known: the aircraft attempted one approach which was aborted followed by an extended time in a holding pattern. Nearly two hours later, a second approach was attempted and a second go around was initiated at 721 ft above ground level (AGL).

The report states that a possible reason the second go around was initiated was due to a sudden increase in indicated airspeed of 20 knots to 176 knots. This is entirely plausible as a gust of this velocity would cause the flaps to automatically retract to avoid an overspeed. Should this happen while on final approach under 1000 ft AGL, the correct decision would be to go around.

Windshear


There has been some speculation that windshear might have been the primary cause of the crash. I think it is important to differentiate between the windshear which might be generated due to convective activity (a thunderstorm) as opposed to gusts found in frontal activity. The weather was consistently poor for many hours preceding the crash with gusty winds but no reported thunderstorms.

The winds were reported as 20 degrees off of runway heading at 27 knots gusting to 42 knots. These winds would certainly make for a difficult approach and landing as the plane would be bucking like a bronco, but they would not be a challenge to staying airborne. Windshear found in thunderstorms can threaten an aircraft on approach but there is no indication such conditions existed here.

Anomalies on the Go Around


It was on the second go around that trouble started. The crew set the flaps to 15 and retracted the gear which is normal procedure. At a height of 1900 ft, the pilot flying pushed on the control column which decreased pitch and caused airspeed to increase. It is at this time that the flaps would normally be retracted so as to not overspeed them. The report states that the flaps automatically retracted to position 10 while the speed increased to over 200 knots.

The flaps blow-up protection on the 737-800 is designed to prevent damage to the flaps due to unintentional overspeeds. Called the Flap Load Relief system, it will retract the flaps from 15 to 10 when the airspeed indicates 201 knots. The flaps will automatically re-extend to the selected position of 15 when the airspeed falls below 196 knots.

It was at this time that the thrust was reduced slightly and the flaps auto-extended themselves back to 15. The thrust was then increased back to full power while pitch and airspeed increased. The flaps once again auto-retracted to 10 where they remained until impact.

The aircraft continued on a rather steep climb of 3150 feet/minute until reaching an altitude of nearly 3000 feet. A vertical velocity of 3000 feet/minute on a go around is steep but not necessarily a problem. The aircraft is by now light having burned its holding fuel, and is not carrying a full load. Pilots can choose to use somewhat less than full thrust in these types of situations but using full thrust is not procedurally wrong. It just means you might have a greater likelihood of overshooting an altitude or causing a flap overspeed which is what happened.

Pitch Over


It was at this time that the aircraft pitched over and began its fatal dive. The report states that the FDR recorded a simultaneous push on the control column accompanied by 12 seconds of forward stabilizer movement. Let's take these one at a time.

Pitching over to stop a steep climb is completely normal. Pitching over which results in a -1g acceleration is not. Normal gravity is 1g. Anytime you feel light in your seat, you're at something less than 1g. A zero g pushover would mean everything in the cabin would float. You'd come off your seat slightly. It would be uncomfortable and rarely happens. A negative 1g acceleration is effectively the same as if your seat was upside down and you were hanging from the seat belt. It would be extremely uncomfortable and short of extreme turbulence just doesn't happen. And it appears to have been caused by a combination of flight control and trim input.

Stabilizer trim is designed to compensate for airspeed changes affecting how the airplane flies. As an airplane increases speed, the nose naturally wants to come up to attempt to maintain the same airspeed as before. Pilots would have to keep pushing on the control column when accelerating to maintain level flight. Trim repositions the horizontal stabilizer to relieve this force. It is controlled by a thumb switch on the yoke which activates an electric motor to actually move the entire horizontal stabilizer and align it with the slipstream. 

On the 737 there is a large wheel next to the throttles which also is connected to the trim motor. This wheel allows manual positioning of the trim if the motor fails and also provides visual feedback to the pilots when the trim motor is running. Normal trim technique is to trim in bursts of one or two seconds. The trim motor on the 737 has two speeds for use depending on whether the flaps are extended or not. The high speed setting is active when the flaps are down. 

A 12 second run of the trim motor, especially in high speed mode, would never be needed during normal operations. This might lead to some speculation that the aircraft suffered what's known as "runaway trim" where the switch might stick and run the trim uncommanded. Boeing has provided several safeguards to prevent this from happening. There is an electric stab trim cutout switch located on the center control stand which removes electric power from the system. 

In addition, power is removed from the system any time pitch inputs don't match the control column inputs. This means the motor cannot trim forward when a pilot is pulling aft and vice versa. Lastly, the trim wheel is designed to be grasped and held when running if all else fails. With these safeguards, a runaway trim problem seems unlikely.

Final Dive


The report states that after the forward control column and trim inputs, the aircraft entered a dive after reaching a peak altitude of just under 3300 ft and subsequently hit the ground in a 50 degree nose low attitude at a speed of over 320 knots. Normally an airliner doesn't see a descending pitch attitude of more than 5 or 10 degrees nose low.

I honestly don't know what to make of this report. The crew flew a somewhat sloppy go around allowing the speed to increase where the flaps blew up, but that by itself wasn't gross or necessarily dangerous. The flap load relief system functioned as designed.

The question to be answered is why the pilots initiated the pushover and simultaneous forward trim? The airplane essentially dove into the ground. I am sure various mechanical or structural failure and other possible scenarios are being considered. The investigators have their work cut out for them.

This is just a preliminary report and the CVR tapes, while referenced in the report, have not been released to the public and may provide more context. 






Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Boeing 737-200 Pilot Report


The Boeing 737 is the world's most popular airliner.
Boeing has now delivered nearly 9000 737s



The Boeing Model 737 is considered one of the most successful airliners ever built. Boeing has built nearly 9000 of these aircraft since its introduction in 1968 with thousands of more orders on the books. Just this month the 737 celebrated the 49th anniversary of her first flight. Currently Boeing's only narrow body aircraft in production, the 737 has been produced in seven variants over the years, the -100 through -700. The next iteration, the Max-8, is currently undergoing flight testing and is scheduled for delivery to launch customer Southwest Airlines next year.

I flew the 737-200 in both the left and right seat from the time I was hired until my airline retired the aircraft from the fleet in the early 2000s. I have many thousands of hours of time in this aircraft and really enjoyed flying her. The 200 was a pilot's airplane meaning that she was responsive and easy to fly. It was easy to put the airplane where you wanted her and once you learned the tricks to make a smooth landing such as the "roll-on", she was a real cream puff.

The 200 had her drawbacks as well. Being underpowered was one of the greatest frustrations. When Boeing introduced this aircraft as the -100 model, it came equipped with Pratt and Whitney JT8D-7 engines producing about 14,000 lbs of thrust. This aircraft was so underpowered that it was not even allowed to use full flaps to land as there was too much drag. The 100 model was quickly replaced by the -200 model which offered the upgraded JT8D-9 engines producing 15,500 lbs of thrust. I only flew the aircraft with the -9 engines. Still, she was kind of a pig.

Don't Shut Off the APU!


Taking off of short runways was always kind of exciting. One procedure with which all -200 pilots had to become intimately familiar was the "bleeds off" takeoff. During normal operations, hot, compressed or "bleed" air is drawn out of the engine to run the air conditioning and to provide pressurization. When taking off from a short runway on a hot day, drawing that bleed air means that it isn't available to produce thrust. So one method to increase thrust from the engines was to turn the bleeds off and to use air from the auxiliary power unit (APU) for air conditioning until getting airborne.

Without the extra thrust from the bleed air being available, there often wasn't enough thrust for a safe takeoff. It was during taxi-out and after takeoff that problems arose. There are six switches controlling the bleed air plumbing on a 737 and they must be positioned correctly. One particular mistake could cause damage if both the engine and APU bleed valves were open at the same time as the engine would overpower the APU. Otherwise, one of the more common mistakes was to forget that the APU was needed and to accidentally shut it off. This usually happened right after being cleared for takeoff meaning an embarrassing call to the tower that you had to delay to start it up again.

Once airborne, forgetting to reconfigure the bleeds back to normal could be a big problem. If you climbed high enough like this, you might get the altitude warning horn as the cabin wouldn't pressurize. Go higher still and you'd get the "rubber jungle" as the masks fell. Besides causing a severe panic in the back, it was a guaranteed trip to see the chief pilot followed by an unpaid vacation as you'd probably get some time off.

Other aspects of the low thrust of the aircraft meant that turning on the engine anti-ice would slow your climb rate and turning on the wing anti-ice meant almost no climb capability as it used quite a bit of bleed air. That said, the cooling capability was always great on the 200. It wasn't until the introduction of the -300 that Boeing changed the air conditioning to include a "low flow" setting which made that airplane hot in the summer.

Pilot's Airplane


I loved flying the 200 as it was very responsive to control inputs and easy to trim. Later models for whatever reason never had the tight feel of the flight controls that the -200 did. Think of going from a Triumph to your dad's Buick. She was quite easy to land consistently well once you learned how to do the "roll-on".

The roll-on was accomplished by executing a slightly aggressive flare just before touching down at about 5 feet altitude and then releasing back pressure on the yoke just as the aircraft touches down. Done correctly, there would be nearly no perceivable thump at touchdown, just the appearance of runway rumble. It was quite impressive.

The "science" behind the roll-on was that the landing gear are aft of the center of lift. What this means is that the release of back pressure on the yoke actually caused the landing gear to touch down at less vertical velocity than the aircraft overall as the plane was now rotating forward around the center of lift. The only problem with this technique was that if you screwed it up, you really knew it. Time it wrong and the gear will hit the runway at a vertical speed greater than the aircraft as a whole resulting in a really hard touchdown.

Back in those days you might get a flight attendant to come up who had refastened her bra around her waist to drive home the critique of a hard landing.

Day-VFR


As I mentioned, the -200 was a pleasure to fly. The caveat was that this was only on nice or "visual flight rules" (VFR) days. She was not much fun in the weather for many different reasons. As I mentioned above, using the anti-ice tended to kill climb performance, but there were other problems.

The radar was close to useless in many cases due to its inadequate stabilization. The weather radar on an airliner is designed to allow pilots to avoid thunderstorms. It does this by bouncing radio waves off of relatively thick storm clouds. The radar antenna has to be stabilized in relation to the horizon because when the aircraft is in a bank, the radar would only see ground returns. For whatever reason, the stab on those radar just didn't work right which meant a screen filled with red ground returns whenever the airplane was turning. Thankfully that problem was fixed in later models.

Another annoying issue was that only the captain's instruments could be tied into the autopilot in order to fly a "coupled" approach on our models. That meant that first officers had to ask the captain to set up their radios when the first officer was flying an approach. It seems crazy, but some captains would be put out by such a request. That problem went away after I upgraded to the left seat. After that, I always got to fly with my favorite jerk.

One fun feature of the autopilot is that when it was turned off, it would make a small click whenever the controls were moved out of the neutral position. Pilots of course would then use this "scoring" system to bet for beers by who could fly an approach generating the fewest clicks. 

Stupid Pilot Tricks


This next part may have more to do with flying during the era before 9/11 but I associate it with flying the -200. Flight attendants would routinely come up front to chat before armored doors and protocols made it so onerous. We might be flying a 40 minute leg completely full, but the flight attendants would still manage to come up to give us our beverages if not to chat for a minute. It's a rare occurrence today. I'll fly a five hour flight and never see or hear from them. Ah well, at least I got to experience some of the more relaxed times.

One of the favorite tricks was to float a lightbulb on the gasper vent and to then call the girls up front. We had a store of small lightbulbs to be used to replace burnt out bulbs in the cockpit, and also an air vent called the eyeball gasper much like the overhead vents in back only this one pointed up. Well, the airstream would float the bulb in midair as a hairdryer will float a ping pong ball. We'd then explain that it was voice activated. I'd give the command to stop as my F/O would discretely turn off the switch and the bulb would drop. When offered to give it a try, it wouldn't work for the visiting F/A. We then concluded that it must be tuned for male voices only.

Other fun tricks were to explain that the overhead map light was really a telescope and oh, would you like to take a look? This meant having the gullible F/A lean way over to have a glimpse. Great fun.

Time Marches On


The -200 was a fun airplane to fly in a fun era but her day came to an end. What ultimately killed off the -200 was economics. The new -300s launched in the early '80s were much more fuel efficient and much more capable than their older siblings. It became rare that we had to accomplish a bleeds off takeoff and the aircraft burned significantly less fuel.

The last of the -300s are themselves being replaced by the "next generation" or NG series 737s, introduced in the late '90s, which themselves will eventually be replaced by the Max series aircraft now undergoing flight testing in Seattle. The airplanes I fly today all have large flat screen digital displays, integrated flight management systems and all the geegaws you expect to find on the most modern airliners.

What became of all those old airplanes? Well some of them went to Eastern Europe or Africa to fly around before being retired. I remember one of our airplanes which had flown for us for decades was wrecked by some fly-by-night outfit perhaps months after leaving our fleet. Most of those airplanes, though, were probably made into soda cans.

An ignominious end to a glorious flying machine, but the memories of that time still remain. And while the gig isn't perhaps as good as it once was, it's still pretty good. And as I always say, it still beats working for a living.

Update: Do you have any good old-school war stories about the -200 (or three holer, or DC-9)? I'd love to hear them. Leave a comment here or on the FB page!



Monday, April 18, 2016

Big Airlines buy Smaller Jets: Should Regional Airlines Worry?


Delta is close to purchasing the new C-Series aircraft
Bombardier C-Series Regional Aircraft


The airline business model for the past decade or so has depended on the big six (now three) network carriers flying larger narrow and widebody aircraft to and from fortress hubs while outsourcing regional flying to lower cost regional partner airlines through capacity purchase agreements (CPAs). This model was driven by both the introduction of new and capable 50 to 70 seat regional jets (RJs), and also the need to compete with low cost competitors such as Southwest and America West.

By the late 90s, network carriers had found themselves hamstrung by union pay scales and work rules when attempting to compete with the fast growing low cost carriers (LCCs) unleashed by deregulation. Competitive responses such as United's Shuttle by United and Ted, Delta's Delta Express and Song, and Continental's Continental Lite were all terminated after lackluster economic results.

As I detailed in an earlier post, partnerships with regional airlines who operate under the brand of the mainline carriers allowed a competitive response to LCC incursion by circumventing high labor costs and work rules. Loopholes in union contracts at the mainline carriers allowed for the outsourcing of this flying.

This model, however, may no longer be working.

Mainline Carriers Seek Regional Jets


In the past year or two we've seen increased interest in regional aircraft by mainline carriers which suggests that the mainline carriers wish to bring at least some of their regional flying back in-house. One of the first accessions was by Delta of all the Boeing 717 aircraft that Southwest had acquired in its merger with AirTran. The 717 is a smaller, 100 seat variant of the MD-80 line and a highly desired aircraft as it fills the niche between RJ aircraft and larger narrowbody jets like the 737.

The next move by Delta was its attempt to reach a contract with its pilots last summer that included the purchase of 20 Embraer E-190 regional jets. This would have been the first time that Delta operated regional aircraft in its mainline operation using its own pilots and not a regional partner. That contract was rejected by the pilots for reasons mostly unrelated to the RJ purchase, but it could be assumed that Delta was still interested in those aircraft. And as we shall see, they were.

Next up was United who last fall made an unsolicited offer to their pilot's union to reopen their recently negotiated contract. In a letter to the union, a senior vice-president mentioned that a successful conclusion of the negotiations would result in the acquisition of new small narrowbody (NSNB) aircraft to be flown by United mainline pilots. That contract extension was passed by the union.

Here Come the Jets


In recent weeks we've seen a flurry of smaller jet purchases by both Delta and United. Delta is reportedly very close to a deal with Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier for 75 of their new C-Series regional aircraft. These new and highly efficient aircraft come in two variants which will seat between 100-160 passengers depending upon model and interior configuration. This aircraft will fit nicely with their already existing 717s for the 100 seat market.

And back in January United announced an order for 40 Boeing 737-700 aircraft. While the 737-700 is not considered a regional aircraft, United's configuration for its existing -700s is for 118 seats which puts it right in the middle of the pack for regional flying. They reportedly got the airplanes for a screaming deal of $20-25 million per plane which Bombardier, the other choice under consideration, simply couldn't match. Boeing has just launched the newer variant 737-Max and is giving United a deal to clear the last of the -700s off the lot as it were.

American Airlines is in a somewhat different situation as they've owned their own regional airline, American Eagle (now Envoy) since buying out all their regional partners back in 1987. Apparently American was able to wrangle exceptions to the scope clauses in their union contracts allowing this arrangement. Already being the owner of their regional would seem to reduce the need for bringing that flying in-house. After American's bankruptcy and merger with USAir though, they have resumed American Eagle branded flights with a number of outside regional partners under capacity purchase agreements.

Why Change Now?


The current model has worked for some time so why rock the boat and change things around now? There may be a few things going on here. The first one may have something to do with the cost of fuel. Let me explain. 

When regional airlines first started flying RJs, the 50 seat RJs were very popular and allowed network airlines to raid each other's hubs with these fast and relatively long range aircraft. Later, though, as the price of oil climbed through $100 a barrel, the aircraft became uneconomical to operate. The reason for this is that they cost just slightly less to purchase and operate as larger aircraft, but generate only a fraction of the revenue putting them at a disadvantage. Fuel is cheap now but airline managers realize it may not stay that way for long.

This is one of the reasons regional airlines are retiring their fleets of 50 seaters and moving to aircraft with larger seating capacities.

A second reason for the declining popularity of smaller regional airliners may have to do with limits on the capacity of the nation's airspace system. Slot limited airports such as Laguardia or Newark can only handle so many arrivals per hour. In order for an airline to increase revenue in a particular market like this, the only feasible means is by using higher capacity aircraft.

Even at non slot restricted airports, a particular market may not support additional departures as most business travellers like to travel early in the morning or at the end of their day. Again, the only way to boost capacity in such a market without doubling costs by deploying a second aircraft is to use a larger aircraft.

Lastly, there is an ongoing shortage of pilots to fly regional aircraft. Regional airline jobs are entry level jobs into the industry, and as the major airlines are on a hiring binge to replace retiring Baby Boom era pilots, the regionals are having trouble replacing their departing pilots with new hires. 

Also, by bringing their regional flying in-house, the network carriers may be attempting to gain control of their pilot pipelines. Once a pilot is on a seniority list, they are not likely to leave a particular airline as they have to start over at the bottom of the list. If one corporate entity controls both the regional and mainline flying and keeps their pilots on one seniority list, there will likely be less draw for them to jump ship to another carrier.

There are many reasons for this dearth of pilots which I addressed here. The upshot is that regional airlines are having to make hefty boosts in pay and benefits to attract the diminishing pool of new pilots. This negates their cost advantage in comparison to the network carriers which is really their reason for existing in the first place. 

As regional aircraft size and capacity grows, the mainline network carriers will find themselves bumping up against their union contracts which require larger aircraft to be flown by mainline pilots. With no cost advantage and control of their pilot pipelines to be gained, it may be advantageous for the mainline network carriers to bring their regional flying back in-house thereby ending the era of outsourced regional flying.

This may be a perfect storm of bad news for the operators of regional airlines, and one that they probably knew would eventually come. 


Sunday, April 03, 2016

Another Drunk Pilot?



Pilots are routinely tested for drugs and alcohol
All airline pilots are randomly tested for both drugs and alcohol.



Last week another pilot was pulled out of his cockpit and arrested for being under the influence. So what's up with these guys? It seems like you can hardly turn on the news without hearing about another drunk pilot, right? They're even making movies about them. Why is this even a thing?

Well it's easy to explain why the furor over alcohol abuse by pilots is a "thing". And by that I mean something which garners immediate headlines and watercooler talk. This is because short of nuclear power station operators or cruise ship captains, few other professions leave so many lives in the direct immediate control of another human as does aviation. And for all the oft-stated reasons that riding in an aluminum tube at 30,000 ft is already nerve wracking enough, the thought of having a tipsy pilot up front is something that no one needs or wants. And that is completely reasonable.

If your lawyer is sloshed on the job, maybe it'll cost you some money if you lose a suit. And perhaps after a few martinis your doctor might prescribe a Tylenol when what you needed was an Advil. Even if a hammered surgeon nicks an artery and the patient bleeds out on the table, it's just one person. But a pilot can kill hundreds, which is especially bad if you happen to be one of the ones riding along.

As an aside, I admit to being amused by passengers who will say something like: "Well, you know, pilots really only fly the plane for an average of 30 seconds during any given flight. It's the computers which really fly the plane." And then quickly follow it with "Did you hear about that drunk pilot? He could've killed everybody!"

Alcohol Abuse Among Pilots is Actually Rare


So is there actually an alcohol abuse problem among pilots or is this something which just tends to make the headlines? In actuality, airline pilots are nowhere near the top of the list of professions with high degrees of alcoholism. Ironically, doctors and lawyers are high up on the list. But a study conducted by NIH found a total of 13 alcohol related incidents involving airline pilots over a 16 year period between 1990 and 2006 which would indicate that this "problem" is actually quite rare.

Additionally, there has never been an aviation accident attributed to substance abuse by airline pilots. Government data suggest that about 12 pilots annually are found in violation of FAA standards for blood alcohol content out of over 11,000 tested. But overall, the incidence of alcoholism among airline pilots is below that of the general population.

Where There are Humans, There are Human Frailties


Because the "Drunk Airline Pilot" headline makes such excellent clickbait and draws so many eyeballs (see the title I chose), there's little incentive to tone down the story to something like "Airline Pilot Only Half as Drunk as You Driving Home". That's because the legal limit imposed by the FAA is a BAC of .04% whereas a DUI in most states is defined as a BAC of .08%. Furthermore, a test result of .02 to .04% will result in a pilot being removed from duty though it doesn't carry a criminal penalty.

Now this guy may have really tied one on and was actually blotto, I don't know. But most of the cases I'm familiar with resulted from one too many drinks the night before followed by too short of an overnight for the alcohol to wear off. If this was the case, our hero was probably not ripped but rather just across the line of .04%. Obviously he was displaying some signs of inebriation or perhaps odor as he was identified at the security checkpoint.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not defending this guy's actions. He screwed up big time and betrayed the trust placed in him. He will also pay an extremely heavy price. My point is that this guy was most likely not as stumble drunk as the headlines usually suggest, but he certainly was impaired.

So What Happens to Him Now?


To use a technical term, this guy is royally screwed...and he has nobody to blame but himself. The use of alcohol by airline pilots is governed by federal aviation regulation (FAR) 91.17 and stipulates:


(b) Committing an act prohibited by §91.17(a) or §91.19(a) of this chapter
is grounds for: 
(1) Denial of an application for a certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that
act; or 
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under this part.

The mechanism that the FAA uses to get problem pilots out of the cockpit is through the denial of a medical certificate, which is needed to fly. Furthermore, the FAA defines a history of alcohol abuse as a disqualifying medical condition. Using a bit of circular logic, being cited for attempting to operate an aircraft while having a BAC in excess of the limit can be considered as evidence of a history alcohol abuse and therefore disqualifying for holding a medical certificate.

Getting past all the legalese, this means the guy is quite possibly grounded for good. But that's just the Feds. Most airlines have very severe sanctions for alcohol use by employees in safety sensitive functions which includes pilots. If this guy tested at more than .04% BAC, he will most likely be canned. And that likely means termination with prejudice as it is unlikely that he'll find another flying job.

There is a pathway back to the cockpit, but it is long and expensive often taking years to regain ratings and certifications from scratch. In the meantime he'll be busy selling his house, finding new schools for his kids and explaining to friends and family why he's no longer an airline pilot.

But I Thought Alcoholism was a Disease


Alcohol abuse has always carried the stigma of being a moral failing but that perception has faded over the years. The American Psychiatric Association describes the conditions which define both alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM). The recently published DSM-5 is moving away from treating both abuse and dependency as separate conditions though the criteria used by the FAA in defining alcohol abuse is significantly different than that described in the DSM.

It is generally recognized though, that a problem with alcohol should not be faced alone. To that end, the Human Intervention and Motivation Study (HIMS), a program funded by the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) has resulted in resources being made available for pilots who have alcohol problems. The idea here is that a program which concentrates on the rehabilitation and return of pilots to the cockpit would encourage others to come forward for treatment.

The caveat of this program is that it does not protect pilots who operate or attempt to operate an aircraft under the influence from sanction. So what should this guy have done? How could he have avoided all this bother?

Well, short of not drinking so much the previous evening, he should have called in sick and not gotten on the aircraft. In fact any time up until a predetermined point a pilot can refuse to operate the aircraft and not be in violation. At my airline that point is the threshold of the aircraft door though it may be different for other carriers. That is the point of no return when determining intent.

Are You Drunk?


One of the more enervating aspects of being an airline pilot most likely not enjoyed by other professionals is having complete strangers come up to you and ask if you're drunk. This just happened a few weeks ago to me as I was in the gate area waiting to board a deadhead flight. The guy came up and asked, "Hey, you look sober. Are you our pilot?" I told him I was not (his pilot) but must confess to being a bit annoyed. 

He should ask his doctor that question on his next visit. The odds are statistically higher that the answer is yes.

But I get it. People getting on an airplane are nervous and see a guy in uniform so they open their mouth and something stupid comes out. One reply which I always long to make (but never would) is "not as far as you know."

So rest assured, nervous flyer, your pilot is not drunk. But you might want to ask yourself who would you honestly rather have flying your plane given the choice: The alcohol and drug abusing pilot played by Denzel Washington in Flight who saved everyone's life, or the stone cold sober Asiana pilots who crashed their 777 into a seawall in San Francisco on a clear day? Take your time answering. I'll wait.


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

What Makes a Go-Around So Dangerous?



Distractions and fatigue make tough go-arounds even tougher
A FlyDubai 737-800


Even though the investigation into the crash of FlyDubai 981 is still in its preliminary stages, one of the more plausible accident scenarios being discussed is that the aircraft attempted a go-around from an approach and subsequently stalled causing the high descent rate and impact on the runway. Video which captured the accident shows the aircraft in an extremely steep descent which is indicative of a stalled condition. And in fact the last transmission from the aircraft to the tower was that it was going around. So why are go-arounds so dangerous?

A go-around is simply a maneuver whose purpose is implied by its name. If at any time during an approach the pilot feels that for whatever reason that landing isn't the best idea, he or she aborts the landing and "goes around" for another try. This involves adding power and climbing away from the runway for another shot while retracting the landing gear and flaps or "cleaning up" the aircraft.

Sounds simple, right? Well for various reasons go-arounds seem to be one of the most stress inducing maneuvers for pilots. It is also one of the most critiqued items during checkrides as a result of being performed incorrectly. But to be perfectly truthful, a search of the NTSB database turned up only three fatal accidents attributed directly to go-arounds since 1985, at least in airline, or Part 121 flying. In general aviation, however, the number is much higher at 273 fatal accidents since 1982 attributed to go-arounds.

Those accident results suggest that pilot experience may play a factor in the successful completion of go-arounds as many general aviation pilots don't have the experience that airline pilots do. Still the go-around can be deceptively difficult and due to the low altitude nature of the maneuver leaves very little room for error if performed incorrectly.

And while the NTSB results do not capture low-speed events which did not result in a stall or accident, those types of incidents are now being identified by new data recording and analysis equipment recently installed on most airliners. These data suggest that low speed and approach-to-stall events are more prevalent than previously thought.

So What is it About Go-Arounds that Makes Them Difficult?


There are two aspects to a go-around that can make them difficult to fly and costly to screw up. The first is that the maneuver is performed close to ground. Any mistake made at low altitude has less time to be corrected before terra firma ends the flight in an abrupt fashion. The second aspect of the maneuver is that the entire vertical vector of the aircraft has to change. 

By this I mean that your 30 ton airplane which is descending at perhaps a vertical velocity of 800 feet per minute while on approach has to have its downward momentum stopped, reversed and flung back into the air at perhaps 1000 to 2000 feet per minute. It is this reversal of momentum which causes the most problems. The problem is one of "energy management".

Energy management is best illustrated by thinking about an old style roller coaster and is central to flying an aircraft. As a roller coaster tops a hill, its speed is slow but the potential energy is high. As it hits the trough, the potential energy is low but the speed, or kinetic energy, is high. The same principle applies to an aircraft as pilots can often trade airspeed for altitude or vice versa.

During an approach, however, both the speed and altitude are necessarily low. The aircraft is flying at only 1.3 times its stall speed and has both gear and flaps extended which add drag. It has a low energy state. The only way to get the airplane back up in the air from this position is to add a lot of power from the engines. But this addition of power must be accompanied by a coordinated and precise pitch adjustment.

Pitch control during a go-around is extremely important. The use of insufficient pitch, or keeping the nose too low, may cause the aircraft to merely accelerate but not climb. Use too much pitch, or raise the nose too high, and the aircraft will climb, but the speed may drop. Remember that at this point the aircraft is already very close to stall speed. Stall the aircraft, and it drops like a rock with little chance for recovery at low altitude.

One last characteristic of most airliners is that their pod-mounted engines are hung below the wing. What this means is that an addition of power causes the nose to tend to come up as the thrust vector is being applied from below the wing. This tendency must be anticipated and countered to prevent the pitch from getting too high.

Distractions and Fatigue Don't Help


So we've decided to go around, put the power in and are climbing away from the ground. What happens next? It gets extremely busy is what happens next. The tower will be barking instructions at you with headings and altitudes to fly or you may be scrambling to read your previously issued climbout instructions and approach plate. You will also have to clean up the aircraft without overspeeding anything. This means retracting the gear and then the flaps on their speed schedule. You'll also be getting a frequency change right about now to return from tower to approach control. Not blowing through your assigned altitude is also somewhere on your plate since you are now climbing at full power.

There's a hierarchy of flying priorities that many a flight instructor attempts to instill in their students: Aviate, Navigate and Communicate (and in that order). Forgetting to do these tasks in the proper order can result in a bad outcome. Or as an old aviation commandment instructs: 

Thou must maintaineth thy airspeed lest the ground reach up and smite thee.

A mention of fatigue is in order here. All of these things are challenging to do on any given day, but being fatigued, as has been alleged of the FlyDubai pilots, makes them especially tough. My personal experience with fatigue is that while you might feel alert during a tricky approach and go-around, channelizing attention on one particular item is very easy to do when fatigued. This means that instead of simultaneously managing many different tasks in the cockpit during a go-around, it is easy to become fixated on one particular item at the expense of others

The danger of course is that of fixating on say a course change while dropping your pitch and airspeed out of your scan. This one mistake, if not corrected quickly, can doom an airplane. Recovering from a stalled condition takes many thousands of feet of altitude if the stall is severe enough, and that is altitude you just don't have.

Go-arounds, if you happen to be on an airplane when one happens, are really no big deal and I don't mean to make any nervous flyers more so. Many times they are for mundane things like spacing too close to the previous airplane or being directed by the tower. I personally like flying them as they're a challenge and something a little different from the routine. Just know that when they do happen, the guys or gals up front are really busy.









Saturday, March 19, 2016

FlyDubai 737 Crash - No Survivors



Flydubai FZ-981 crash - no survivors
No survivors from Airdubai crash



A FlyDubai 737-800 enroute from Dubai to Rostov on Don in Russia crashed on approach to the runway. There were no survivors among the 55 passengers and seven crew.

The aircraft had attempted one approach which was unsuccessful.The aircraft then held for two hours. Upon the second approach attempt, the aircraft appeared to strike a wing tip and crashed on the runway.

The weather at the time was an overcast ceiling with winds gusting between 27 and 42 knots. Investigation continues.