Incident: Emirates A388 at Moscow on Sep 10th 2017, go around from about 400 feet AGL 8nm before runway

[altiplano]

You're such a myopic hater it's nearly comical!

[rookiepilot]

You're such a myopic hater it's nearly comical!

Wrong. I'm not a myopic cheerleader and think our country's flag carrier is immune to incidents.

I call it as I see it, take it or leave it.

It's the ones like yourself presumably, calling the AC incident a routine missed approach are myopic idiots.

[Rockie]

It's the ones like yourself presumably, calling the AC incident a routine missed approach are myopic idiots.

Give it a rest Rookie, nobody calls it a routine go-around or considers it a non-event especially at the place where it matters most. You're just barking up a tree at an imaginary cat.

[rookiepilot]

It's the ones like yourself presumably, calling the AC incident a routine missed approach are myopic idiots.

Give it a rest Rookie, nobody calls it a routine go-around or considers it a non-event especially at the place where it matters most. You're just barking up a tree at an imaginary cat.

It's repeatedly called exactly that on the SFO thread. Just stating a fact. Read the thread.

[pelmet]

It's the ones like yourself presumably, calling the AC incident a routine missed approach are myopic idiots.

Give it a rest Rookie, nobody calls it a routine go-around or considers it a non-event especially at the place where it matters most. You're just barking up a tree at an imaginary cat.

It's repeatedly called exactly that on the SFO thread. Just stating a fact. Read the thread.

Thanks for the input. This thread is about an Emirates incident. Please feel free to add to the AC thread for comments about the SFO incident. Any more comments about the Emirates case.

[complexintentions]

rookiepilot,

Then why don't you just keep posting your vendetta on that thread instead of an Emirates incident one?

I realize we all suffer from varying levels of bias on all kinds of issues, it's only human. But yours are way, wayyyy out there. Completely divorced from reality and subjectivity.

pelmet, trying to bleat on about how BA cadets do just fine and the like has zero to do with the quantifiable fact that Emirates' experience levels - as measured by the usual metrics: hours, years, and operational relevancy - have absolutely plummeted over the last several years. Not just in recruitment but in training, which is the more alarming fact. I did not state that inexperience was a direct cause of this incident. Only that the trend makes such things virtually inevitable. Anyone there or who has been knows this. Been there, done that, still well-connected to many there. If you can debate from the same personal experience, then let's do that. Otherwise, argue all you want, I don't give a shit - it's just empty noise and theories.

As far as Moscow, it's not only feet/metres, it's QFE ops. Lots of extra threats not encountered every day. Also, any EK pilot may or may not have a lot of experience at a specific airport, given that while I was there I flew to 140 different destinations, many only once, others multiple times. It cannot be assumed the crew was experienced in DME. They may have been there once before a year ago, many times, or never. Not excuses - I can hear rookiepilot already, waggling his finger - but definitely possible contributory causes.

But pelmet, good news. If you're so keen for Emirates, they're now accepting applications with only a frozen ATPL.

[rookiepilot]

rookiepilot,

Then why don't you just keep posting your vendetta on that thread instead of an Emirates incident one?

I realize we all suffer from varying levels of bias on all kinds of issues, it's only human. But yours are way, wayyyy out there. Completely divorced from reality and subjectivity.

pelmet, trying to bleat on about how BA cadets do just fine and the like has zero to do with the quantifiable fact that Emirates' experience levels - as measured by the usual metrics: hours, years, and operational relevancy - have absolutely plummeted over the last several years. Not just in recruitment but in training, which is the more alarming fact. I did not state that inexperience was a direct cause of this incident. Only that the trend makes such things virtually inevitable. Anyone there or who has been knows this. Been there, done that, still well-connected to many there. If you can debate from the same personal experience, then let's do that. Otherwise, argue all you want, I don't give a shit - it's just empty noise and theories.

As far as Moscow, it's not only feet/metres, it's QFE ops. Lots of extra threats not encountered every day. Also, any EK pilot may or may not have a lot of experience at a specific airport, given that while I was there I flew to 140 different destinations, many only once, others multiple times. It cannot be assumed the crew was experienced in DME. They may have been there once before a year ago, many times, or never. Not excuses - I can hear rookiepilot already, waggling his finger - but definitely possible contributory causes.

But pelmet, good news. If you're so keen for Emirates, they're now accepting applications with only a frozen ATPL.

You have posted absolutely zero evidence this is anything to do with pilot experience. Perhaps this was an instrument failure.

I have no problem with AC or any other carrier. It's this ridiculous pro Canadian analysis where Canadian pilots in an incident can do no wrong, and foreign carriers are all a bunch of dangerous idiots that is looney.

But carry on ---

[Rockie]

CRM has evolved over the years and now is part and parcel of something called "threat and error management" (TEM). Cultural attitudes play a big part in the success of this and can be an aid or a hindrance. In Canada we are very good at it because we have relatively little cultural hangup about pointing out errors when they occur no matter who makes them. We still make mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that's really important.

That's the part you need to learn Rookie. Nobody says Canadian pilots don't make mistakes.

[pelmet]

pelmet, trying to bleat on about how BA cadets do just fine and the like has zero to do with the quantifiable fact that Emirates' experience levels - as measured by the usual metrics: hours, years, and operational relevancy - have absolutely plummeted over the last several years. .

Actually, it has everything to do with it. You post about low experience levels being involved and I prove that low experience levels exist in airlines around the world with excellent safety records from BA cadets to most airlines having direct entry captains which cannot be anything other than low experience. And this is combined with new routes and destinations.

I am not sure what is wrong with you. You make a general statement that cannot be interpreted in any other way but as to be about levels of experience being the significant factor and then you deny it. Here is what you said....

Yep! When the experience has left in droves and they continually lower the minimum hiring requirements, it catches up with you eventually.

Then you say....

I did not state that inexperience was a direct cause of this incident. Only that the trend makes such things virtually inevitable.

You did the same thing her on another thread....Say something then deny you said it when I prove it wrong.

I did not state that inexperience was a direct cause of this incident. Only that the trend makes such things virtually inevitable.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... s#p1010336

Finally....

If you can debate from the same personal experience, then let's do that. Otherwise, argue all you want, I don't give a shit - it's just empty noise and theories.

So now, only if one has the same personal Emirates experience as you can one make credible comment yet somehow you, who never worked at AC can make all kinds of what you probably consider to credible comments on their incidents. Your double standards are.....interesting

Closer to home as an example...WJ sent some direct entry captains and FO's out across the Atlantic starting last year. How was their experience level. Any major criticism of the airline or maybe it is just another example of airline ops. Meanwhile, turboprop regional guys move up to the international airlines along with fighter guys all the time. Little global or airline experience. I agree that experience is beneficial, but my main point is that Emirates is not out of the ordinary when it comes to experience levels, and had several serious incidents more than five years ago when the experience levels were much higher. And their safety record is fairly good for an airline going to a lot of strange places. And also that many of the recent serious incidents have been from very experienced guys.

Once again...sour grapes?

To be honest with you, I think that the long haul guy's time is not nearly as credible as the equivalent short haul guy's time. A fourteen hour flight of eating, sleeping, and monitoring over the ocean for much of the time pales in comparison to a short haul guy doing an approach several times a day. While one can land once a month and still be able to handle the plane OK, it is hardly the same level of experience. You might not even see bad weather for the entire year.

[confusedalot]

Experience levels are a nice to have but not a need to have to my mind, and this, from an experienced person. Meaning that if you find it, by all means, take it. But the world will not come to an end with the cadet types.

Airline flying is a paint by numbers job for the most part. Fly the route, don't fly into a thunderstorm, limits from visibility to wind not good and all the rest of it, go to the alternate, and so on.........

The only real casualty would be operational efficiency, hence all of the bloopers that we hear about. As I said before, embarrassing situations but not critical situations.

Having said all of that, would rather live in a world of experience instead of the paint by numbers currently in vogue.

[rookiepilot]

CRM has evolved over the years and now is part and parcel of something called "threat and error management" (TEM). Cultural attitudes play a big part in the success of this and can be an aid or a hindrance. In Canada we are very good at it because we have relatively little cultural hangup about pointing out errors when they occur no matter who makes them. We still make mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that's really important.

That's the part you need to learn Rookie. Nobody says Canadian pilots don't make mistakes.

That's fine, and point taken.

In this instance I just find it interesting that instantly low experience levels are assumed the cause. Just like we assume a professional crew here wouldn't have a serious deviation without a confluence of factors, I assume this crew didn't descend to 400 agl 7 miles back without something else serious going on.

CRM I think has become widely accepted worldwide, and safety records have only gotten better and better, including the foreign carriers. Some of them, have pristine records.

Per Pelmets point, experience trends or lack of them will be felt worldwide as the pilot market is global. So N American carriers will not be immune, in my view.

Might be interesting going forward and training will have to adjust.

I will also take this opportunity to praise AC I was recently on an international flight with a major delay, they handled it extremely well, and flight crew was very good too. Am noticing improvements.

Pearson airport....well that's another matter.

[GRK2]

Pelmet...would you be so kind as to show me where and when WS hired DEC's? I call BS on that one for sure!
This was a conversion incident...feet to Meters. (That's direct from a contact deep inside EK)
Easily done, and more than a few have buggered it up. In this case, it was missed...EK works their crews harder than most, (90 hours a month consistently) and the routes take them to many many more airports and countries than most Canadian Pilots ever get to. So , you guys are ALL correct: fatigue, Human Factors (CRM) experience levels, airport familiarity, QFE ops, meter conversions, pressure to succeed, pressure to upgrade, cultural differences (company and internationally) Shall I go on? It's a big world as an expat pilot, with many more pitfalls to navigate. Try not to judge until you actually know more about being one.

[pelmet]

Pelmet...would you be so kind as to show me where and when WS hired DEC's? I call BS on that one for sure!
This was a conversion incident...feet to Meters. (That's direct from a contact deep inside EK)

I'm afraid that your BS call is incorrect. WJ hired direct entry 767 captain from....Westjet. They were 737 captains with no 767 experience at all...or on the type of flying done. AC does the same all the time within their own company when pilots go direct entry onto a new type with no previous experience. I mentioned this exact thing in my first post on the thread. Admittedly, a 767 has significant similarities to an NG. But at AC, the types are quite different and the airline has captains move between types as PIC with virtually no previous experience on type.

A bit scary doing this kind of thing. I did it as well on one type a few years back and it may be happening again soon as well with new type and mostly new destinations. I really would prefer about 400 hours experience with someone showing me the ropes but that is not how it works at many places.

As for the QFE thing being the cause, I have heard that as well. And the crew may very well have been inexperienced, particularly for this location. My only point was that a post was written in a way that could easily be interpreted as EK being singled out for inexperience causing an incident in a way that sounded like it was somehow one of the only one that had inexperienced pilots and were therefore more dangerous than others for this reason(based on the way the original post was written).

[GRK2]

Sorry Pelmet...on this DEC thing you're dead wrong...it actually means from OUTSIDE the company...if a pilot starts a new TR from INSIDE, he/she is not DEC. The mighty seniority lists usually prevent it. If a company has no qualified pilots, on a seniority basis, they can do two things, bring in contract pilots to TRAIN the already employed pilots on the new type, then after the contract ends, let the contract guys go. Or they can hire from outside, qualified on type (usually) pilots. Hence the term "Direct Entry Captains." If you upgraded to a new type from INSIDE a company, you are new on type but not Direct Entry...see the difference? Airlines that have no "local" talent use this method frequently to staff equipment with qualified Captains if they have no one that is able to to upgrade...very common in many off shore airlines. My own experience was Captain B757/B767 (same TR in North America) to B744 to B777/ B787 (similar type rating again) and each time I had no previous time on type, but at no time was it an issue, it was all training. The DEC part is an employment term only.
As far as the inexperience card being played, CI's comments are coming from a very strong position, his previous company has a history of "lowering" the bar in order to make budgets and upper management get their bonuses by cheating the rank and file out of what used to be good training. Several hull losses and close calls prove this...he gets to say what he says from experience I'm sad to say.
Cheers...

[complexintentions]

pelmet,

I'm flattered and amused that you go to so much trouble to deconstruct my words. It doesn't really strengthen your viewpoint though. It just makes me wonder if I'm going to need a restraining order one day.

My only point was that a post was written in a way that could easily be interpreted as EK being singled out for inexperience causing an incident in a way that sounded like it was somehow one of the only one that had inexperienced pilots and were therefore more dangerous than others for this reason(based on the way the original post was written).

Actually, you're the only one who chose to interpret it that way. I'm not singling out EK - experience and lack thereof have the same contributory effect anywhere. But this is a thread about an EK incident, and my offhand comment was basically that the chickens are coming home to roost, nothing more. You chose to take that and run with it on some rant about how inexperienced pilots are just as safe as experienced ones. Sorry, but all other factors being equal, that just isn't true. There's a reason insurance companies won't insure inexperienced pilots and hiring minimums are in place - even for, and especially for, cadets. EK has been dropping theirs for years now and at the same time, have had a big spike in incidents. Coincidence? Sure. BA cadets are not trained by inexperienced trainers, nor are they paired with inexperienced captains. EK used to have both, more and more, they do not. See the difference? (It's only one of many). No, of course not - you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thing is, you've demonstrated this defensiveness about lack of experience many times. All it does is make it screamingly obvious that you don't have a lot of it yourself.

(Not that that isn't readily apparent from many other things you post).

And you know, there's no shame in that. And no need to be so constantly argumentative. You've just had it explained to you what a DEC is, for example, after your completely incorrect use of the term. Why not just accept that and learn instead? But instead I'm sure you'll just post another inscrutable explanation as to how really, the WS guys were DEC's, somehow.

I have to smile when I read comments like "airline flying is paint by numbers" (confuzed guy) or "to be honest with you, I think that the long haul guy's time is not nearly as credible as the equivalent short haul guy's time". Both remarks are again, just plain uninformed and quite transparent in their intent. Almost always, they're the kind of thing said by people who have never done the thing they disparage. All I know is that I don't shoot my mouth off as to the ease of something I've never done. That just makes one seem well, lame.

And I would expect it more from an ignorant public, not supposed "fellow aviators", but this is the age we live in, I guess. But if you wonder why I put more weight on comments made by people who've actually experienced something personally, first-hand, look no further than your own words. It doesn't mean I don't respect others viewpoints, in fact I welcome them all, but when I know someone's background their viewpoint is a lot easier to parse.

Anyway, off to work to paint some numbers. I'm glad that such an apparently easy, mindless job pays as well as it does.

[pelmet]

My only point was that a post was written in a way that could easily be interpreted as EK being singled out for inexperience causing an incident in a way that sounded like it was somehow one of the only one that had inexperienced pilots and were therefore more dangerous than others for this reason(based on the way the original post was written).

Actually, you're the only one who chose to interpret it that way.

Wow, I'm impressed. You now know how hundreds of people you never met interpret your comments. Perhaps widebody jet time enables that special capability in the minds of some.

You chose to take that and run with it on some rant about how inexperienced pilots are just as safe as experienced ones.

Ho hum...once again, you post incorrect information. when in fact I stated in response to you....

I agree with your general statements experience being preferred to lack of experience and of course fatigue being undesirable and likely at this company.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 0#p1013281

And I agree that lesser experienced instructors, in general, is undesirable.

Probably this was just a case of a screw-up. Just like some AC guys have screwed-up, and Delta guys, and AA guys, and almost all airlines guys. I don't know the number of EK incidents compared to before but the company is probably significantly bigger than before. Aside from their accident(which admittedly is hugely important), is there actually a higher RATE of significant incidents nowadays?

And you know, there's no shame in that. And no need to be so constantly argumentative. You've just had it explained to you what a DEC is, for example, after your completely incorrect use of the term. Why not just accept that and learn instead? But instead I'm sure you'll just post another inscrutable explanation as to how really, the WS guys were DEC's, somehow.

Perhaps I don't know what the official definition of a "DEC" is but when you jump to being a captain on a new type you never flew before, I sure there is some sort of general term for it. I did it, WJ and AC have guys that do it, airlines around the world do it, and EK does as well, perhaps even including the guy in Moscow(although a poster on another forum said he was from the A330).

Going from a modern Boeing to another modern Boeing or Airbus to Airbus is really not that big a deal , I admit. I may even have tried it myself(just for fun and only on the laptop sim of course). Going direct from being a Boeing guy to an Airbus guy or vice versa or to one of the other manufacturers with no previous experience is a much bigger challenge but it is done and done quite often(I have been told that going from B to A is more difficult than A to B). Might even try it myself again at some point and sooner than I prefer. Anyways the general meaning of what I meant by DEC is quite clear(feel free to give it an exact term if you like).

I have to smile when I read comments like "airline flying is paint by numbers" (confuzed guy) or "to be honest with you, I think that the long haul guy's time is not nearly as credible as the equivalent short haul guy's time". Both remarks are again, just plain uninformed and quite transparent in their intent. Almost always, they're the kind of thing said by people who have never done the thing they disparage. All I know is that I don't shoot my mouth off as to the ease of something I've never done. That just makes one seem well, lame.

Almost always perhaps. But not always. I'm sure I have done both...at least in the sim on my laptop computer. I'm sure seven hours bunk time on a double crew ultra-longhaul with a nice couple of days off after that may seem to you like you are gaining as much experience as a guy doing 6 legs a day. After all, playing with the CPDLC is great exercise for the fingers.

Anyways...perhaps just best to move on and see if you have any more inside info that you can share with us. After all, the best we can do is learn from this and prevent a future incident/accident. That's what counts.

[confusedalot]

Sorry to have gotten under your skin complex, totally unintended.

I use clichés to save typing time, perhaps I should have said that airline flight operations have matured to a level where objective processes and procedures prevail, overwhelmingly weeding out and controlling common risk factors, to the point where skill levels of the operators (think talented furniture craftsmen versus production line ikea workers), are not unduly taxed.

Or something like that.

Hey, flying a navajo in the crap (never mind where I was expected to squeeze it in) was alot harder for me in comparison to airline ops. Had to read more and learn more for sure, but at the end of the day, I wonder if I could still do the navajo job. Could do the airline job any day.

Oh well, times they are a changing.............

[Eric Janson]

I mentioned this exact thing in my first post on the thread. Admittedly, a 767 has significant similarities to an NG. But at AC, the types are quite different and the airline has captains move between types as PIC with virtually no previous experience on type.

A bit scary doing this kind of thing. I did it as well on one type a few years back and it may be happening again soon as well with new type and mostly new destinations. I really would prefer about 400 hours experience with someone showing me the ropes but that is not how it works at many places.

I have no F/O time on B757/B767/A320/A330/A340 - I've only flown these aircraft as Captain.

You don't get thrown in the seat - you do a Type Rating to learn the aircraft.

Then you do Line Training with an Instructor - this is where you learn the routes and get checked out to operate to various airports (JFK requires a flight with an Instructor at my current company).

Not a big deal imho - happens at Airlines all over the world.

[pelmet]

I mentioned this exact thing in my first post on the thread. Admittedly, a 767 has significant similarities to an NG. But at AC, the types are quite different and the airline has captains move between types as PIC with virtually no previous experience on type.

A bit scary doing this kind of thing. I did it as well on one type a few years back and it may be happening again soon as well with new type and mostly new destinations. I really would prefer about 400 hours experience with someone showing me the ropes but that is not how it works at many places.

I have no F/O time on B757/B767/A320/A330/A340 - I've only flown these aircraft as Captain.

You don't get thrown in the seat - you do a Type Rating to learn the aircraft.

Then you do Line Training with an Instructor - this is where you learn the routes and get checked out to operate to various airports (JFK requires a flight with an Instructor at my current company).

Not a big deal imho - happens at Airlines all over the world.

It is a lot of good experience you have. You as well as anybody in this business knows that there is a massive amount of information for each of these types. Sim training covers the the required regulatory amount in many companies and and line training in larger companies does not cover every airport. And of course there are operators who do charters and go to new airports. Obviously, the system works overall as demonstrated by the worldwide safety record.

But the reality is........a lot of stuff is just learned on the line. No doubt you have heard the famous line of "what's it doing now". And no doubt those words have come from pilots that finshed their training long ago.

[atphat]

Pelmet, are you an instructor?? I have to admit, the way you run your mouth on here I figured you to be Airlines. You know. Pontificating like you knew something. I’ll have to admit most of your posts for me are tldr. Seriously though. Your airline experience comes from laptops?