AC Incident Nashville

[bobcatdriver]

Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?

And if he lost sight of the door, would he just keep walking towards it and hope it opens on its own?

Care to tell the inside joke?

The majority of problematic pilots are post-2022 hires. FWIW.

[cdnavater]

[quote=co-joe post_id=<a href="tel:1345677">1345677</a> time=<a href="tel:1759382654">1759382654</a> user_id=53]
[quote=digits_ post_id=<a href="tel:1345008">1345008</a> time=<a href="tel:1758037602">1758037602</a> user_id=34065]
[quote=Blueontop post_id=<a href="tel:1345006">1345006</a> time=<a href="tel:1758033337">1758033337</a> user_id=45620]


Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?


[/quote]


And if he lost sight of the door, would he just keep walking towards it and hope it opens on its own?
[/quote]

Care to tell the inside joke?

The majority of problematic pilots are post-2022 hires. FWIW.
[/quote]
I would find it surprising to learn that a post 2022 hire was a line training Captain

[pelmet]

This incident reminds me of the Halifax one. At minimums, maybe a bit of a glow or very, very fuzzy lighting and then decided to continue in the hope that the indicated descent path would lead to the runway. In the case of Halifax, there were Airbus issues with the descent path where turbulence creates a sort of descent path recalculation which did not lead to the runway. In this case I am not sure if they were doing it visually based on the training captain stating he had visual reference or if the pilot flying continued descent on the cockpit indications which did not lead to the proper point on the runway.

[Eric Janson]

This incident reminds me of the Halifax one. At minimums, maybe a bit of a glow or very, very fuzzy lighting and then decided to continue in the hope that the indicated descent path would lead to the runway. In the case of Halifax, there were Airbus issues with the descent path where turbulence creates a sort of descent path recalculation which did not lead to the runway. In this case I am not sure if they were doing it visually based on the training captain stating he had visual reference or if the pilot flying continued descent on the cockpit indications which did not lead to the proper point on the runway.

The problem with the Halifax accident is they were conducting a non -precision approach in precision approach conditions. I don't believe they ever saw the runway until they ended up on it after landing short.

At my company we would not have been able to fly this approach with the published conditions.

That's a little different than losing visual contact after passing MDA.

In both accidents someone should have called for a go-around - seems to be a reluctance to do this at Canadian companies.

[Dry Guy]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

[pelmet]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

I do believe that there is a general element to that. Regulators allow a company to have very little fuel left when they reach their alternate.

My suggestion is to change to a 45 minute final reserve to lessen the psychological pressure on pilots.

[digits_]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

I do believe that there is a general element to that. Regulators allow a company to have very little fuel left when they reach their alternate.

My suggestion is to change to a 45 minute final reserve to lessen the psychological pressure on pilots.

Wouldn't they still have had their diversion fuel and the extra approach fuel and the final reserve? Should be plenty to go missed, no?

I don't think increasing the final reserve amount will change much. The psychological factor is not about the absolute amount, but about the "i am using the Sacred Final Reserve Fuel"-feeling.

[Dias]

Using final reserve fuel is pretty serious on large aircraft. Like on the 777 I think you're limited to 20 degrees of flap and shallow pitch angles once the low fuel warning comes on. Always carrying enough to get to your alternate without getting into that situation would improve safety.

[Eric Janson]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

I'll take as much as I think is necessary. I give a reason for the extra uplift - never hear anything further.

It will depend on Location/Weather/Alternate/Client/Previous Experience.

I work for a global operator flying to all 7 continents. If I'm going somewhere new I will always take extra.

I've done flights where we tanker fuel up to Maximum Landing Weight.

[cdnavater]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

I'll take as much as I think is necessary. I give a reason for the extra uplift - never hear anything further.

It will depend on Location/Weather/Alternate/Client/Previous Experience.

I work for a global operator flying to all 7 continents. If I'm going somewhere new I will always take extra.

I've done flights where we tanker fuel up to Maximum Landing Weight.

Typically tanker fuel is an economic decision, cheaper to haul it than pay for it at destination.
As for extra, if you can justify it, it’s not usually a problem with dispatch. The problem is when you have used your extra fuel and now you are on minimum fuel where a go around is almost an automatic diversion to your alternate airport, that is typically a psychological pressure. If weather is good, a go around does not automatically necessitate a diversion but you are now using your alternate fuel at destination, that is also pressure inducing because you have put yourself and everyone else in a position of get in or die trying.
I was in the back and experienced three go arounds at destination, clear skies but nasty winds, three times encountering wind shear, those poor bastards were on a line check. I chatted with them after we got in, no one said it but the fourth attempt almost certainly had windshear, they flew through it, because we had no other options at this point, used up all of our alternate fuel!
Anyhow, worrying about diverting should not be a reason to not go around when needed, we preach it at Jazz, no one will get called in for doing the right thing, unless of course it’s self induced and often, that will result in some remedial stable approach and landing SIM training.

[pelmet]

How much extra fuel do you guys carry Eric? That's my theory why people don't go around.

I'll take as much as I think is necessary. I give a reason for the extra uplift - never hear anything further.

It will depend on Location/Weather/Alternate/Client/Previous Experience.

I work for a global operator flying to all 7 continents. If I'm going somewhere new I will always take extra.

I've done flights where we tanker fuel up to Maximum Landing Weight.

Typically tanker fuel is an economic decision, cheaper to haul it than pay for it at destination.
As for extra, if you can justify it, it’s not usually a problem with dispatch. The problem is when you have used your extra fuel and now you are on minimum fuel where a go around is almost an automatic diversion to your alternate airport, that is typically a psychological pressure. If weather is good, a go around does not automatically necessitate a diversion but you are now using your alternate fuel at destination, that is also pressure inducing because you have put yourself and everyone else in a position of get in or die trying.
I was in the back and experienced three go arounds at destination, clear skies but nasty winds, three times encountering wind shear, those poor bastards were on a line check. I chatted with them after we got in, no one said it but the fourth attempt almost certainly had windshear, they flew through it, because we had no other options at this point, used up all of our alternate fuel!
Anyhow, worrying about diverting should not be a reason to not go around when needed, we preach it at Jazz, no one will get called in for doing the right thing, unless of course it’s self induced and often, that will result in some remedial stable approach and landing SIM training.

The last two airlines I worked for implemented policies of a maximum of two go-arounds at destination. Apparently, someone did seven go-arounds on one of our jets that led to the policy at the former company.

[Eric Janson]

The last two airlines I worked for implemented policies of a maximum of two go-arounds at destination. Apparently, someone did seven go-arounds on one of our jets that led to the policy at the former company.

Diverting after the second go-around was policy at every Airline I've worked at.

[Eric Janson]

Typically tanker fuel is an economic decision, cheaper to haul it than pay for it at destination.
As for extra, if you can justify it, it’s not usually a problem with dispatch. The problem is when you have used your extra fuel and now you are on minimum fuel where a go around is almost an automatic diversion to your alternate airport, that is typically a psychological pressure. If weather is good, a go around does not automatically necessitate a diversion but you are now using your alternate fuel at destination, that is also pressure inducing because you have put yourself and everyone else in a position of get in or die trying.
I was in the back and experienced three go arounds at destination, clear skies but nasty winds, three times encountering wind shear, those poor bastards were on a line check. I chatted with them after we got in, no one said it but the fourth attempt almost certainly had windshear, they flew through it, because we had no other options at this point, used up all of our alternate fuel!
Anyhow, worrying about diverting should not be a reason to not go around when needed, we preach it at Jazz, no one will get called in for doing the right thing, unless of course it’s self induced and often, that will result in some remedial stable approach and landing SIM training.

The correct thing to do is plan ahead. If conditions are marginal then a diversion is a reasonable course of action.

You can try one approach. If it doesn't work - divert.

The issues start when people try a second approach and/or holding - reducing their fuel reserves.

I've diverted on a Line Check - the only CB in the area was sitting right over the airport and we had no visual at minimums due to heavy rain. Never heard a word about it.

At my present company we have to write the minimum diversion fuel on the flightplan. Very easy to see when you need to divert - I will divert before reaching this amount.

I've done flights where the alternate was in another country (Africa) and flights where the alternate was over 5 hours away.

For years I did a flight where the alternate was 2 hours away - never diverted. Then someone not familiar with the operation diverted. This caused so many issues that the client wanted extra fuel taken on these flights. We were then landing with 4+ hours of extra fuel - fine with me!

[pelmet]

I've done flights where the alternate was in another country (Africa) and flights where the alternate was over 5 hours away.

For years I did a flight where the alternate was 2 hours away - never diverted. Then someone not familiar with the operation diverted. This caused so many issues that the client wanted extra fuel taken on these flights. We were then landing with 4+ hours of extra fuel - fine with me!

My longest diversion to an alternate was two hours. Weather at the alternate was great but things can happen in a two hours and I was worried about another aircraft becoming disabled on the runway in that time period. Perhaps worrying too much but asked Arctic Radio to monitor notams for me as I did have a couple of other airports along the way(but with no fuel available).

[bobcatdriver]

[quote=co-joe post_id=<a href="tel:1345677">1345677</a> time=<a href="tel:1759382654">1759382654</a> user_id=53]
[quote=digits_ post_id=<a href="tel:1345008">1345008</a> time=<a href="tel:1758037602">1758037602</a> user_id=34065]
[quote=Blueontop post_id=<a href="tel:1345006">1345006</a> time=<a href="tel:1758033337">1758033337</a> user_id=45620]


Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?

And if he lost sight of the door, would he just keep walking towards it and hope it opens on its own?
[/quote]

Care to tell the inside joke?

The majority of problematic pilots are post-2022 hires. FWIW.
[/quote]
I would find it surprising to learn that a post 2022 hire was a line training Captain
[/quote]

There’s a few worker bees in the training department post covid, sub 500 hrs PIC that are doing line indoc and sim training.

[bobcaygeon]

[quote=co-joe post_id=<a href="tel:1345677">1345677</a> time=<a href="tel:1759382654">1759382654</a> user_id=53]
[quote=digits_ post_id=<a href="tel:1345008">1345008</a> time=<a href="tel:1758037602">1758037602</a> user_id=34065]
[quote=Blueontop post_id=<a href="tel:1345006">1345006</a> time=<a href="tel:1758033337">1758033337</a> user_id=45620]


Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?

And if he lost sight of the door, would he just keep walking towards it and hope it opens on its own?

Care to tell the inside joke?

The majority of problematic pilots are post-2022 hires. FWIW.
[/quote]
I would find it surprising to learn that a post 2022 hire was a line training Captain
[/quote]

There’s a few worker bees in the training department post covid, sub 500 hrs PIC that are doing line indoc and sim training.
[/quote]

Is that because the conditions suck and no one else wants to do it?

[altiplano]

You get these junior FOs that go into sim instructor positions to avoid junior schedules, then they upgrade and stay in training, sim instructor, maybe line indoc, plying their hopeful road to become checkers, avoiding their lack of seniority. They're a pretty big deal.

[cdnavater]

You get these junior FOs that go into sim instructor positions to avoid junior schedules, then they upgrade and stay in training, sim instructor, maybe line indoc, plying their hopeful road to become checkers, avoiding their lack of seniority. They're a pretty big deal.

If they are putting junior FOs into instructor positions, does that not mean that more senior pilots are not applying? Or, does the company prefer junior pilot salaries in the training department?

[altiplano]

The company prefers junior FO/RP instructors as they're cheaper. Selection in the training department isn't based on seniority, time on fleet, or capability. Connections and/or cost related decisions.

[digits_]

The company prefers junior FO/RP instructors as they're cheaper. Selection in the training department isn't based on seniority, time on fleet, or capability. Connections and/or cost related decisions.