Two Flights in Danger, Only One Survived.

Jet Blue flight 191 and Air Blue flight 202, two flights that occurred a world away from each other. The Captains of both flights put their aircraft and passengers into a perilously dangerous situation yet only one crashed. What was the reason the other aircraft landed safely with not one injured passenger? The answer : The actions of the Co Pilot.

While the actual situations were completely different, potentially the outcome could have been the same for both aircraft. Let’s take a look at these two flights and determine why one crashed and one didn’t.

Jet Blue Flight 191

On Jet Blue flight 191 the Captain became mentally incapacitated and he potentially put his passengers, crew and aircraft in grave danger. His mental impairment appeared to be severe and his actions and words were not that of a sane person. Realizing the Captain was not himself and that he posed a dangerous threat to the flight, the First Officer (Co Pilot) convinced the Captain to leave the cockpit and then locked the door to prevent him from re entering. The Captain was restrained and the aircraft successfully diverted to an en route airport.

The actions taken by the co pilot possibly saved many lives. What is important to note here is that there is a certain hierarchy of command in every cockpit. While all crew members are encouraged to speak up about any situation it is ultimately the Captains decision. This must be understood and respected by all who fly in a multi crew environment.

The Jet Blue Co Pilot showed extreme courage in taking over the aircraft. This would not have been an easy decision to make and would have been more difficult to follow through with the actions that he did.

Air Blue Flight 202

Air Blue flight 202 was however not so fortunate. The aircraft was put into a precariously dangerous position by the Captain. The Co Pilot well understood the dangerous position they were in and was well within his rights to demand the Captain do something about it or take over the controls and do it himself. Yet he didn’t. Right up to the point where the Captain flew the aircraft into the side of a hill killing every body on board, the Co Pilot did nothing.

Why didn’t he?

The subsequent air accident investigation report gives one clear indication of why the First Officer failed to be assertive and take some form of action. Yet I believe there is a second reason which added to this and the reason has it’s origins deep in the countries culture.

The investigation transcript described that during the early phases of the flight, the Captain repeatedly badgered the First Officer with questions and lectures in such a manner that completely humiliated him. This unprofessional and non company standard procedure belittled the first officer into an under confident and submissive frame of mind.

Already you can see that the Captains actions have forfeited any assistance or help from the first Officer for the simple reason that he is now too scared to say anything at all. Crew Resource Management or CRM is a method used whereby a Captain utilizes all resources and information available to him in order to make the best decision. As I wrote in a previous paragraph all crew members should be encouraged to speak up and give suggestions to the Captain. In the periods of flight prior to the accident the Captain has taken CRM and thrown it out the window.

In the 70 seconds immediately prior to the crash the aircrafts warning system broadcast loud commands demanding that the crew pull-up (to go around in an urgent  manner) to avoid terrain an astounding 21 times. Not only did the Captain fail to implement the required procedure all 21 times but the Co Pilot failed to take some sort of action.

Obviously he had been verbally beaten into submission earlier in the flight but wouldn’t you say or do something to save your own life. The co pilot new that a collision with terrain was imminent yet he didn’t demand that the Captain go around or even take over and do it himself.

Cultural Restrictions

What reason would someone have where they would rather fly into a hill and die then risk upsetting the Captain?

Based on many reports, there are certain cultures which place enormous attention on the actions in any situation between a superior and a subordinate. Many cultures demand certain behavior and it would not be possible for a junior to to tell his superior that he is doing something wrong under any situation.

A perfect example of this can be found in the investigation report of Korean Air Flight 801 which crashed in Guam in 1997.

In summary we can see that when the aircraft was deliberately put into an unsafe situation by the Captain, the First Officer failed to speak up or take action for the previously given reasons. This is why assertion is such an important requirement for Co Pilots. Even in situations that are not dire and can happen in any line flight. If he or she sees or feels something is not being done correctly they should speak up without delay.

For the full investigation report on Air Blue 202 click here.

Technorati Tags: Airline Co Pilots Must be Assertive, Co Pilot Assertion, Cockpit Crew Gradient, multi airline crew

I am surprised with the actions of the shipping company mentioned in the article below and also Fed Ex’s statement with both going against those try to fix the gap in the new pilot fatigue rules. New fatigue rules were implemented recently as a direct result of the investigation carried out on the Colgan Air regional jet that crashed in Buffalo NY in 2009. Unfortunately the new rule was not mandatory for cargo pilots.

One of the largest shipping companies is criticizing an effort to apply Federal Aviation Administration scheduling rules for avoiding fatigue among commercial airline pilots to pilots flying cargo airplanes. Reps. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) and Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) said last week that they were filing legislation to addresses a gap in new fatigue rules announced by the FAA last year that were crafted in response to the crash of a regional airline jet in Buffalo, N.Y., in 2009. The FAA responded to the crash late in 2011 with new rules that require airlines to allow their pilots to get at least 10 hours of off-duty time between flight schedules, which transportation officials have said would give them at least the opportunity to get eight hours of sleep before they get to the cockpit. But FedEx said Monday in a statement provided to The Hill that applying the same rules to cargo pilots was a bad idea.

“The proposed legislation attempts to implement a ‘one size fits all’ approach to fatigue mitigation; an approach that the administration’s own analysis determined was not practical,” the FedEx statement said. “The FAA recognized that fact when it wisely introduced the Fatigue Risk Management System, allowing carriers and pilots to develop customized plans together to achieve the best possible alertness results.”

I have stated my opinion on a previous post but feel it is important enough to say it again. The hours of operation that are flown by the majority of cargo pilots are at the back of the clock. When most passenger pilots are in bed asleep, freighter pilots are hard at work trying to stay awake to safely pilot their aircraft in the middle of the night. If any group of pilots were to benefit from these new rules it would be the freighter pilots.

I have been asked why is it important that pilots who do not carry passengers should come under this new rule as they are not putting anybody at risk by flying tired. I have two responses to this.

Firstly tell that to the families of the cargo pilots, ask them if it is okay for Mum or Dad to have less rest and therefore more chance of an accident than passenger pilots.

Secondly a large percentage of those freight planes make their final landings at airports early in the morning. About the same time as when peak hour for the morning passenger flights gets underway. Now our tired freight pilots are operating in the same airspace as the fresh well rested ones, which could potentially cancel out any safety benefits.

The sooner legislation is passed making the new rules mandatory for cargo operators the safer our skies will be.

To view the full article click here: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/aviation/223093-shipping-company-condemns-one-sized-fits-all-cargo-pilot-fatigue-rules

Technorati Tags: Cargo pilot Fatigue Rules, cargo pilots, Fed Ex, freighter pilots, pilot fatigue

A Misleading and Inaccurate Article

I recently came across an article from the Times of India that not only portrayed the journalists complete lack of knowledge and understanding of his articles topic, but also displayed dramatic, sensationalistic rubbish. To say that the story was presented with a complete lack of accuracy is an understatement and has done probably nothing more than frighten the general public and discredited an Airline Captain for carrying out his duty.

For those of you who have read my posts recently you will know that several of these have been about aircraft go arounds, and how they are carried out for safety reasons. Let’s take a look at the quote below taken from the article and discuss the inaccuracies it contains.

The last minute go-around from the low height is dangerous and could result in disaster. In aviation parlance the decision height is the critical level at which the pilot has to take the final call on whether to land or seek another turn. In the case of the Jet Airways flight, the aircraft had passed the decision height and was just 70 feet above the runway.

The first sentence states that last minute aircraft go arounds from a low height is dangerous and could end in disaster. Absolute rubbish, it doesn’t matter to the aircraft whether it is 10 feet off the ground or 1000 feet, it still flies the same! The procedure is identical and at worst the wheels may come in contact with the runway which happens regularly in go arounds from low visibility approaches. If the autopilot is engaged, the only action required from the pilot is to simply push one switch. One push of the go around button and the aircraft will conduct the procedure by itself. The pilots are simply required to monitor and retract the landing gear once a positive rate of climb is established.

In the next sentence the writer talks about the decision height and this being the point where a decision is made to either land or go around. To put this simply when a pilot reaches the decision height he or she will determine if they can see the runway or not. If yes, a landing can be made, if no, then they must go around. This is totally separate to a Captains decision to go around at any time because of a safety reason.

Let me pose a question. You are the Captain of a Boeing B747 on final approach to land. You have reached your decision altitude of 200 feet, the weather is good so you make the decision to continue and land. You are now 50 feet above the runway and your co pilots yells out that another aircraft is entering the same runway you are about to land on and there is no way you can stop in time. If you land your aircraft you will definitely crash into the other plane potentially killing everyone.

So what would you do, land and crash or go around in complete safety? If you believe the journalist of this story, once you have passed your decision height you must land. I think you have picture now of the complete nonsense given in this article.

Pilots are Extensively Trained to Conduct Go Arounds

Many airlines require their pilots to conduct go arounds from less than 50 feet when undergoing regular simulator training sessions. For the author to say it was dangerous to go around below 70 feet is once again pure nonsense.

An initial probe revealed the pilot claimed that the “go-around” was done as he was feeling uncomfortable and led to the revelation that there was no landing clearance.

This quote is probably the most ridiculous of all. A go around must be carried out if a landing clearance has not been given to the aircraft from the control tower. To land without a landing clearance is dangerous and should never be done. The writer talks about the aircraft making the approach without a landing clearance, this is completely normal. Sometimes under busy periods a pilot won’t be given a landing clearance until they are very close to the runway. Ask any pilot who has landed at busy airports such as Chicago’s Ohare  and you will be told how late they can sometimes be given.

Unfortunately I could go on and on about the discrepancies in this article. While the writer has produced a dramatic and exciting article it is almost completely incorrect. For whatever the reason the DGCA is investigating Captain Chaudhary I believe no accusations should be made until while the investigation is being conducted.

Remember that any Airline Captain has many responsibilities to consider when in command of an aircraft and that is why he or she earns the pilot salary they are paid. I certainly hope the writer of this article has not been paid for this inappropriate and innacurate story.

If you would like to read the article in question please click here.

Technorati Tags: Aircraft Go Arounds, airline captain, decision height, Pilot Salary

Increasing Laser Attacks on Aircraft

Recent information published by airline regulatory authorities in many countries shows a startling increase in the amount of incidents involving personal lasers being shone into the cockpit of aircraft on approach to land. In the United Kingdom alone there were 2000 reports of laser lights being directed at approaching aircraft last year in 2011. This is a significant increase when compare to around twenty reports in 2005. Small handheld lasers became available around the year 2000 and since then have become easier to buy at a much cheaper price. Unfortunately the minds of some are not as bright as the lasers they purchase for a few dollars on the internet, the consequences of targeting an aircraft with one could unfortunately be disastrous.

Affects On Pilots

The cockpit of an aircraft flying at night will purposely be kept in a dark or low light state. One reason for this is so that the pilots night vision is not affected. When on approach to land the pilot has to constantly transition his eye sight from his cockpit instruments to the runway outside. Even if a laser is shone into the cockpit without directly hitting the eyes of the pilot, the cockpit will be lit up and night vision will be temporarily destroyed.

Depending on the strength of the laser, a direct hit into the eyes of a pilot could produce immediate vision impairment, temporary blindness and even permanent damage. Consider the implications this could have knowing that a pilot relies almost completely on visual clues when landing an aircraft. In order to land safely a pilot needs visual reference in order to flare the aircraft at the correct height above the runway and to ensure the aircraft touches down on the runway centreline. With vison impaired from a laser it is possible the cues could be distorted or not be seen at all resulting in an unsafe landing or requiring a go around.

Why Not let the Autopilot Land the Aircraft

Most modern airliners are equipped with multiple auto pilots which have the capability to auto land the aircraft. If this is the case, why then don’t pilots let the autopilot do all the landings? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to use this functionality so we do not have to rely on the pilots vision? Unfortunately this idea as good as it sounds is not always possible and is definitely not the remedy.

Usually automatic landings are only carried out in times of low visibility at the airport, in most other cases landings are manually flown by the pilot. Some of the reasons for this include:

• Not all airports posses the required equipment for an aircraft to auto land
• Not all aircraft have the required equipment installed to be able t carry out an auto land
• Pilots need to maintain their recency requirements and must land an aircraft a minimum amount of times in a set time period.
• Auto landings must be briefed by the pilots before the approach
• Both the aircraft and it’s pilots must be set up and prepared for an auto land. Switching at the last minute is not a safe option

Okay, let’s use a little common sense here. If a pilot is landing an aircraft at night it is perfectly feasible to assume that he or she is finishing a final leg after a long day of of domestic sectors or perhaps a long international flight. The fact is the pilot flying the plane is going to be tired, he or she will be juggling a number of variables such as weather conditions, ATC and time constraints. The last thing that is needed right now is some moron with a new toy laser having fun attacking a real aircraft with people on board.

The consequences of this could potentially be fatal, and this practice needs to be stopped as soon as possible. While it is ilegal to point a laser at an aircraft in most countries (Usually a fine) I feel the penalty should be considerably increased to deter the ill informed and not so bright from doing it again.

Technorati Tags: danger of lasers pointed at aircraft, Laser attacks on aircraft, pilot night vision

Pilot Incapacitation

It is not yet known exactly what caused the breakdown of JetBlue’s flight 191′s Captain and why he acted the way he did. The fact that he did put in jeopardy the safety of his passengers, crew and airplane, yet through the intervention of the First Officer a possible tragic ending was avoided. While this may seem an inappropriate statement the Captain suffered what is known in aviation terms as “Pilot Incapacitation”. Any physical or mental disability whether permanent or temporary that restricts the pilot from performing his duty is known as pilot incapacitation. The fact that the First Officer was able to recognise that the Captain was suffering a form of incapacitation and then acted appropriately has probably saved many lives.

Assertion

Having flown many years myself in the right hand seat of airliners before becoming a Captain I can assure you that this would have not been an easy thing for the First Officer to do. While pilots are taught how to handle pilot incapacitation, this very rare situation would have required a lot of courage to carry out. Co pilots are taught to be assertive in the cockpit and to speak up if they see a mistake being made or are unhappy with any decision made by the Captain. However to convince a Captain to leave the cockpit and lock him out was a very brave thing to do indeed. In some Asian cultures this would be unthinkable even if the co pilot had serious doubts of the Captains mental health.

Presently in the US, the FAA is trying to introduce stricter requirements for pilots requiring co pilots to have a minimum of 1,500 hours flight time to fly on airline operations. While many believe this is an unacceptable proposition, in the JetBlue incident I believe a positive outcome was due to the fact the other crew member was an experienced pilot. New, low time copilots with little experience would rarely question the word of an experienced Captain which in this case would have more than likely ended in disaster.

Click here to read a related article discussing this and similar incidents and how the FAA is proposing to adress the problem:  http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/02/the-real-lesson-of-the-jetblue-pilot-meltdown/?xid=gonewsedit

Clayton Osbon, the pilot of JetBlue Flight 191 to Las Vegas who turned off the radios, dimmed its monitors and told First Officer Jason Dowd that “we need to take a leap of faith” until Dowd was able to lock him out of the cockpit and make an emergency landing in Amarillo, TX, now faces criminal charges and is being medically evaluated. Dowd performed admirably in safely landing the aircraft, so he and JetBlue deserve credit. But the outcome could have been much different. In a time when the airline industry is lobbying to weaken regulations for pilot training, the incident raises some serious questions about larger safety issues.

Technorati Tags: JetBlue Pilot Breakdown, pilot assertion, pilot incapacitation

A Pilots Story

With all the tragedy that occurred on September 11 2001, there were tales of survival from those who’s normal patterns were inexplicably changed and personal tragedy was avoided. Why is it that some lives were saved when their normal routines would have put them in the path of evil on that tragic day?

The video below tells of one such story, First Officer Steve Scheibner was expecting to crew American Airlines flight 11 form Boston to Los Angeles on September 11th 2001. The anticipated call from crew scheduling never came and Steve was not assigned to fly that ill fated flight.

This incredibly heartfelt, moving video of Steve Scheibner tells the incredible story of how he is still alive today when by all accounts he should have died aboard AA flight 11. He talks about his emotions and feelings he feels for First Officer Tom McGuiness who did crew the flight and died alongside the other crew members and passengers.

Technorati Tags: a pilots story, A Pilots Story from September 11, september 11

Revolutionising the Cockpit

In a first amongst the larger carriers, United Airlines has broken tradition and chosen a modern form of electronic flight bag (EFB) by means of an Apple Ipad for pilots to replace the tried and true paper airport charts, maps and manuals usually carried in the flight bag. United has finalised a deal with Apple to supply 11,000 Ipads for all United and Continental Pilots which will replace the volumes of manuals and charts they normally carry. The use of one lightweight device to replace several volumes of manuals and charts has many significant advantages, six of which are detailed below.

Apple Ipads for Pilots, Advantages for the environment

Depending on the airline, pilots can carry around 40 lb’s of paper in their flight bag in the form of Operation Manuals, Route Manuals, Airways charts and others. Some airlines that carry a ships library will reduce the weight in their cockpits by around 150lb’s. It is fairly obvious that eliminating the need for this much paper would considerably reduce the number of trees required to be cut down. Also consider that these manuals are not set and forget.  All of these manuals need to be updated on a regular basis resulting in more paper, in fact the Jepperson approach charts are updated every fortnight so the paper savings are measurably significant. UA have stated this will save almost 16 million sheets of paper which is equivalent to more than 1,900 trees.

The second advantage to the environment is due once again to the weight savings created by the removal of paper documents and manuals from the cockpit. Basically the more weight an aircraft carries on any particular flight, the more fuel it will burn in order to get there. So conversely if the weight of an aircraft is reduced the less fuel it will burn. This fuel saving not only reduces the operating costs for the airline but also conserves fossile fuels and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. UA have quoted they will save 326,00 gallons of fuel per year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3,208 metric tons.

Advantages for the Pilot

The removal of clutter! A tidy workplace is mandatory regardless of your occupation and the cockpit of an aircraft is no exception. On any approach for example a pilot will require a number of different charts to facilitate the safe arrival to the airport. At a minimum he or she will require an arrival chart, an approach chart and a taxi chart. Instead of having three charts positioned at different locations within the pilots view, with the ipad it is simply a matter of swiping between the required charts.

Expandability! At some stage in our careers most pilots will need some sort of eye correction, reading glasses probably the most common. Interpreting small approach charts particularly at night or when tired becomes difficult as they are harder to see. A brilliant function of the ipad allows pilots to expand a particular chart just as you can with photos to obtain a much clearer and detailed view of the chart. Personally I believe this is the most important feature from a pilots perspective.

Here is an Aerodrome Chart at Tokyo’s Narita Airport.

Notice how difficult it is to determine the taxiway designators.

Now take a look at an expanded view on the Apple Ipad

The chart can now be seen more easily and and with a great deal more clarity making it easier for the pilot to have situational awareness and reducing the chances of making a mistake. Pilots are given instructions from ground controllers to taxi the aircraft on set taxiways to avoid other aircraft to get to their parking bay or departure runway. As an example a pilot may be instructed to taxi via: Alpha (A), Whiskey 8 (W8), Bravo (B), Kilo (K) Sierra 4 (S4). Now try and follow that on the top chart.

Fast Search Options. All pdf readers on the ipad for pilots have a search function. Now with all the company manuals stored on the one device the time to find any piece of information is greatly reduced. There are times when it is advantageous for a pilot to find some information quickly and this is where the ipad search function excels. It is also convenient having them all stored in the one place.

One final advantage I would like to mention regarding the ipad for pilots is another benefit of weight reduction. With all paper manuals removed from a pilots flight bag the chance of injury is also significantly reduced. Cockpits of airliners, even the larger aircraft are relatively small in size. Manoeuvring a heavy flight bag into postion, especially for the co pilots seat requires bending of the back and stretching to accomplish. This has resulted in back injuries which can end a pilots career instantaneously and the company will lose one of it’s trained pillots.

The Apple Ipad for pilots is a fantastic tool with numerous benefits and advantages for airlines, pilots and the environment alike, I would hope that eventually all companies will introduce them into the cockpit and reap the benefits of this amazing device.

Technorati Tags: Apple Ipad for Pilots, Ipad for pilots, pilots ipad

Go Around

In a previous article I discussed some of the reasons why a pilot may make the decision to discontinue an approach and conduct a go around. In the video below you can see a classic example of of a B747 making an approach to Narita airport in Japan in a strong crosswind. The wind is producing some serious turbulence which can be seen by the rocking and rolling motion of the aircraft on final approach. Also upon reaching the runway the aircraft floats on top for some time before a go around is executed. This could have been caused by a wind gust or excessive speed.

It appears to me that the aircraft is landing on Runway 16 Right at Narita which is notorious for bad turbulence whenever there is a south westerly wind blowing. Even a light five to ten knots from this direction can produce a very uncomfortable approach for both southerly runways.

For whatever reason the pilot has decided to go around, whether he is too fast on his airspeed, he has floated past his touch down point or he simply felt it was not safe to push for a landing. By making the go around he has the option to try again or perhaps to divert to another airport where the wind is not so strong.

So the next time you feel the power come up on approach to land and the aircraft starts climbing away, remember that this is not a dangerous situation as so openly toted by the media. But is actually the safest option a pilot can make.

Technorati Tags: Airliner go around, B747 Go Around, missed approach