Its the Bullshit which baffles, bothers and bewilders..
Mr Nagy noted that unstable approaches continue to be a leading contributor to approach and landing accidents and runway excursions.
That is about the only honest line in the latest load of Pony-pooh from the ATSB PR division. Even so, it fails (miserably) to mention one important fact. This type of event is a ‘flight school’ common occurrence; instructor pilots earn their corn teaching proper approach and landing technique. Ask any experienced instructor how many times they have patiently nursed a neophyte through the ‘proper’ management of an approach and how ‘alert they are to this type of basic error occurring. By the time a pilot gets to fly an ATR, preventing this type of event should be a reflex action; long before imitating a well trimmed manhole cover. Ye Gods; managing the aircraft through turbulence, wind shear, crosswinds, wind gusts etc. are a routine part of daily life; yet here we see three (3) pilots with front row seats, who on fine day, without any problems, sat through a crash. WTD………
At that time, the aircraft was subjected to a significant change in the wind from a 10 knot headwind component to a 2 knot tailwind component. This resulted in a further loss of lift, and the captain later stated that he felt the aircraft drop out from under him.
I’m having a hard time even believing the statement above, let alone that the conditions cited had any bearing, whatsoever, on an aircraft supposedly crewed by ‘professional’ pilots. FDS there are these things called wind socks; there is a thing which tells you speed (in the air and over the ground)_, there is a thing which tells you how fast you are descending, there is even a thing to tell you, at about three miles this is getting out of shape – do something – that is good training and experience. Perhaps one of these elements was missing?
“The continuation of the approach when a go-around should have been conducted allowed the subsequent conditions to develop, leading to the hard landing,” ATSB Executive Director Transport Safety Nat Nagy said.
I say BOLLOCKS. Had the original causes been identified, the approach should have been under control long before ‘crash – down’. This was a good day to be flying, good enough for a hand flown visual approach, with every conceivable external factor benign, a serviceable aircraft and a tiny wind shift for the last 30 feet. My Grand Mama could land it with all that going for her. Go around – bullshit; thumb in bum, mind in neutral applicable. This was a typical pre solo student pilot error, overseen and watched by two supposed ‘training pilots’ all the way to the wreckers yard. Bloody disgraceful.
“It also highlights the risks associated with incorrect handling of an approach to land, and the need for prompt and decisive action, as the available time to remedy an unstable approach situation is short.”
The time to remedy an unstable approach is not when ‘time is short’. The time to remedy an unstable approach is at flight school, not on a passenger service with 60 odd in the back, on a good day.
No excuses the Australian Tenuous Substandard Bullshit (ATSB) can pen will remove the major problems. Double flame outs (One crew) – Tail plane damage (One crew) – Crash landing (one crew) that’s seven (7) pilots complicit in three (3) nearly serious events. Yet ATSB only spouts ‘go around’ early. Sage advice? – BOLLOCKS.
Aye, steam off; but there is something seriously wrong. You can kill yourself and your passengers as often as you like –provided it’s all done nice and ‘legal’ like. Don’t worry if you can only fly the Sim – and a wizard on the software – that’s what modern pilots do best, dontchyaknow. “Bong - Autopilot disengaged” “OMG we all be killed”. “Did you sign off the paper work” – Famous last words – thank the gods we’re legal. - Cue CRASH sounds and screams.…
Toot – toot.
Mr Nagy noted that unstable approaches continue to be a leading contributor to approach and landing accidents and runway excursions.
That is about the only honest line in the latest load of Pony-pooh from the ATSB PR division. Even so, it fails (miserably) to mention one important fact. This type of event is a ‘flight school’ common occurrence; instructor pilots earn their corn teaching proper approach and landing technique. Ask any experienced instructor how many times they have patiently nursed a neophyte through the ‘proper’ management of an approach and how ‘alert they are to this type of basic error occurring. By the time a pilot gets to fly an ATR, preventing this type of event should be a reflex action; long before imitating a well trimmed manhole cover. Ye Gods; managing the aircraft through turbulence, wind shear, crosswinds, wind gusts etc. are a routine part of daily life; yet here we see three (3) pilots with front row seats, who on fine day, without any problems, sat through a crash. WTD………
At that time, the aircraft was subjected to a significant change in the wind from a 10 knot headwind component to a 2 knot tailwind component. This resulted in a further loss of lift, and the captain later stated that he felt the aircraft drop out from under him.
I’m having a hard time even believing the statement above, let alone that the conditions cited had any bearing, whatsoever, on an aircraft supposedly crewed by ‘professional’ pilots. FDS there are these things called wind socks; there is a thing which tells you speed (in the air and over the ground)_, there is a thing which tells you how fast you are descending, there is even a thing to tell you, at about three miles this is getting out of shape – do something – that is good training and experience. Perhaps one of these elements was missing?
“The continuation of the approach when a go-around should have been conducted allowed the subsequent conditions to develop, leading to the hard landing,” ATSB Executive Director Transport Safety Nat Nagy said.
I say BOLLOCKS. Had the original causes been identified, the approach should have been under control long before ‘crash – down’. This was a good day to be flying, good enough for a hand flown visual approach, with every conceivable external factor benign, a serviceable aircraft and a tiny wind shift for the last 30 feet. My Grand Mama could land it with all that going for her. Go around – bullshit; thumb in bum, mind in neutral applicable. This was a typical pre solo student pilot error, overseen and watched by two supposed ‘training pilots’ all the way to the wreckers yard. Bloody disgraceful.
“It also highlights the risks associated with incorrect handling of an approach to land, and the need for prompt and decisive action, as the available time to remedy an unstable approach situation is short.”
The time to remedy an unstable approach is not when ‘time is short’. The time to remedy an unstable approach is at flight school, not on a passenger service with 60 odd in the back, on a good day.
No excuses the Australian Tenuous Substandard Bullshit (ATSB) can pen will remove the major problems. Double flame outs (One crew) – Tail plane damage (One crew) – Crash landing (one crew) that’s seven (7) pilots complicit in three (3) nearly serious events. Yet ATSB only spouts ‘go around’ early. Sage advice? – BOLLOCKS.
Aye, steam off; but there is something seriously wrong. You can kill yourself and your passengers as often as you like –provided it’s all done nice and ‘legal’ like. Don’t worry if you can only fly the Sim – and a wizard on the software – that’s what modern pilots do best, dontchyaknow. “Bong - Autopilot disengaged” “OMG we all be killed”. “Did you sign off the paper work” – Famous last words – thank the gods we’re legal. - Cue CRASH sounds and screams.…
Toot – toot.