Sounds de jour. - Groan, ‘thunk’ (report hits bin).
Radical thoughts there “V”. Probably good solid sense and ‘do-able’ but whenever I read that sort of suggestion the ‘history’ channel lights up; the episode that immediately comes to mind is one from back in the earlies, when ‘commercial’ air transport was developing in the USA. There was a helluva battle between the pilots and the operators to get ‘nav lights’ fitted; it got serious, took a long while and (from memory) took government interference to make it happen. The battle lines between what aircrew believe they need and what management is prepared to pay for is an ancient game. Take the fatigue rules for example; or the OTP pressures, fuel uplift pressures etc. A long winded way of saying good idea on its way to the archives.
Tail strikes do happen, there are some very good analysis available as to ‘why’. The offering from ‘Sky Library’ is technical enough for general use and provides a sound base for avoidance training; there are better, more detailed, technical volumes available, but for one to understand ‘what’ is involved at a base level the SL version is a good as any. Pity the ATSB investigators have not read it.
What we have from the ATSB is a highly ‘judgemental’ report, singing the praises of the cabin and flight deck crew, particularly their ‘communications’ skills. Which is a load of subjective, feel-good bollocks. What we don’t have from ATSB is detailed analysis of ‘why’ the strike occurred:-
“The ATSB found that during rotation, the cadet pilot applied a larger than normal side-stick pitch input resulting in a higher than normal pitch rate.”
No! - Really? - Hoodathunkit. A ‘cadet’ over pitching the airframe. I could swallow a newly minted, but fully qualified FO banging the airframe about – with some of the ‘standard’ reasons for that occurring explained, it becomes acceptable. But WTD is a ‘cadet’ doing out of the sim centre operating a live revenue flight? It the cadet’ was qualified then why not call it the FO (even under supervision). Why could the PIC not put a steadying hand on the side-stick to prevent the over pitch – we’ve all done it – the nose rears up and the steadying hand acting as a buffer to prevent enthusiasm turning to disaster. You would not consider doing this with a qualified, clear to line operations FO, but with a ‘cadet’ – you’d be watching like a hawk on a mouse. (Oh, it was an Airbus, then things are different; no matter). Unless of course, the use of the word ‘cadet’ is misleading in this instance; even so, ATSB should have qualified the definition, to avoid confusion and perhaps mentioned the Airbus control system.
The ‘safety message’ is valueless, vague, judgemental and avoids the real issues; or, as TOM would say – ‘ducking useless, of neither practical nor intrinsic value, except to the spin doctors telling the public just how safe they all are’.
Toot – toot.
Radical thoughts there “V”. Probably good solid sense and ‘do-able’ but whenever I read that sort of suggestion the ‘history’ channel lights up; the episode that immediately comes to mind is one from back in the earlies, when ‘commercial’ air transport was developing in the USA. There was a helluva battle between the pilots and the operators to get ‘nav lights’ fitted; it got serious, took a long while and (from memory) took government interference to make it happen. The battle lines between what aircrew believe they need and what management is prepared to pay for is an ancient game. Take the fatigue rules for example; or the OTP pressures, fuel uplift pressures etc. A long winded way of saying good idea on its way to the archives.
Tail strikes do happen, there are some very good analysis available as to ‘why’. The offering from ‘Sky Library’ is technical enough for general use and provides a sound base for avoidance training; there are better, more detailed, technical volumes available, but for one to understand ‘what’ is involved at a base level the SL version is a good as any. Pity the ATSB investigators have not read it.
What we have from the ATSB is a highly ‘judgemental’ report, singing the praises of the cabin and flight deck crew, particularly their ‘communications’ skills. Which is a load of subjective, feel-good bollocks. What we don’t have from ATSB is detailed analysis of ‘why’ the strike occurred:-
“The ATSB found that during rotation, the cadet pilot applied a larger than normal side-stick pitch input resulting in a higher than normal pitch rate.”
No! - Really? - Hoodathunkit. A ‘cadet’ over pitching the airframe. I could swallow a newly minted, but fully qualified FO banging the airframe about – with some of the ‘standard’ reasons for that occurring explained, it becomes acceptable. But WTD is a ‘cadet’ doing out of the sim centre operating a live revenue flight? It the cadet’ was qualified then why not call it the FO (even under supervision). Why could the PIC not put a steadying hand on the side-stick to prevent the over pitch – we’ve all done it – the nose rears up and the steadying hand acting as a buffer to prevent enthusiasm turning to disaster. You would not consider doing this with a qualified, clear to line operations FO, but with a ‘cadet’ – you’d be watching like a hawk on a mouse. (Oh, it was an Airbus, then things are different; no matter). Unless of course, the use of the word ‘cadet’ is misleading in this instance; even so, ATSB should have qualified the definition, to avoid confusion and perhaps mentioned the Airbus control system.
The ‘safety message’ is valueless, vague, judgemental and avoids the real issues; or, as TOM would say – ‘ducking useless, of neither practical nor intrinsic value, except to the spin doctors telling the public just how safe they all are’.
Toot – toot.