[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by honeybee

It would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Did you notice the pre-flight instructions for the use of life jackets etc are given so mechanically with an attendant manning the PA system and a couple of others making the movements on cue? It's simply a necessary chore which, if not done, would land them in trouble.

I guess we still aren't out of the age where information was held from anyone and everyone.

EDIT: @Jeroen: you mentioned in one of your posts above that snow creates friction and hence more runway is needed. Should it be the opposite? Could you throw some light on this? By the way I haven't yet visited areas which experience snowfall, so my image of snow is something close to the ice accumulating in the refridgerator, so I may be way out of my league on this question.

In the same post you have also mentioned if the airstrip is at a higher altitude or if the ambient temperatures are high you will need more runway: I guess it's because the air is thinner?

Snow or "standing water" during take off causes extra resistance, so you need more power or a longer runway. Snow comes in many shape and formats.even so called wet and dry, so it all depends. Still, fresh snow tends to be a fluffy/powder like substance. You really have to push the wheels though it.

Ill see if I can find some take off performance tables in the next few days to illustrate.

Correct on the high altitude and high temperatur!.

Jeroen

[Jeroen]

For those of you who would like to read a bit more detail on the subject of take-off; This here is an excellent article. It's detailed but it explains very well all safety aspects of taking off.

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...off_safety.pdf

Jeroen

[revtech]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

These days, very often on an iPad like device where you just input the relevant parameters. For most commercial carriers I believe this work will be done by the dispatch team, but the crew must verify it. And adjust where needed.

Jeroen

its called an EFB..

Originally Posted by Jeroen

2) Why did we come in so low? We were well below any known published approach I'm familiar with.

first what do you mean by "well below any published approach" and secondly How may i ask, did you know that the airplane was below

They have promised me an answer by this Monday, so we'll see.

did you get a reply ?

Jeroen

Originally Posted by honeybee

the pre-flight instructions for the use of life jackets etc are given so mechanically with an attendant manning the PA system and a couple of others making the movements on cue? It's simply a necessary chore which, if not done, would land them in trouble.

I agree but have you ever wondered how many passengers ever listen to that ?

In the same post you have also mentioned if the airstrip is at a higher altitude or if the ambient temperatures are high you will need more runway: I guess it's because the air is thinner?

lower density for higher temp and high altitudes

[Jeroen]

EFB = Electronic Flight Bag:

I loved my flight bag! Planning a flight was as much fun and interesting as the flight itself. I'm a bit of a navigator nerd, so I love maps, charts. I still have a sextant and I'm probably one of a dying breed of navigators that knows how to use it!

The EFB comes in all sort of shapes and forms. In essence it is a device that replaces paper documents in the cockpit. Manuals, charts, tables etc.

There are all sorts of different classes and ratings. Based on my experience and what I read on aviation forums moving to a no-paper cockpit started in the 90s. I know Lufthansa was one of the first major European carriers to introduce it on its fleet late 90s I believe. At that time they run on very special dedicated hardware/software platforms. The breakthrough in chip technology and notably solid state memory, which did away with the need for hard drives has helped a lot moving this technique into the cockpit.

A big commercial airliner carries a lot of documentation. The Aircraft Operating Manual, Minimum Equipment List to name a few could consist of 4-6 thick binders. And on top of that there are continuous revisions of parts of these manuals. So maintaining them in a current state is a huge undertaking.

Same is true for all maps and charts, airport information etc. A lot of paper. Most of it is valid for a maximum of 6 months only.

Broadly speaking, you need to to carry all of the above to meet formal legal requirements. Introducing EFB meant a lot of weight was saved, updating became relatively easy and everybody carried current documents, chart, table etc. Also, rather then using tables and graphs for performing for instance take off or landing calculations, these could now be automated with simple inputs by the pilots, rather then have to work your way through various tables and graphs to figure out say you landing distance.

It took quite a while before the various authorities were convinced that the various devices, hardware and software and content met the aviation regulations.

But that is all behind us and EFB are here to stay and are used in just about all various forms of flying, be it General Aviation, Commercial and or military.

A lot of the map / chart data these days is also incorporated in the various class / digital cockpit concept. So you can see on a cockpit display where you are on a map, you can see airports, airway, the works!!

My EFB was my iPad with various programs on it. It also doubled up as a moving map, using it's GPS. Never the less, I also always kept a set of proper paper charts, both sectional and low altitudes. I found planning was easier on paper chart, because it gave me better overview. Also, as stated earlier, I'm a bit of a nut case when it comes to navigation and I just like working with charts.

And I never really wanted to rely on my iPad alone. In all honesty, it has never let me down. But I have seen various pilots on aviation forums reporting having had problems at the same time on three EFBs. Which meant they had nothing else to fall back on.

Its probably old fashioned or a sign of my inexperience as a pilot, but I think keeping your flight information on separate media (i.e. paper and digital) makes sense.

Various programs on the iPad also allow you to put a flight plan (VFR or IFR) together and upload it.

All of the above is based on my own experience flying in the USA under FAR rules. It might be different here in India. I just don't know.

Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag

Below published approaches:
You can find all commercial/public approaches and airport information on various websites. The Indian government publishes them as well. It's all public and free information.

I fly to and from Delhi on average at least 2 times a week, so I've flown these approaches approx. 150 times, looking out of the window, with the paper charts on my knees. I like to check what the pilots are doing. Now I'd be the first to admit that it is not that easy to gauge altitude, but I'm probably better at it then the average passenger, being a pilot myself. Also I've overflown most of the land marks dozens of times, so you get a pretty good feel on what it normally looks like. i.e what altitude you overfly certain parts of the approach or leading to the approach.

Lastly, the actual flight profile is available on various website as well. A lot of commercial aircraft are equipped with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). And of course, there is a whole community out there that listens in and build pretty fancy applications around it. You can track a flight, see where it is, speed, altitude, type everything and several of these sites offer a playback function too. So you can look up flight track data from weeks ago and replay the flight. It will tell you exactly where that flight was, horizontally and vertically on a map.

See for instance: http://www.flightradar24.com

By the way, if you fly a lot, you should really install its app on your smart phone. When you're waiting at the gate, the plane isn't there yet and the ground staff tells you the plane is inbound, ask for the flight number and plug it in. If it's still 200 miles out at 35.000 feet, you're not going anywhere soon, no matter what the ground staff tells you.

By the way, JetAirways has told me I get my reply on or before December 4th.


Jeroen

[liferocks]

@jereon

Sir I might be able to answer your queries on that particular flight. These are the normal assumptions from a pilots point of view.

1. No passenger information during rapid descend.

Pilots are required to don oxygen masks at the first indication of depressurisation and talking with those masks on is quite a task. They perform their recall actions wearing those masks and descend to lowest safe altitude or 10000 ft whichever is higher. There is no way they would talk to passengers before reaching that altitude. I assume that this was a controlled descend since pax oxygen masks weren't deployed.

After that passengers were told that they are returning back due to a technical snag. This is very normal as passengers tend to panic if given details of the emergency while still in flight. However I do agree a few more comforting words from the Captain would have been appreciated.

2. Flying as low as 1500 ft from 50-60 miles.

As a commercial airline pilot no one would fly unsafe altitudes. In Delhi MSA is 2600 ft and Delhi elevation is 777ft. It is probable that you were flying at 2600ft but within 25 miles from DPN. You might have been flying for extended period of time, to burn fuel so as to come down to maximum landing weight.

3. Speed brakes in flight are only deployed upto flight detent, so you are right in your observation about speed brakes not fully deployed.

And of course like you, all of us are waiting for Jet Airways official reply to you on this matter. I am in no way defending anyone here but just shared my point of view.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by liferocks

@jereon

Sir I might be able to answer your queries on that particular flight. These are the normal assumptions from a pilots point of view.

1. No passenger information during rapid descend.

Pilots are required to don oxygen masks at the first indication of depressurisation and talking with those masks on is quite a task. They perform their recall actions wearing those masks and descend to lowest safe altitude or 10000 ft whichever is higher. There is no way they would talk to passengers before reaching that altitude. I assume that this was a controlled descend since pax oxygen masks weren't deployed.

After that passengers were told that they are returning back due to a technical snag. This is very normal as passengers tend to panic if given details of the emergency while still in flight. However I do agree a few more comforting words from the Captain would have been appreciated.

2. Flying as low as 1500 ft from 50-60 miles.

As a commercial airline pilot no one would fly unsafe altitudes. In Delhi MSA is 2600 ft and Delhi elevation is 777ft. It is probable that you were flying at 2600ft but within 25 miles from DPN. You might have been flying for extended period of time, to burn fuel so as to come down to maximum landing weight.

3. Speed brakes in flight are only deployed upto flight detent, so you are right in your observation about speed brakes not fully deployed.

And of course like you, all of us are waiting for Jet Airways official reply to you on this matter. I am in no way defending anyone here but just shared my point of view.

Sorry,
I think you are completely and utterly wrong.

I'm not aware of any published procedures for any aircraft that would tell you not to descent to 10.00ft or below in case of cabin pressure problems. If there is, please enlighten me and show me a copy.

With oxygen masks on pilots can talk to ATC, to each other, to the cabin crew and on the PA. If they have a satellite phone as part of their onboard communication suite they can talk on that one too. How do you think military jets communicate, or for that matter how I would communicate if I fly a Cirrus at 25000 ft with no pressure cabin. We wear oxygen mask and it doesn't hamper the ability to communicate with anybody via any media. Via bluetooth I can even make a mobile call on my mobile phone if I have coverage, whilst wearing an oxygen mask.

There is no human behavior analyst in the world that would even remotely agree with your statement. I've been in a few dicey situation over the years . You can not over communicate. You try to play it down, not provide real information, you make it worse. That's what they did.

Everybody knew something was wrong and that was not acknowledged by the cockpit or the cabin crew. It took a long time even when we were well below 10.000 feet. By that time the cockpit crew would have time (and no oxygen masks even though that is of no relevance as I stated earlier) to communicate properly to the passengers. They failed. Just check youtube. There are dozens of videos out there that will show you how the cockpit crew communicates with the passenger in a transparent and realistic fashion. Rarely, if ever it will result in panic. Panic occurs when people don't know what is happening, what to expect and start making their own conclusions.

The way this was handled is sheer arrogance, ignorance or stupidity of the crew, possibly of the airline policy, you pick your choice,. I can show you multiple examples on how most airlines would handle such a situation and it is very different.

You have a lot of faith in commercial pilots and you should. However, the statistics and facts prove you wrong. Professional commercial pilots make mistakes all the time. And it would not be the first time they fly too low, by a long shot! About 25 % of the world wide fatal accidents are known as controlled flight into terrain. I.e. flying too low. Both for the commercial as well as the GA sector.

They did not circle, I doubt there is the need for 737 to burn fuel when returning to Delhi , they came in on a normal approach route, just well below the normal altitudes. They captured the glide slope from underneath and even a rookie pilot knows you don't do that. Even if you land visually!

I have captured the complete flight profile, so I know they were too low. I'm just waiting for JetAirways for their explanation.

It's difficult to observe to what extent speed brakes and or spoilers are extended visually, especially from where I was sitting in row 2. Never the less, it was not a full emergency descent, that was absolutely sure. Whether they were in the flight detent or not I can't tell for sure, but I would think not. That would have caused more buffeting and a steeper descent.

I have every 737 AOM, performance and training manual and then some. So I'm reasonable familiar with every procedure and SOP in the book (literally).

Jeroen

[RVD]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

They captured the glide slope from underneath and even a rookie pilot knows you don't do that. Even if you land visually!

Jeroen

Where did you get that from ??? Most company SOP's require you to capture Glide Slope from below. It's actually capturing the GS from above which is potentially hazardous as it increases crew workload. If you are at final approach altitude before reaching the final approach fix, you will obviously capture the GS from below.

Thanks
RVD

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by RVD

Where did you get that from ??? Most company SOP's require you to capture Glide Slope from below. It's actually capturing the GS from above which is potentially hazardous as it increases crew workload. If you are at final approach altitude before reaching the final approach fix, you will obviously capture the GS from below.

Thanks
RVD

You're entirely correct of course. What I meant to say from underneath the FAF. Way below the Final Approach Fix. They were well below pattern height, be it visual or as defined in the approach plate before capturing the glideslope.

Jeroen

[RVD]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You're entirely correct of course. What I meant to say from underneath the FAF. Way below the Final Approach Fix. They were well below pattern height, be it visual or as defined in the approach plate before capturing the glideslope.

Jeroen

Jeroen, I am sure that you already know that if a pilot cites that he is visual with the terrain and the field of intended landing and requests for a visual approach, the controller gives him a " descent as per pilots discretion". In such a case, there is nothing stopping the pilot to descend as he wishes.

Also, as a paying passenger, one has every right to question as to why the pilot did not make any announcements but the safety aspect of the approach is best left to the concerned authority( DGCA/ company safety panel) to decide,especially as a passenger you are only making guesses about altitudes,approaches etc( albeit, a very educated guess).

Anyways, I would not like to speculate as you were there and I was not so you probably know better. Request you to kindly share the reply from the airline when you get the same.

Thanks

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by RVD

Jeroen, I am sure that you already know that if a pilot cites that he is visual with the terrain and the field of intended landing and requests for a visual approach, the controller gives him a " descent as per pilots discretion". In such a case, there is nothing stopping the pilot to descend as he wishes.

No, that is not how it works. Im traveling now but I ll reply with some more detail later how it work at a B-category airport on the approach, under IFR and or VFR.
Descent as per pilot direction is more a clearance you hear whilst in cruise and it will always have an altitude where you need to go to. How and when is up to the pilot. Although the how is actually more or less defined, ATClikes to see specific descent rate. So in practice it is more about when you start the descent, rather then the descent rate

Jeroen

[RVD]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Descent as per pilot direction is more a clearance you hear whilst in cruise and it will always have an altitude where you need to go to. How and when is up to the pilot. Although the how is actually more or less defined, ATClikes to see specific descent rate. So in practice it is more about when you start the descent, rather then the descent rate

Jeroen

I am aware of that. What I meant was that when one requests for a visual approach citing the terrain and airfield in sight, he may get a clearance like " descend to circuit altitude, join right downwind/ base, cleared visual approach RWY 27, further descent as per pilots discretion". The only restriction in this case for the pilot is the noise abatement.

Most operators would recommend a descend while turning BASE during a visual circuit. This could entail catching up with the glide slope( only a reference during visual approach)beyond the FAF and below the final approach altitude depending on the distance of FAF from the navaid so there's is nothing unusual about being below the published minimum altitude if on a visual approach.

I do not want to sound out of context and since you were in the flight, you probably have your own reasons to believe as to why the approach was unsafe. I am only making assumptions here.

Thanks

[Bangalorean]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Sorry,
I think you are completely and utterly wrong.

I'm not aware of any published procedures for any aircraft that would tell you not to descent to 10.00ft or below in case of cabin pressure problems. If there is, please enlighten me and show me a copy.

While I can agree that the crew could have been more communicative, the established procedure in cases of loss of cabin pressure is precisely what "liferocks" has posted.

From "Ask the pilot":

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/09/when..._depressurize/

The first thing pilots do in such a scenario is pretty straightforward: They don their cockpit oxygen masks and commence a rapid descent to an altitude no higher than 10,000 feet. Even with a total pressure loss there are several minutes of supplemental oxygen available for both passengers and crew, but the protocol is always to get down as quickly as possible. When the passenger above spoke of “descending really fast,” this isn’t because the plane was crashing, it was because the crew was doing what it was trained to do. I’m sure it was startling, but a high-speed emergency descent is well within the capabilities of any aircraft and not, by itself, unsafe.


If, at some point during all of this, cabin pressure falls below a certain threshold — usually the equivalent of 10,000 feet — the passenger masks will deploy from the ceiling, exposing everybody to the so-called rubber jungle. This is typically the point where people begin shrieking and picturing their loved ones, but try to relax. The masks are there to assist you; the plane will be at a safe breathing altitude in just a few minutes. And 10,000 feet, the deployment trigger height, isn’t very high; in most depressurization incidents you could ignore the masks entirely with no ill effects (not that I advise doing so).

Incidentally, should a pressure loss occur over mountains or so-called critical terrain, pilots will follow predetermined depressurization routes (sometimes called “escape routes”) that allow for a timely, if more gradual descent. Even if crossing the Andes or the Himalayas, there is always the opportunity to reach a safe breathing altitude before supplemental oxygen runs out.

Jet airways pilots in this case, acted exactly by the book, following established emergency procedures. However, I concede that they ought to have communicated better with passengers after getting down to 10000 feet.


Mod Note : Please quote ONLY the relevant bits of a post. Quoting a full, long post inconveniences our mobile readers.

[revtech]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The way this was handled is sheer arrogance, ignorance or stupidity of the crew, possibly of the airline policy, you pick your choice,.

They did not circle, I doubt there is the need for 737 to burn fuel when returning to Delhi , they came in on a normal approach route, just well below the normal altitudes. They captured the glide slope from underneath and even a rookie pilot knows you don't do that. Even if you land visually!

I have captured the complete flight profile, so I know they were too low. I'm just waiting for JetAirways for their explanation.

I have every 737 AOM, performance and training manual and then some. So I'm reasonable familiar with every procedure and SOP in the book (literally).

Jeroen

the only arrogance and ignorance i see is from your posts through out this thread.

By using big terms and claiming you have manuals of different airlines doesnt make you a qualified pilot on that type of aircraft.

I strongly suggest you leave the flying to Real Pilots who know how and where to capture the glide slope from and continue you "google copy paste expedition"

cheers

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You're entirely correct of course. What I meant to say from underneath the FAF. Way below the Final Approach Fix. They were well below pattern height, be it visual or as defined in the approach plate before capturing the glideslope.

Jeroen

Firstly no FAF in a precision approach (Ex ILS). So no scenario of capturing anything below FAF. Secondly FAF is always at or above height. If you are below FAF, it means you don't have adequate terrain clearance. So again a wrong concept.

[apachelongbow]

There are two types of pilots. One is the real one who actually flies an aircraft, anything from a crop duster to a raptor. The other one is what we call an arm chair pilot. The one who flies using google searches, flight simulator and xbox. Or the one who can 'understand' the altitude of an airplane sitting in the passenger seat, or who can perceive 'speed, bank angle, rate of climb, descent, pressure change' merely because he/she has done some rudimentary training in the US or has 3000 hours on the x box simulator.

Honestly Jeroen, I don't know if you are a real pilot or not, but frankly if you were an aviator, you would 'never' dub some other crew as unprofessional merely on your perceptions from the cabin, simply because you would know in aviation every day and every landing is different, and its not difficult and definitely not impossible that you might have done worse than that crew for that problem. Also you would have an insight into the high stress levels in a real cockpit, in real emergencies, compared to the armchair flying on the xbox.

Its true and good that the captain should have informed the pax, but hey!! When you lose your brakes in a sharp turn down the ghats, will you turn back and explain your car passengers about what you are doing, going to do, so that they don't panic, or you do what it takes to get your car under control, and then decide to talk?

And to me a PA stating due, technical reasons we are returning to Delhi is more than enough assurance from the crew that I am safe, rather than hearing a long winded speech of what just happened and what did we do right.