[Zappo]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Consequences for the pilot...

A Japanese JAL pilot, arriving drunk and with very high blood alcohol levels, to take his flight. Arrested, lost job, and now imprisoned by British court.

Severe consequences indeed.

(Source, BBC News site, yesterday)

The ICAO rules say accepted level of BAC for any flight crew is 0. DGCA has accordingly laid down the rules. First such violation suspends the license for 3 months. A second violation leads up to a suspension of 3 years. A 3rd repeat invites a lifetime revocation of the license.

Take the recent case of Arvind Kathpalia, happened earlier this month. The guy was supposed to be a management pilot and is apparently board member of Air India. Currently he is a director of operations besides flying the massive Boeing 787s. This guy was caught a second time under the influence of alcohol when he reported for duty to fly a New Delhi to Heathrow flight. His license has been revoked for 3 years and AI is now mulling the option of dismissing him from service.

[Jeroen]

I am really not familiar how and what the consequences are for pilots who have been in accidents and where the pilot had some or all blame.

With alcohol it tends to be a little bit straightforward, at least in theory. A few months ago a Dutch KLM pilot was fired. He was caught by a random alcohol test in Finnland. He had 0,3 promille whereas the limit was 0,2 promillle.

KLM fired him. The pilot went to court to contest. He could prove that he only had a few drinks and had not drunk anything 10 hours prior to the flight.
He never had any prior conviction.

The judge ruled against him and the dismissal stood, the pilot lost his job. I was a little surprised. Dutch labour laws favors the employee. But the court agreed with KLM that for pilots the alcohol rules need to be followed to the rule. If not it presents an immediate threat to flight safety.

I remember when we lived in the USA any alcohol related conviction had to be reported to the FAA. So a DUI in the car also meant loosing your pilot license!

Whether you can fire a pilot because he or she has lost his/her license is more a labour law related issue. Although, I am with the Dutch court on this one! No excuses!

Jeroen

[TKMCE]

I am posting this here as it is another pilot error.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...irdstr-455529/

Scary and I am not sensationalising.

Flight Global itself is a very credible source and their report covers most of the salient points of the full official report available in the DGCA website.

The link is here.

http://dgca.nic.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-GOS.pdf


Does not airlines do case studies of past accidents when they train pilots?
The "Kegworth" incident of a British Midland Boeing 737-400 aircraft was a landmark one caused by the shut down of the wrong engine. 28 years down the line, another incident and even more shocking, because unlike Kegworth, or Indian Airlines A320 at Bangalore this aircraft type has been in operation with the airline ever since they commenced operations.

To quote verbatim from the official report whose link is pasted above

Causes

Incident was caused by incorrect identification of engine affected with high vibration, followed by non-adherence to recommended procedures, lack of situational awareness, poor Cockpit Resource Management, and poor handling of aircraft during emergency subsequent to bird strike

****
Shocking!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by TKMCE

I am posting this here as it is another pilot error.
Scary and I am not sensationalising.
Does not airlines do case studies of past accidents when they train pilots?
The "Kegworth" incident of a British Midland Boeing 737-400 aircraft was a landmark one caused by the shut down of the wrong engine.

Thank you for sharing. A very good example of weak CRM. After the British Midland incident I thought it can't get worse than this especially when in that case a pax pointed out the flames from the malfunctioning engine. Go Air just caught up with British Midlands.:-(

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by TKMCE

I am posting this here as it is another pilot error.

Does not airlines do case studies of past accidents when they train pilots?
!

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

A very good example of weak CRM. -(

Thanks for sharing.
Agree, looks like very poor CRM.

Airlines and the aviation industry at large go out of their way to learn from all incidents and accidents. It is one of the reasons they safety record in commercial aviation is so incredible high. But mistakes will happen. What happened here is rare, but not unknown. Even very experienced pilots sometimes get it wrong.

This starts as a simple case of the co-pilot making an error in how he reads/interpret some gauges. As stated in the report, the captain continues the take off when they feel the bang. As they were already getting close to V1 a correct decision. The captain will have his eyes on the outside world and the co-pilot is monitoring the instruments. The captain relies on the co-pilot to provide him with relevant information. He will not look down.

What is baffling that once in the air, the captain who by then has time and will start scanning the instruments himself and should be verifying the information from the co-pilot does not see the real problem either.

The co-pilot seems to be confused, he erroneously calling at out the wrong engine as he is looking at the N1 N2 gauges. These are fairly small gauges. There have been incidents like these where instruments and labelling got redesigned to minimise the chance of getting it wrong.

I also noted that the DGCA also added the transcript from the voice recorder. In the past they did not, or at least not always. This is also a very good case why the transcript is such a vital piece of information in accident investigation.

When you read it, you can sense the confusion, the frustration and the miscommunication.

Just a question to the real pro’s out there on some of the terminology used.

The DGCA mentions PIC and FO. I have always been taught PIC, PF, PNF (Pilot in command, pilot flying, pilot not flying). The PIC could be PF or PNF and so could be the FO. I think Airbus calls it the PF and PM.

The PIC could even not be in the left or right seat. Remember AF447.

I also noted DGCA mentions a Go Around and the pilots requesting a go Around.

At first I found that confusing. A pilot does not request a go around. You tell the tower you are going around and they need to deal with it. A good tower crew will have spotted you going around long before you tell them on the radio.

But what they are actually doing is at reasonable altitude executing a circuit to loose some altitude as they find themselves to high. As far as I can tell they were nowhere close to final. The pilots never used the term go around, only the DGCA

Jeroen

[TKMCE]

In addition to the major issues, thre are two other interesting points to be noted from the report.

1 As is becoming increasingly common with these incidents there is a pairing of a very eperienced Captain, in this case ,a few months from retirement and a relatively inexperienced co pilot with less than 750 hours on type. Now this is all fine but the Captain as per the report was declared multiple times between 2014 and 2017 as "Temporarily Unfit for Flying" during his Class I Medical. Finally he was cleared to fly as Pilot In Command (PIC) along with a "Qualified Eperienced Pilot".

I guess in these times of rapid fire expansion in the Indian skies, a First Officer ( FO ) with just a CPL and <750 hours on type (and less than 1000 hours in total ) will qualify for the "Qualfied Experienced Pilot" tag .But clearly Go Air rostering has slipped up.


2 Another important point is that a Staff on Duty (SOD) ,a FATA (Foreign Aircrew Temporary Authorisation) pilot , probably either Positioning or Deadheading and travelling in the cabin enters the cockpit while the emergency is still going on as per the report (section 1.18). He/She does so after pressing the cockpiut buzzer several times requesting for entry. Report mentions that the PIC informed that he allowed the SOD inside the cockpit because the "buzzer was distracting".

Now isnt this a violation of the sterile cockpit rule? Even (hypothetically) if the SOD is among the most senior pilots in the company , shouldn't the SOD have used some restraint and sat in his assigned seat?

Section 1.18 of the report further confirms that the SOD on entering the cockpit was asking information about the problem to the operating crew while they were performing their duties. Thus it looks like the entry of the SOD into the cockpit and his/her actions was a further distraction to the crew.

Unfortunately this is again not the first such incident where SODs have interfered with the duties of the Cockpit/Cabin crew however well intentioned they may be . There were instances earlier cited in incident reports involving Spice Jet (AME travelling in the cabin) and Jet Airways (dead heading cabin crew). I feel it is time that DGCA clamps down strongly (if they are not doing so already) on such actions by personnel not direcly involved with the operation of the flight.

[KiloAlpha]

Originally Posted by TKMCE

...
2 Another important point is that a Staff on Duty (SOD) ,a FATA (Foreign Aircrew Temporary Authorisation) pilot , probably either Positioning or Deadheading and travelling in the cabin enters the cockpit while the emergency is still going on as per the report (section 1.18). He/She does so after pressing the cockpiut buzzer several times requesting for entry. Report mentions that the PIC informed that he allowed the SOD inside the cockpit because the "buzzer was distracting".
...
Unfortunately this is again not the first such incident where SODs have interfered with the duties of the Cockpit/Cabin crew however well intentioned they may be . There were instances earlier cited in incident reports involving Spice Jet (AME travelling in the cabin) and Jet Airways (dead heading cabin crew). I feel it is time that DGCA clamps down strongly (if they are not doing so already) on such actions by personnel not direcly involved with the operation of the flight.

The intentions are noble. SOD pilot would surely have helped, if (and this is a big IF) the CRM in the cockpit was already working well and both pilots knew the situation, knew what they were doing, and where they needed help. Plenty of instances where such additional help was a life saver. However, trying to help in a situation where CRM is breaking down or non-existent is only going to hurt.
At the end of the day, it is the captain who has the final say.

[TKMCE]

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

The intentions are noble. SOD pilot would surely have helped, if (and this is a big IF) the CRM in the cockpit was already working well and both pilots knew the situation, knew what they were doing, and where they needed help. Plenty of instances where such additional help was a life saver. However, trying to help in a situation where CRM is breaking down or non-existent is only going to hurt.
At the end of the day, it is the captain who has the final say.

I do agree and the United DC 10 which crash landed at Sioux City was the best example of that. However in this case, the emergency was before V1, captain decided to continue with the take off, the work load is already high and as per the report the Captain let in the SOD because at least he could be free from the added distraction of repeated buzzing (for entry). Even the CVR extract mentions a Cabin Crew saying on the interphone saying the SOD is asking to be let in.

Seriously with an emergency at this stage of the flight, don't you think that this action of the SOD (even if HYPOTHETICALLY, the person is the chief pilot), very professional? There is very little he/she knows of the situation, sitting in the passenger cabin and the report confirms that once inside the SOD was trying to ascertain events from the already pre occupied operating crew.

This event has happened at a stage where the "sterile cockpit" rules are applicable and I believe there should be more restraint. The crew submission that the SOD was let in so as to remove the distraction of repeated buzzing for "cockpit entry" says it all in my opinion.

Not wanting to get into arguments here. Just voicing my thoughts.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by TKMCE

Seriously with an emergency at this stage of the flight, don't you think that this action of the SOD (even if HYPOTHETICALLY, the person is the chief pilot), very professional? There is very little he/she knows of the situation, sitting in the passenger cabin and the report confirms that once inside the SOD was trying to ascertain events from the already pre occupied operating crew.

This event has happened at a stage where the "sterile cockpit" rules are applicable and I believe there should be more restraint. The crew submission that the SOD was let in so as to remove the distraction of repeated buzzing for "cockpit entry" says it all in my opinion.

Not wanting to get into arguments here. Just voicing my thoughts.

Agree 1000%. The SOD behaved with a sense of entitlement & feudal lordship. Banging on the cockpit door as the aircraft is lifting off - seat belt sign any one? While the intention to help may be there the manner is as unprofessional as it gets. Preening with self importance, anyone?

In that famous DC-10 incident of United the SOD sent word through the cabin crew to let the Captain know he, the SOD, was in the passenger cabin and was available to assist in case the Captain needs help. And the Captain said yes come over. Same thing happened with the correct protocol in the Quantas A380 Rolls Royce Trent engine disc integration. There their was a Supervisory Check Captain (ie a seriously senior pilot) in the cockpit conducting a training supervision. And yet he did not interfere or take over and let the Commander do his job while he assisted with various calculations that were urgently needed.

On social media I usually refrain from writing as a professional but with the facts as known if this SOD had been in my employ there would be a lot to answer for most probably ending in a good bye. Attitude. Attitude.

[AirbusCapt]

Wow!!!! I mean what the hell was happening in that Go Air cockpit? Fo panics and calls out the wrong engine, Capt doesn't physically cross check and orders shutdown of the wrong engine? I mean who shuts down an engine in climb? Even if the engine is damaged, it's producing power, use all the available power, level off at a safe height, then troubleshoot and if required, shutdown the engine. Airbus also says incase of high vibration due damage, first reduce thrust to see at what power the vibration dies down, then consider shutdown. They were clowning around in that cockpit, sadly it was a real cockpit and not a simulation. Acm pilot bangs and enters the cockpit to "help"?? Unless the pic called him, he had no business to be there. Somewhere in this sad joke of a situation, pic realises oops he shutdown the wrong engine, nice now let's try to start it back again. Since they were doing an airstart (without Apu bleed), unless the airspeed was sufficient to windmill, they got a start fault (natural), which they solved (not clear how). Now with both engines running, they tried to shoot an approach, and found themselves too high, with a bird damaged engine they did a go around ? Not sure if go around (toga) power was applied on the damaged engine. What was the panic of coming back? You had one good engine (restarted), one damaged engine (still producing power), take your time, setup for the approach and make a landing.
The entire restart procedure was botched up. They didn't have a bleed source (Apu), were not fast enough (250 kts) for a windmill start, tried starting using the bleed from no2 engine (which is already damaged, stressed by working alone, vibration is high, egt is high, change of fire and subsequent failure), and pic didn't monitor the airspeed, which slipped so low that second engine went onto full power (Airbus alpha floor protection). Thank God they didn't lose the one working engine, else there would be a big smoking hole in the ground.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Just a request... For those not involved in, or serious watchers of, the industry, recent posts have become a bit too heavy on abbreviations. It would be a kindness not to assume that the more casual reader is able to follow.

But it's only a request. I suppose people might say I should Google more. That's a POV too.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Just a request... For those not involved in, or serious watchers of, the industry, recent posts have become a bit too heavy on abbreviations. It would be a kindness not to assume that the more casual reader is able to follow.

But it's only a request. I suppose people might say I should Google more. That's a POV too.

< emoji with a sheepish grin>

PIC - Pilot in Command ie the Captain;
APU -Auxiliary Power Unit;
FO - the co-Pilot - the guy who made mistake number one;
SOD and ACM pilot - both refer to the moron sitting as a passenger banging the cockpit door to be allowed in during the 30 most crucial seconds;
TOGA - Take Off/Go Around power setting ie a high/maximum power setting for the engines;
EGT - exhaust gas temperature - not as in a car exhaust but that massive volume of gas thrusting back to make the plane move forward.

Originally Posted by Zappo

Take the recent case of Arvind Kathpalia, happened earlier this month. The guy was supposed to be a management pilot and is apparently board member of Air India. Currently he is a director of operations besides flying the massive Boeing 787s. This guy was caught a second time under the influence of alcohol when he reported for duty to fly a New Delhi to Heathrow flight. His license has been revoked for 3 years and AI is now mulling the option of dismissing him from service.

Guess what. After being suspended for a short time - oh how that must have hurt - this drunk is back as Executive Director at Air India. A role model paid for by our tax rupees. Well done Air India. Why not make him Chairman.

[Zappo]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Guess what. After being suspended for a short time - oh how that must have hurt - this drunk is back as Executive Director at Air India. A role model paid for by our tax rupees. Well done Air India. Why not make him Chairman.

Wow! This fixation for string pulling in the sarkari corridors just refuse to go away. Let things settle down for a while and once there is a little bit of dust on the issue silently reset things. Sigh!

But then again, his license has been revoked for 3 years and that has to be by DGCA. So for the remaining period of his job (I think he has less than 3 years of service tenure left in his career) he will at least not fly any more... I hope.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Zappo

Wow! This fixation for string pulling in the sarkari corridors just refuse to go away. Let things settle down for a while and once there is a little bit of dust on the issue silently reset things. Sigh!

That is the problem with Govt. service, employees and their internal rules. The seniors even if they wish to hesitate to act on deeply errant behavior in several (not all) occasions which gives the lazy or dishonest employee the courage to get more brazen and de-motivates the sincere and diligent Govt. officers. Air India has some gems as individuals with really good technical knowledge and qualifications and it is a pity how the struggle with the system to do what is right.

[libranof1987]

A Lion Air jet, a Boeing 737, skidded off the runway in Indonesia.

There’s a couple of videos on Instagram shared by passengers from the time is on final approach in fairly heavy rainfall.

A Lion Air passenger plane skidded off a runway outside a city on the Indonesian island of Borneo on Saturday during heavy rain, the airline said, adding no one was injured.

The aircraft was operating a Jakarta-Pontianak service, with 182 passengers and seven crew members onboard, Lion Air spokesman Danang Mandala Prihantoro said in a statement.

The Boeing 737-800NG plane skidded off the runway as it was trying to land at Supadio International Airport, a regional hub airport that services a small number of international flights.

https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/02...nesian-airport