[invidious]

First up, I am glad the poster is safe. I am a nervous flyer. That is a bit of an understatement. I was about to board a flight in a few hours when I first read this thread - so that did not help my confidence and I did not reply. Now that I am back home - on Jet Airways itself - here goes -

Having had conversations with a number of commercial pilots and from reading a lot of data including subscribing to newsletters to allay my fear of flying - I gather that as technology has improved by leaps and bounds, human intervention in the actual course of the flight has decreased considerably.

While this has largely been a positive development, in extremely stressful and dangerous situations the skills of the pilots are not as well honed as those of their predecessors in the previous decades. This does not mean that the pilots are not as well trained; it's just that they have lesser experience because of dependence on technology.

I have also been told that the ATC employees in Bombay are overburdened with managing more flights per official than is the norm. That does not inspire much confidence.

Given the sheer number of flights, it is inevitable that incidents happen. Most airlines including those run privately in India take multiple set of measures to minimize such incidents.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by invidious

While this has largely been a positive development, in extremely stressful and dangerous situations the skills of the pilots are not as well honed as those of their predecessors in the previous decades. This does not mean that the pilots are not as well trained; it's just that they have lesser experience because of dependence on technology.
.

Not sure that is true, certainly I have yet to see such a sweeping statement backed up by some meaningful (statistical) analysis. Certainly we have seen a number of accidents, including this one, which did not occur during extremely stressful or dangerous situation. This was a normal take off, until something went wrong. A normal take-off for any qualified pilot is neither stressful or dangerous, although you would be very focussed on the task at hand obviously. If you stress out when things go wrong, or more precisely, start underperforming, you might not be suitable for the task at hand. That goes for any job.

Similar, Asiana Airlines 214 that crashed in LA was on a regular landing in good weather.

Commercial aviation continues to be the safest mode of transportation which or whatever way you look at it. And has been so for many, many years. What has not changed is that pilot error, unfortunately, is and always has been, a major contributor to accidents. Even so, the number of accidents keeps coming down.

So we have seen some accidents in recent times where pilots struggle with the automation/taking manual control, but the number of total flights and flight hours and passenger air miles flown is still going up rapidly. And again, remember total number of accidents in absolute terms, is still coming down.

We keep forgetting what sort of accidents were happening say 20-30 years ago. There was less automation, but if you trawl through the accident investigation reports you will see that similar accidents such as these were happening then too!

Pilots went of the runway and crashed during perfect weather condition then too!

The good news is, there is a whole lot less of them. And guess what, automation plays a very important part in accident reductions.

To put it simply: If you fly a plane without an autopilot, you will never ever have an accident that is due to incorrect use or malfunction of the autopilot. Period!

If you have an autopilot it will reduce workload for the pilots, ensure better safety, better fuel economy and better passenger comfort, but occasionally, the damn thing might malfunction or the pilot throws the wrong switch. Or the pilot hasn’t been taught how to use it correctly. History has shown that we are by far, by a very large margin, better of with all the automation than without it. (at least from a safety / accident rate point of view).

If you take a very clinical look at accident rates, they are so minute compared to the total number of flights/distance and or hours flown, they have no statistical significance. Of course, if one finds oneself in such an accident, statistics are meaningless!

Never the less, every incident/accident gets investigated and the aviation industry spends billions of dollars every year making an incredible safe industry even more safe. I can’t think of any other industry, certainly no mode of transportation type of industry, where so many resources and actual money is spend on making less than marginal improvements. Still, make no mistake, accidents do happen, and history has shown that nearly all of them were totally preventable and pilot error has and always has been a major contributing factor.

By the way, I find JetAirways cabin crew totally and utterly useless. I say this having taken 2-4 Jet Airways flight every week for four years. I once experienced a (potential) cabin pressure loss situation flying from Delhi to Mumbai. I wrote about the experience and the more than pathetic way of how the cabin (and ground) staff dealt with it.

On this particular incident; I’m glad everybody was ok. I’m sure it would have been quite the experience for those on this flight.

Whether the flight crew did their job properly or made mistakes and whether there other contributing factors I have no idea.

On a more general note: We seem to live in an era where whatever happens, there needs to be:

1) an explanation, preferably just 2-3 bullets, certainly no more detail, within minutes of it happening
2) somebody should be apportioned blame

Through the wonders of the Internet we have thousands if not millions of individuals who will provide the answers to both points immediately. The only qualification is having access to the internet. Knowledge or insights into the matter at hand is not required. It is just drivel driven by the need to express one’s opinion to the rest on the internet.

Recognising complexity and the notion that thoroughness in understanding and analysing it, takes some times does not seem to be recognised any more. No matter what everybody on the net is an instant expert! I hate people who claim to be experts. But I hate people who put forward their uninformed opinions as if they were true indisputable facts even more!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a hard core liberal and I will defend anybody’s right to free speech relentlessly. No matter how uninformed or plain wrong or downright stupid somebody’s free speech would be or is.

I find this whole business of ‘demanding’ an immediate explanation and pointing out the guilty individual(s) and adding what punishment they deserve very inappropriate, if not to say immature.

We live in a fairly complex world. Shit happens, and when it does it needs looking into and fixing, no mistake. But a little more robustness in our attitude rather than the immediate stance of indignity as if no greater wrong could have been done, would go a long way of making this world a slightly more enjoyable place to be.

Jeroen

[invidious]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Not sure that is true, certainly I have yet to see such a sweeping statement backed up by some meaningful (statistical) analysis. Certainly we have seen a number of accidents, including this one, which did not occur during extremely stressful or dangerous situation.

Jeroen

These are just a few sources - there are multiple sources which say the same thing - the skills have pilots seem to have progressively decreased with the increase in automation

Links -
http://expertaviator.com/2011/08/08/...flying-skills/

https://www.panamacademy.com/are-pil...t-be-addressed

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/30/au...s-pilot-skill/

https://flightsafety.org/asw-article...ishing-skills/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richie...b_9415270.html

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

On a more general note: We seem to live in an era where whatever happens, there needs to be:

1) an explanation, preferably just 2-3 bullets, certainly no more detail, within minutes of it happening
2) somebody should be apportioned blame

...

Recognising complexity and the notion that thoroughness in understanding and analysing it, takes some times does not seem to be recognised any more.

I find this whole business of ‘demanding’ an immediate explanation and pointing out the guilty individual(s) and adding what punishment they deserve very inappropriate, if not to say immature.

We live in a fairly complex world. Shit happens, and when it does it needs looking into and fixing, no mistake. But a little more robustness in our attitude rather than the immediate stance of indignity as if no greater wrong could have been done, would go a long way of making this world a slightly more enjoyable place to be.

Jeroen

Well said.

Not taking away from the experience that any of the passengers on that airline faced, there has to be some amount of patience. Condemning the pilots without the results of the investigation available is premature and a little immature. Being emotionally affected by the accident is entirely understandable, but allowing emotions to decide whom to blame is not the best idea.

I cannot say whether the crew were unable to react appropriately or not, but I can definitely say that tears don't equal incompetence. Everyone reacts differently to stress, and the fact that all doors were open and slides deployed implies that some of them did their duty. Again condemning all is unnecessary unless it is proven that they were in fact incompetent.

We can generally decide who was at fault when there is a road accident because almost everyone on this forum is a driver, holds a license and knows at least the basic road rules. Aircraft systems and procedures are certainly different and presumably far more complex, so I'm of the opinion that we should withhold judgement until the results of the investigation are out.

Originally Posted by invidious

These are just a few sources - there are multiple sources which say the same thing - the skills have pilots seem to have progressively decreased with the increase in automation

While there are definitely instances of pilots relying too much on automation to the extent of losing their situational awareness/reaction, there are instances of automation being the sole cause of accidents as well.

Reliance on autopilot to land aircraft has led to at least one incident in Australia and one accident in Europe (France, I think). I watched a programme on TV where some known system defect occasionally caused the autopilot to be fed a height of -8feet resulting in the system closing throttle at whatever height the aircraft was at the time. In Australia the pilot immediately corrected this, but in Europe the pilots took a split second more and the aircraft crashed.

Point is that there is always another side to the story. If automation were universally better, pilots would be valued far less and also far less to blame in an accident.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I have never heard the term "runway excursion" and I have certainly never experienced one. I would be concerned, at least, if not frightened.

No, I am not in a position to understand the risks. but I gather that this happened right at the start of the run, and that speeds were no more than we are used to in our cars. Were lives ever at risk here?

As far as I know - from the perspective of human injury - this would have been the equivalent of a minor accident with negligible injuries had the passengers not injured themselves by jumping off the wings. The aircraft is not a car that can be driven with dents and some damage, so that's a different point entirely.

This does point towards the competence of the crew or panic of the passengers. When seated at the emergency exit (in Airbus aircraft at least) the crew tells us to open the emergency exit only when we hear the pilot command passengers to evacuate. I'd like to know if this actually happened. Passengers are also told not to open the doors if there is any fire or hazard (water - if landed in the sea?), and that the doors were open implies that there was thankfully no fire.

Either way, I am inclined to question the same as you. Feeling that one's life is at risk is quite different from it actually being so, and is also an entirely different discussion.

[deerhunter]

Based on the details given by OP and Jeroen, and from various articles on the internet, it appears as though Jet airways has a sub-standard cabin crew in their rosters. What I want to know is, whether the pilots are also like this? Is it possible for any carrier to hire pilots with least experience or questionable safety records, just to keep their costs low?

Lets take driving for example. We have drivers with all sorts of skill levels using our roads, even though all of them are licensed to drive and are legally judged safe to operate on the roads. But all are not equally skilled, some maybe outright dangerous.

I know its an over-simplification to compare driving and flying. But what i want to know is, is it possible for airlines to hire only lower skilled/less experienced/those with questionable safety, just to increase their profits? Is it possible that low cost carriers hire less skilled pilots compared to more mainstream carriers? I am totally ignorant here, that is why the question.

[invidious]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Based on the details given by OP and Jeroen, and from various articles on the internet, it appears as though Jet airways has a sub-standard cabin crew in their rosters. What I want to know is, whether the pilots are also like this? Is it possible for any carrier to hire pilots with least experience or questionable safety records, just to keep their costs low?

Lets take driving for example. We have drivers with all sorts of skill levels using our roads, even though all of them are licensed to drive and are legally judged safe to operate on the roads. But all are not equally skilled, some maybe outright dangerous.

I know its an over-simplification to compare driving and flying. But what i want to know is, is it possible for airlines to hire only lower skilled/less experienced/those with questionable safety, just to increase their profits? Is it possible that low cost carriers hire less skilled pilots compared to more mainstream carriers? I am totally ignorant here, that is why the question.

Circa 2008-9 I was having a conversation with a bunch of pilots from Jet Airways and Air India. At that time, Jet ran a breathalyzer test for alcohol on every flight while Air India only did random checks which kind of made me swear off Air India. Again this is what the pilots told me - I have no independent way of verifying this information.

[TKMCE]

First of all we will have to wait for the report of the DGCA to come out on this one.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Based on the details given by OP and Jeroen, and from various articles on the internet, it appears as though Jet airways has a sub-standard cabin crew in their rosters.

In one earlier Jet Airways incident,even the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had confirmed that the crew was found wanting . I had given this link earlier in another thread, but giving it again. DGCA was not exactly singing praises about the Jet Airways cabin crew involved in that one - an emergency evacuation at Mumbai in 2010.

http://www.dgca.nic.in/accident/repo...ent/VT-JGM.pdf

Go to Page 35 - CAUSE.

DGCA could not have been more explicit about the reasons .

And whether the pilots are faultless always - while the official report has not made its way yet to the DGCA website (hopefully it will), the Times of India report on another Jet Airways incident does not exactly make for comforting reading.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/55020812.cms.

To answer "deerhunter" even the most reputed airlines do have occasional incidents where pilots or cabin crew are found wanting. It has happened to the best of the airlines. - Delta Airlines Flight 1141 crashed at Dallas due to crew not configuring the aircraft properly for take off . Singapore Airlines Flight 6 crashed at Taipei after the crew attempted to take off from the wrong runway. Emirates 407 had a narrow escape at Melbourne when the crew used the wrong take off weights for their calculations and the aircraft hit several structures at the end of the runway before being able to take off.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by invidious

These are just a few sources - there are multiple sources which say the same thing - the skills have pilots seem to have progressively decreased with the increase in automation

With the exception of one of your links, I would consider these articles opinions not facts. One research paper is quoted, which bases its conclusion on interviews with 30(!?) pilots.

Besides, I think it’s probably true. Automation has degraded “manual” skills in any and all industry where it was industry, be it offshore, process, aviation etc.
My point is to whether it causes more accidents.

Lets look at a very simple example.
Let’s say in a fictive country during the course of one year a thousand flights of each one hour a total of two accidents occur. The next year two thousand flights of each one hour occur and three accidents happen.

This can be reported as:
number of aviation accidents increases by 50%
number of aviation accidents decreases by 50%

It just depends on how you calculate it, Absolute (i.e. 2 becomes 3) or relative to the number of flights (2 should become 4 as the number of flights double, instead it becomes 3, thus fewer accidents).

More importantly, ultimately we are interested in how to prevent accidents in the first place. If we go by the links you have provided the obvious suggested way forward is to train pilots to hand fly their planes more. However, that is not the case. Although I would be the first one to advocate more hand flying for any people it is not necessarily the biggest factor in aviation accidents.

When you read through accident reports in nearly all cases there very rarely is a single root cause. In most cases there tends to be a string of problems/issues that pop up leading to the accident. To make a long story short, if all fails the only thing that might safe you is (superior) manual flying skills. If you lack those on top of all your other deficiency you tend to crash.

The FAA has been running the so called Wings program for the General Aviation community for about 5-7 or so. Pilots that participate in the (voluntarily) program have an almost (unbelievable) 50% reduction in (absolute) accident rates! Interestingly enough this program does not take place in the cockpit or in the simulator. In fact it does not address manual flying skills at all. It is conducted in class room (actually usually hangars of FBOs) and is all about attitude, self awareness and aeronautical decision making.

I used to participate in the program when I lived and flew in the USA. Many of these accidents start with pilots not being prepared, not fully understanding the real challenges and risks ahead, poor weather understanding, lack of crew coordination, not adhering to SOP etc. etc. If on top of all that you struggle to hand fly, things can go south very quickly indeed.

Interestingly enough it is also a very effective way in reducing accident in terms of cost. More hand flying be it in actual flight of on the simulator is very expensive. Getting pilots to attend a 2 hour workshop every other month is not.

So thanks for your post, because it does illustrate what I said

Recognising complexity and the notion that thoroughness in understanding and analysing it, takes some times does not seem to be recognised any more.

Just because a 1.3 second Google search throws up a few (opinionated) links doesn’t make it true, or more importantly certainly doesn’t offer insights into the underlying root causes and subsequent solutions. This is exactly my issue. Such headlines (e.g. pilots lack manual flying skills, pilots rely to much on automation) gets the public attention but doesn’t address the real problem, it suggest the solution, but fails to recognise the underlying complexity and therefor its suggested solution is likely to be debatable in terms of real efficiency.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

What I want to know is, whether the pilots are also like this? Is it possible for any carrier to hire pilots with least experience or questionable safety records, just to keep their costs low?

But what i want to know is, is it possible for airlines to hire only lower skilled/less experienced/those with questionable safety, just to increase their profits? Is it possible that low cost carriers hire less skilled pilots compared to more mainstream carriers?

Across the globe there are national and international standards stipulating to what standards a pilot needs to comply. Number of hours, types, certification, currency etc.

There have been reports in India on fraud, people finding themselves in the cockpit whilst lacking the appropriate skills and certificates. I find that hard to believe in general, but less so in India perhaps. However those that should be ensuring such things don’t happen, have some serious problems themselves:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/29654982.cms

By the way, the Safety of the Indian skies was discussed in another thread and I contributed extensively. The downgrade has since been reversed, but still.

There is some debate as to what effect experience expressed in flight hours has on safety or rather accident rates. Certainly in General Aviation number of flights hours has no correlation with accident rates. (it was one of the reasons of introducing the Wings Program in it’s current format.

i have said this many times on this forum in different context as well. Rules and regulations (i.e. being within legal limits) is as far as I’m concerned the bare minimum. Every individual and company has it’s own obligation. Nothing stops a carrier of providing its’ crew with additional training over and above what the law requires!

By law, in most of Europe, drivers are allowed a small amount of alcohol intake prior to driving, 1 or 2 drinks. Whether you do so, or abstain completely prior to driving is ones own responsibility.

Originally Posted by invidious

. At that time, Jet ran a breathalyzer test for alcohol on every flight while Air India only did random checks which kind of made me swear off Air India.

Actually, a number of seemingly alcohol related incidents have been in the news lately:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66WL...ature=youtu.be

A Citilink pilot was removed from duty after passengers claimed he was incoherent in a flight announcement he made before takeoff.

Jeroen

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by 1lokesh

I picked my bag and ran towards the front doors.

When everyone is busy judging the pilot and crew, looks like this got missed. In the event of an emergency, you are supposed to leave all your belongings and escape, not carry them with you. This was what the passengers of the ill fated Emirates plane that caught fire in Dubai were ridiculed for.

[Enobarbus]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

When everyone is busy judging the pilot and crew, looks like this got missed. In the event of an emergency, you are supposed to leave all your belongings and escape, not carry them with you. This was what the passengers of the ill fated Emirates plane that caught fire in Dubai were ridiculed for.

This was commented upon earlier in the thread. Its not just Lokesh or the passengers of the ill fated Emirates plane. I am willing to bet that a big majority of Indians would do the same in a similar situation. I guess this is because of sheer ignorance and not paying attention to safety instructions. Even when the emergency is on and even if the cabin crew shout instructions, half of us would ignore everything and try to follow our own instincts.

It is a long shot, but I think the western nations are more disciplined in such situations because at some point in their history, almost all of them had compulsory military service.

This lack of discipline is so obvious when we see our chaotic traffic. We just don't seem to understand. Tell anyone to back off from a stop line and the mildest response you will get is a "kya farak padta hai"? People just don't know how to take a right turn; they take a short turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle and expecting the oncoming vehicle to move to the right lane. To top it all, they show their ignorance by claiming "indicator on hai, dikhta nahi kya?"

I also think that this lack of discipline is the prime reason for the lack of quality in many Indian products and services.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Enobarbus

It is a long shot, but I think the western nations are more disciplined in such situations because at some point in their history, almost all of them had compulsory military service.

s.

Yes a very long shot, there is no evidence whatsoever. Most European nation have done away with compulsory draft many decades ago.

Those who did a stint in the military from the earlier generation seem to remember one thing mostly: mind boggling boredom!

Jeroen

[norhog]

This taking a small hand bag during an emergency, there should be like a regulation or a guideline to keep the valuables in a small hand carry bag of certain dimensions that can be taken along during escaping an emergency situation.
Many persons travel for work and a loss of documents will require months to get them made, innumerable trips to the concerned agency offices adding to that loss of income.
For example a seafarer. Now a seafarer engineer,officer, crew member must have passport, CDC, STCW certificates, yellow fever certificates, DC endorsements and some others. If he (and now increasingly she) is sailing without these certificates the port authorities (PSC) or external auditing agencies may fine or stop the vessel on account of non compliance. A shipping company will almost never want a guy lacking any of those certificates to sail on board.
Now just think if someone looses it all in an aircraft emergency. It will be couple of months if not years, till he recovers them and starts his livelihood. Everyone here knows how helpful our government agencies etc are. (At times rightly so to avoid a fraud).
So it is but natural reflex to try to save your important documents because without them your whole existence is difficult.
So coming back to the moot question here, I would have done the same in such a situation trying to save my documents. Also I strongly believe some dimension of a bag or a pouch must be allowed to carry these documents which is as important as life itself.

[Enobarbus]

Originally Posted by norhog

This taking a small hand bag during an emergency, there should be like a regulation or a guideline to keep the valuables in a small hand carry bag of certain dimensions that can be taken along during escaping an emergency situation.
Also I strongly believe some dimension of a bag or a pouch must be allowed to carry these documents which is as important as life itself.

No one stops us if we keep our important documents in a small belt pouch and wear it on our person at all times during the flight. Anything that is worn on the person can be carried along without causing any delay.

The point here is that a SOP is created to achieve a certain result. In this case, evacuation of the aircraft ASAP. Even if 10% of the passengers collect their belongings, it can cause a delay of at least a few seconds. There is every chance that the belongings can fowl with the seats, people can tumble, any such thing can happen. Permission to carry something of certain dimensions, in itself can cause a delay.

Even a delay of just two, three seconds during the process of evacuation can be the difference between life and death for the last person or the last few persons. No document, however important, is worth a human life.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Just to add my bit to this: other than cold climates, flying is the only time I wear a jacket. A jacket with as many pockets as possible.

And, in my very humble, very personal, just-my-opinion: I'm not going to criticise anybody for grabbing the small bag at their feet. Stuff in lockers, though? We all know just how bad it can get when leaving the plane normally!

And one thing I learnt in small-boat sailing, was that, if it should ever happen that one has to make that awful step from a sinking boat into a liferaft, one of the things one really should pick up is wallet, passport etc. Hopefully one is going to live to need access to cash, etc, and to prove to authorities somewhere who are are and where you came from. OK, an airport is not the ocean. Hopefully, they know where you came from. But all the rest applies.

[YaeJay]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Just to add my bit to this: other than cold climates, flying is the only time I wear a jacket. A jacket with as many pockets as possible.

And, in my very humble, very personal, just-my-opinion: I'm not going to criticise anybody for grabbing the small bag at their feet. Stuff in lockers, though? We all know just how bad it can get when leaving the plane normally!

And one thing I learnt in small-boat sailing, was that, if it should ever happen that one has to make that awful step from a sinking boat into a liferaft, one of the things one really should pick up is wallet, passport etc. Hopefully one is going to live to need access to cash, etc, and to prove to authorities somewhere who are are and where you came from. OK, an airport is not the ocean. Hopefully, they know where you came from. But all the rest applies.

I would grab my camera bag. wallet passport etc will be attached to my body.