canopus27

Note that the video (youtu.be/sBSPpLE6EDY) (about Alaska Airlines installing RAAS) was published in 2008 ... almost 10 years ago!

Admiral Ackbar

And the good habit of tuning in the ILS even on a visual approach would have probably avoided this but this crack crew didn't even have the airmanship to do that simple gesture. They needed all the whiz-bang electronics available apparently, seems like AC training is now turning out good little children of the magenta (Halifax and this are great examples). Cheaper to train obviously when you don't teach them how to actually fly when they need to use the stick and throttles.

Guess there will have to be deaths before it impacts the bottom line as usual (this is not AC specific).

CZAMFlyer

Do we know that the ILS wasn't tuned? I haven't been following too closely; one assumes all the navaids for the declared approach were tuned, identified and set? It may have been a case of having all the instruments correctly set up, but nobody bothering to look at and interpret them.

To be fair to AC pilots, they are not trained in-house from a zero-to-hero cadet program; they all come to the company with thousands of hours of military and/or commercial PIC - experience gained the honest way. Yes, there are a lot of the 'magenta children' as you term them coming through the aviation ranks, and plenty of flight training schools focus a lot on systems management rather than stick 'n rudder aviating. But in this SFO case, stick & rudder skills weren't required - systems management proficiency was. One would think the magenta treaders would have been less susceptible to such a mistake.

After Burner

Halifax was a LOC approach. There's no magenta involved - that's pure green. The "magenta" approach available for that runway is an LPV, which would've guided the aircraft to the centerline with laser beam accuracy. Unfortunately beyond the capability of AC's A320s (but no problem for many Cessna 172s).

Mountain Explorer

Yes.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/2...s-source-says/

Jagboi

The usual way language in legislation and regulations is construed is to first look at the regulation or statute and see if the word is defined in it. If so, that's the way the word is used.

If it isn't defined, then look to the industry in question, has the word acquired a definition in that particular instance? In this case it has, everybody involved in airline operations knows what the landing phase of flight is, and it begins before the wheels touch the ground

Lastly, if the word doesn't have specific industry meaning, then a common dictionary definition is used.

Admiral Ackbar

Sorry, I am misusing the term and using it more broadly as to the broad-based (or so it seems) erosion of flying skills, including looking out the window (not that it would have helped much in Halifax I admit). Just seems to be a fixation on automation and managing the flight regime instead of aviating and keeping the pointy end in the generally correct direction. IANAP so my opinion is worth what it is worth, not much!

After Burner

So what's the definition of immediately?

CZAMFlyer

Thanks. Did you read the union comment at the end of the piece? It's a gooder.

“It is a testament to the expertise and professionalism of the highly trained crew that they were able to ensure that the flight arrived safely at its destination,” he said.

Mountain Explorer

28isGreat

Oy. Reminds me of a plaque I once saw: "A superior sailor is defined as one who uses his superior judgement to stay out of situations requiring the use of his superior skills."

KenHamer

As everyone knows, if someone has not heard of such a thing, then such a thing obviously doesn't exist.

Things that don't exist, don't exist for a reason.

Quoted so those on mobile devices can see it.



Perhaps it's because marine navigation has been refined over thousands of years, while aircraft navigation only started a couple of weeks ago... but here are some excerpts for the "rules of the road" for ships, commonly known as the "COLREGS":

Notwithstanding the use of the word "appropriate", "all available means" has repeatedly been held by admiralty courts to mean "all means, at all times" (roughly paraphrased. More directly, the line of thought has been that if you were in an incident in which the use of some technology - or "means" - may have averted or mitigated the incident, then clearly it was appropriate to have been using that "means".)



In this case, if the aircraft was equipped with any sort of landing aid instrument I'm pretty certain a compelling case could be made that it was "appropriate" to use that instrument while trying to land, regardless of any legal requirements.

Whether they were using visual rules or instrument rules, it seems to me that using "all available means" would be prudent.

And in the maritime world, prudent means mandatory.

28isGreat

Sounds like there's far more subtleties here. This pprune.org post highlights the challenges of using ILS in the A320 at the same time as using the Flight Management and Guidance System for a non-precision approach.

Patrick Smith (of "Ask the Pilot" book & blog fame) has written numerous times that "flying the plane through automation" brings a higher workload to the crew than simply hand-flying the plane. There may be a real risk/reward calculation to be made here, and "appropriate use" involves serious judgement. It's entirely possible that focusing too much time on using all available means may open you up to greater risks -- "stop staring at your computers, and look out the window!"

I'm probably speaking too much about systems I don't know & understand, but this needs to be simpler -- it shouldn't be difficult to tune in the ILS localizer! On the other hand, it shouldn't be difficult to distinguish a runway from a taxiway on a clear night

Jagboi

I have no idea in that context. I have no insight into that particular regulation to know if there is a definition associated with it's use within that regulation.

KenHamer

Looking out the window (also a problem in the maritime world) is still part of all available means.

If they need to make a judgement about which means to use the perhaps an argument be made that they did the best reasonably possible thing. But I think in this case nothing was used.

On other hand if they are too busy to use all the tools available perhaps they are understaffed