Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

jb747, I have a question .... how much, particularly in managing incidents, do you rely on laid out company procedures vs your own judgement, training and problem solving ability? Particularly the problem solving piece.

The reason I ask, having lived in Singapore for almost eight years, I have noticed that the educational approach here (and to be fair across much of this part of the world) is geared to rote learning and not solving problems. It is what it is. Furthermore the culture here is very rules/compliance focused - to the point that most (but certainly not all, there are many exceptions) people blindly follow rules and procedures without making any judgement of other data points. The moment something comes up that is outside the rules or pre-learning things easily go into meltdown, as problem solving does not come into it, and usually there is a "cannot" type response. I experience this regularly in the workplace. In an aviation context , I am not sure how this plays out, as I know SOPs (or whatever they are called in flight context) are important, but a deficiency in problem solving ability really worries me from the point of view of a passenger.

When I hear about things like an SQ pilot ignoring ATC observations and following just what instrumentation indicates (it must be right, surely), it is completely unsurprising to me. It would also not surprise me if a number of other airlines and pilots judged a situation to dangerous to take off, based on synthesising all available data and combine that with some experience, whereas pilots educated here might take a different approach, as long as their decision fits into parameters laid out then it is OK.

In terms of problem solving, a lot of pilots will use some form of acronym to aid in decision making. A couple of example are:
The PILOT model.
Pool the facts (what has happened?)
Identify the problem (failure management)
Look for solutions (where to divert, nearest suitable, communications)
Operate that plan
Take stock (how is the decision that you made going?)
If required, go back to the start of the model and work through it again.

FORDEC
Facts
Options
Risks/Benefits (of the options)
Decisions
Execute (that decision)
Communicate (that decision to all relevant parties)

GRADE is also another variant of the above but you can see that it just aids in the decision making process where there are multiple inputs.

This ties in with problem solving (depends what the problem is of course), but when we need to action a checklist (in order of priority), it will usually tell us to land at the nearest suitable airport. Therein takes out any doubt. What is deemed as suitable is up to the pilot in command.

Of course experience is again tied in to both the problem solving and decision making process. In the example of JB at HKG with the poor weather, I assume that was a case of experience and decision with the rest of the crew to delay the take off until conditions improve, having known what the consequences would be should the take off be continued.

For me, it basically comes down to, what would I be prepared to tell a judge and explain why I decided to do those actions which resulted in the outcome of the event. With safety of course being the number one priority.

 

[jb747]

jb747, I have a question .... how much, particularly in managing incidents, do you rely on laid out company procedures vs your own judgement, training and problem solving ability? Particularly the problem solving piece.

I think it's fair to say that I've never found company SOPs to be of any use whatsoever in handling incidents. SOPs are really there for normal day to day stuff. Airbus/Boeing procedures are a different thing entirely. It's worth noting that in the introduction to the emergency procedures that Boeing points out that they may not be applicable in all cases, and in some circumstances you may need to merge procedures, leave parts out, or simply make them up as you go.

QF is not as prescriptive as many airlines, and leaves a lot to common sense. An example would be 'long landings' where they say what they expect, but also leave the final decision to the pilot.

 

[jb747]

In terms of problem solving, a lot of pilots will use some form of acronym to aid in decision making. A couple of example are:
The PILOT model.

I'm impressed that you remember any of that stuff. I've always thought that it might displace something that I really need to remember.

Common sense.

Be as calm as you can be. Nothing is more catching than the captain's unease. If something will disturb your 'calm', then it probably isn't a good idea.

Be inclusive. The crew all have lots of experience and knowledge. Listen to it. The most junior guy may well be the one with the key to saving the day.

Leadership. Being bossy isn't leadership.

Delegate. Remember that 99% of the people you fly with will do their job very well with no supervision. Leave them to it.

At the end of the day though, it isn't a democracy...but you will get to any accident first.

 

[andmiz]

To be honest, I've never really heard about one of these decision making models being used in real-life; ie two crew members going through each step, structurally. If anything, they may serve a purpose in bringing the remaining crew members into the picture, but outside of that, there is a lot of evidence to suggest they only belong in the classroom.....they're a model of how to think, but touted as a model of how to act.

"Sources of Power - How People Make Decisions" by Gary Klein is a great read about his studies into critical decision making.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Well in a sense of the word yes you are correct. If it doesn't need to be used, i.e. the failure/problem is relatively straight forward then there is no need to verbally use it. It is merely a guide for crew. Not even necessarily SOP.

But not every failure is as simple as do this and then go there. In more complex failures (think QF32) lots of decisions need to be made. When adrenalin is racing, and everything is going wrong, it is very easy to miss an important point. The model could be a good way to slow things down and analyse the situation to achieve the best possible outcome.

 

[Flashback]

Well in a sense of the word yes you are correct. If it doesn't need to be used, i.e. the failure/problem is relatively straight forward then there is no need to verbally use it. It is merely a guide for crew. Not even necessarily SOP.

But not every failure is as simple as do this and then go there. In more complex failures (think QF32) lots of decisions need to be made. When adrenalin is racing, and everything is going wrong, it is very easy to miss an important point. The model could be a good way to slow things down and analyse the situation to achieve the best possible outcome.

While not pilot related, I do exactly this with my staff during high stress situations and the results speak for themselves. YMMV of course.

 

[Boris spatsky]

To be honest, I've never really heard about one of these decision making models being used in real-life; ie two crew members going through each step, structurally. If anything, they may serve a purpose in bringing the remaining crew members into the picture, but outside of that, there is a lot of evidence to suggest they only belong in the classroom.....they're a model of how to think, but touted as a model of how to act.

"Sources of Power - How People Make Decisions" by Gary Klein is a great read about his studies into critical decision making.

I have certainly used GRADE during complex emergencies in my military flying days especially during international diversions to marginal and unsupported airfields - but no, never seen these models used in my airline flying other than in the sim.

 

[Punky]

If the tailskid did in fact make contact with the runway, an EICAS message would appear with an associated checklist, and advise the crew to depressurise the aircraft and plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.

According to the AVHreald the tail skid assembly was replaced. A comment says the plane returned to service on Tuesday. Incident: Singapore B773 at Melbourne on Oct 9th 2016, tower observes tailstrike on departure

 

[jb747]

According to the AVHreald the tail skid assembly was replaced. A comment says the plane returned to service on Tuesday. Incident: Singapore B773 at Melbourne on Oct 9th 2016, tower observes tailstrike on departure

From AVHerald...

cabin crew reported hearing a bang during rotation. The flight crew worked the "unannounciated tail strike" checklist and monitored pressurization throughout the flight.

​

The question here is simply one of airmanship. The warning system may reflect the strike, and is certainly useful in the cases were nobody is watching the aircraft take off. But, in this case, they've had a report from ATC; and presumably a later report that marks were found on the runway. The cabin crew supposedly heard a bang...in itself not much, but interesting with the ATC report. The lack of EICAS may mean anything between 'no contact' to 'the warning system is broken'. Monitoring the pressurisation is, to me at least, an indication of not understanding the problem. You don't pressurise in the strike case, not because it might leak....they always do that, but because the concern is structural failure initiated by the strike but then magnified by the 8.5 lb per inch of skin area.

The takeoff had issues: the pitch attitude was high and a speed call was made...more clues that a strike is likely.

Having the strike itself, especially given the conditions is not that unusual. They happen, and some aircraft are especially prone to it. The subsequent response is what is interesting.

 

[Wingin..it]

Is the ATR 7 SAFE .I have read that it flys s at a lower altitude (risking weather conditions ) The landings too are often a bit shaky?Virgin have substituted these aircraft for the Embraier 170 for fuel efficiency.? I have noticed some other regional routes have brought back Embraier 190's as Jetco have started one such route Port Mac -Mel.Flying Qantas (regional )often has a connecting flight through SYD.
My question is is the ATR any less safe than Dash 8 or Embraiers.Have had a bad experience with a dash? Thanks if question already asked .

 

[jb747]

Is the ATR 7 SAFE .I have read that it flys s at a lower altitude (risking weather conditions ) The landings too are often a bit shaky?Virgin have substituted these aircraft for the Embraier 170 for fuel efficiency.? I have noticed some other regional routes have brought back Embraier 190's as Jetco have started one such route Port Mac -Mel.Flying Qantas (regional )often has a connecting flight through SYD.
My question is is the ATR any less safe than Dash 8 or Embraiers.Have had a bad experience with a dash? Thanks if question already asked .

All turbo prop aircraft fly at lower levels than the jets. They go around nasty weather in exactly the same way the jets do. It's a myth that jets normally fly over the weather...nasty stuff extends well above any height we can reach. We go around it too. It can be rougher at lower levels, but that doesn't make it less safe.

The ATR is approximately the equivalent of the Dash 8, and they're related in the same way as a 737 and A320. Similar aircraft with different makers.

Around the world, regional aircraft are probably involved in more incidents than larger aircraft, but not because they are inherently less safe. More because they tend to operate to less capable airfields, and in much less controlled environments.

I don't make decisions based upon what aircraft I'll be flying, but choose based upon the airline. So, just decide who you want to fly with...let the airline choose the aircraft.

 

[aplmac]

Might be an odd question, but having flown four Emirates flights the past couple of weeks on an A380 with plane cameras, I 'm curious:
It seems obvious when you're taxiing that the nose wheel steers the plane to follow the taxiway lines to and from the gate. My question is - when you're belting along the runway taking off or landing, what's keeping the nose wheel dead straight at those times? I suspect some kind of lock - but then I've been on landings where we've barely touched down before we've done a sharp right almost immediately to a taxiway (to get out of the way of something else inbound I guess!), which suggests some level of human control of the steering at high speed. At those speeds a bit of a twitch left or right could be catastrophic!

 

[jb747]

Might be an odd question, but having flown four Emirates flights the past couple of weeks on an A380 with plane cameras, I 'm curious:
It seems obvious when you're taxiing that the nose wheel steers the plane to follow the taxiway lines to and from the gate. My question is - when you're belting along the runway taking off or landing, what's keeping the nose wheel dead straight at those times? I suspect some kind of lock - but then I've been on landings where we've barely touched down before we've done a sharp right almost immediately to a taxiway (to get out of the way of something else inbound I guess!), which suggests some level of human control of the steering at high speed. At those speeds a bit of a twitch left or right could be catastrophic!

I'm don't know what cameras Emirates have, but assume they're the same as ours. Neither is actually there to give the passengers a view....they exist to help us taxi. There are two cameras on our aircraft. One in the tail, which is fed to the entertainment system, and another under the aircraft, behind the nose gear. This one is only fed to the coughpit. When on the ground, we can display the both cameras simultaneously on the display that normally shows the attitude indicator. The other screen is used to show the airport map. The coughpit displays have magenta markers superimposed on them. From the tail view the magenta is used to show the position of the wing gear, and on the nose camera display it shows two markers that we use in turns. We actually don't keep the nose gear on the painted line when turning, but rather run quite wide (using those magenta marks) so that approximately the centre of the aircraft is kept over the centreline. Otherwise, we run a great risk of putting the wing gear on the inside of the turn onto the grass!

The nose gear steering is controlled in a couple of ways. Taxiing we use the tiller which gives up to 70º of nose gear movement. The nose gear is also interconnected to the rudder pedals, and will move up to 7º as they are moved. So, during the take off roll, we keep it straight by using our feet on the rudder pedals, with the actual control coming from the nose gear at low speeds and then the rudder as the speed increases. Above about 60-70 knots, the rudder will overpower the steering. From our point of view it's transparent, and we don't notice any change. During the take off roll the alignment is constantly being corrected.

 

[mjt57]

I'm don't know what cameras Emirates have, but assume they're the same as ours.

When I flew with them to London (what a mistake that was) in '14 the 380 that we were on had the nose and tail cameras available to us to view.

Interesting watching 3 A380s in front of us lining up to depart DXB...

 

[Dale Eastham]

The nose gear steering is controlled in a couple of ways. Taxiing we use the tiller which gives up to 70º of nose gear movement. The nose gear is also interconnected to the rudder pedals, and will move up to 7º as they are moved. So, during the take off roll, we keep it straight by using our feet on the rudder pedals, with the actual control coming from the nose gear at low speeds and then the rudder as the speed increases. Above about 60-70 knots, the rudder will overpower the steering. From our point of view it's transparent, and we don't notice any change. During the take off roll the alignment is constantly being corrected.

That strikes me as one of those quietly, behind the scenes, amazing things, that technology and skill blends in a way that 99% of passengers probably never notice to keep several hundred tons of plane & people tracking down a relatively narrow piece of runway in all sorts of weather conditions.

Sometimes I watch the (regional) airliners fly over work & it still amazes me that something so technically complex operates day in, day out, with such little fanfare.

 

[Major]

Whilst we are on the subject of taxiing...the thumping noise we hear is obviously the nose gear running over the centreline lights. Does that do any damage to the tyres ?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Whilst we are on the subject of taxiing...the thumping noise we hear is obviously the nose gear running over the centreline lights. Does that do any damage to the tyres ?

Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't have thought it would do anymore damage than running over them in your car. We certainly try not to taxi over them because of the shimmy that can be felt through the aircraft which is uncomfotable. Most crew just offset the nose wheel by a small amount just to avoid them. But when your game is perfection sometimes it's hard to intentionally induce an inaccuracy!

 

[harvyk]

I spent the weekend at Bathurst, and one of the things I noticed was just how well choreographed all the planes and helicopters were in the air. From having lots of helicopters all buzzing around in pretty close proximity (and missing each other), to having the FA18 fly overhead at the end of the anthem, to the VA jet doing runs up pit straight just before the race.

I remember earlier on in this thread an ATC person mentioned that at special events like Bathurst 1000 they are likely to have someone looking after air traffic. My question is would there likely be a pilots briefing before the weekend? If so what sort of briefing might take place, eg letters / emails send out to all pilots or would they likely get all the pilots together (either via phone hookup or even get everyone in the same room) and go over the plans?

 

[jb747]

Whilst we are on the subject of taxiing...the thumping noise we hear is obviously the nose gear running over the centreline lights. Does that do any damage to the tyres ?

No. It does no harm. Biggest issue for the nose gear would be the scrubbing that happens in some turns. Putting it into car terms, they understeer terribly.

Offsetting to one side to miss them is an option in smaller aircraft, but as they get larger your only option is to straddle them. Offsetting reduces wing tip clearance, and we're fairly twitchy about that. The gap between the nose gear tyres is big enough on the 380 and 747. That works as long as the airport builders have done the logical thing and put the lights right on the centreline...but in so many places, they're offset too.

 

[Dmac6345]

Hi jb.
Any chance of sharing your schedule for the upcoming month/s.
I have QF93 on 29th Oct and QF94 on Nov 6th if you are offering .