Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Pilot Mistake Prompted Emergency Landing
A cabin pressurization error led to an early return to DFW, with two go arounds. Listening to the tapes, it really sounded like someone needed to focus on the "aviate" part of flying. (www.nbcdfw.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I was unimpressed with 2 go-arounds. C'mon you gotta fly it 1st. Not much of an emergency at 2000 MSL. At only 1400 AGL, if it was only the packs, would it be safely, possible to just throw them on right there and proceed? As for ATC, the "unable" means "unable" sounds like the controller pulled out all the stops to get the 1st one, then 2nd was unable. A little extra flying time so you can land it safely after the 2 inept trys.
Huh???
I believe there was a declared emergency (though perhaps not in the excerpt), as the controller asked the pilot what the nature of his emergency was. It is unlikely that the controller is going to ask that question, absent an emergency.
Most striking in this, to me, is the need for two go-arounds. I believe it would probably have been three, had the controller given permission for a second 360. (Clearly, the first 360 didn't work out so well.) Handling workload is indeed taxed in this scenario. However, that is one of the reasons for two trained pilots. The FAA thought of high-workload environments.
What I don't understand is why it escalated into this at all. Instead of requesting the first 360, do a missed approach, go into a hold, and request clearance for another approach when the checklists and configuration meets the specifications required for that type of landing. Given DFW's altitude, it is unlikely that the altitude for a hold in a missed approach procedure would be higher than 10,000 feet.
But, yeah, I'm not an ATP--so I am only operating off of what I know as a private pilot. :-)
Most striking in this, to me, is the need for two go-arounds. I believe it would probably have been three, had the controller given permission for a second 360. (Clearly, the first 360 didn't work out so well.) Handling workload is indeed taxed in this scenario. However, that is one of the reasons for two trained pilots. The FAA thought of high-workload environments.
What I don't understand is why it escalated into this at all. Instead of requesting the first 360, do a missed approach, go into a hold, and request clearance for another approach when the checklists and configuration meets the specifications required for that type of landing. Given DFW's altitude, it is unlikely that the altitude for a hold in a missed approach procedure would be higher than 10,000 feet.
But, yeah, I'm not an ATP--so I am only operating off of what I know as a private pilot. :-)
Mark Lansdell: Whether the pilot declared an emergency or not, he opted for a return to DFW in view of the cabin pressurization error. Now if that is not an emergency, declared or not, why not just keep on flying until things get really ugly. I still insist that not having been able to land until his third attempt does not speak highly of the pilot´s qualification or AA instruction programme taking into account other planes evidently landed while he was making circuits over the airport space.
The bottom line is the aircraft was landed safely.
The crew made an error.
Now, with that said, it appears the crew did not stick to procedure. They may have been preoccupied with the cabin pressure issue instead of one FC member to deal with it, the other to fly the plane. Or, perhaps the crew were both focused on the procedure thus distracting the two pilots.
The news anchor was typically in sensation mode by using words such as "dangerous maneuvers" and "crowded airspace".
The on the scene reporter used the phrase "things got worse"". No they did not. The flight had to go arounds. So what.
The crew made an error.
Now, with that said, it appears the crew did not stick to procedure. They may have been preoccupied with the cabin pressure issue instead of one FC member to deal with it, the other to fly the plane. Or, perhaps the crew were both focused on the procedure thus distracting the two pilots.
The news anchor was typically in sensation mode by using words such as "dangerous maneuvers" and "crowded airspace".
The on the scene reporter used the phrase "things got worse"". No they did not. The flight had to go arounds. So what.
I'll leave so what to you. In nearly every case of crash incident I've read lately, and I've read too many recently, it nearly always goes back to basic flying or lack of it. Needle-ball and airspeed, Fly the airplane first seems to be the answer. It appears that even in the Air France case they concentrated on solving the problem rather than identifying and recovering from the stall.