Contract Airline Services


"We are the protagonists of our stories called life, and there is no limit to how high we can fly."


Type rated on A330, B747-400, B747, B757, B767, B737, B727. International Airline Pilot / Author / Speaker. Dedicated to giving the gift of wings to anyone following their dreams. Supporting Aviation Safety through training, writing, and inspiration.

Friday, August 17, 2018

Automation Challenges

Friday's Fabulous Flyer!

Framepool and Right Smith

A Pilot interested in Performance and Safety...

A pilot sent me a message and was curious what we all thought. I'm on the way to Paris, so will write my response sometime this weekend. But... here are some things to think about concerning missed approaches.

WSJ Go Around research at SFO:


"Shortly after the SFO Asiana accident, an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal which looked at Go Arounds at the SFO airport. The article compared Go Around statistics across domestic and foreign carriers inbound to SFO during the studied period, which included a period of time when SFO ILS 28L & 28R Glideslope were OTS.


Shortly after the WSJ article a Flight Safety Group member Cathy Pok-Poy (formerly with the Civil Aviation Authority of Papau New Guinea) and I each reached out to the WSJ reporters, who offered insight as to how they derived the data and tabulated the results.


ATC Tracon data for 341,000 flights inbound to KSFO during a 12 month period were filtered using an algorithm written to identify 'flights' which met specified criteria.


A total of 991 Go Arounds were identified by the algorithm.


Prior to the Glideslope Outage:
  • Foreign Carriers executed Go Arounds at a rate of 3.7 per 1,000 approaches
  • Domestic Carriers executed Go Arounds at a rate of 2.7 per 1,000 approaches


During the Glideslope Outage:

  • Foreign Carriers executed Go Arounds at a rate of 11.1 per 1,000 approaches
  • Domestic Carriers executed Go Arounds at a rate of 4.3 per 1,000 approaches


It is unclear whether this reinforces the premise 'Pilots of foreign carriers are more reliant on automation' or the premise 'Pilots of domestic carriers are more reluctant to execute a Go Around.'

Botched Go Arounds:

There have been several cases of botched Go Arounds which were executed from a high-energy state and resulted in flap overspeeds or worse.

I have learned that Airbus has developed a 'Soft Go Around' designed to be utilized in such a high energy situation. You may have been exposed to this prior to switching to the 777.

I have also learned that UPS, for it's Airbus fleet, has developed a 'Discontinued Approach' procedure, which is included in every Approach Briefing.

I am interested to learn whether other carriers have implemented similar such standardized procedure for high energy Go Arounds.


Could a Challenge & Response Checklist be the answer? 
 Is this a universal Human Factors challenge?


Going around from a "non-practiced" point in space creates stress and confusion....and perhaps fear in the mind of the pilot who needs to execute this very maneuver from this unfamiliar position. Could this be another reason why PF's are hesitant to execute a Go Around?

Earlier this year, after my (first) Recurrent, I may have communicated to you the difficulty I experienced performing a high energy Go Around in the Sim.


As you know, commanding a Go Around from this high energy state is quite complex and demanding, especially given the already high-workload Approach phase of flight. The usual triggers (triggering the standard flows and callouts) are absent and one is relying on one's own (and the PMs) memory to complete time critical and essential tasks outside of (the well-practiced) sequence.

Could it be that this type of Go Around might warrant the development of a Challenge & Response checklist? I am told the US Air Force has a different philosophy regarding what gets memorized in a flow, what gets 'read and done,' and what gets 'challenged & responded to.' I have been unable to get any concrete examples of how a Go Around is be executed in the C-17 or C-5.




What are the issues with the Go-Around?

  1. PF reluctance to Go Around (despite rationale/conditions supporting a Go Around)?
  2. A lack of training/practice performing high energy Go Arounds higher/faster than DH/DA/DDA and Vref+?
  3. The question as to whether a Go Around under non-normal conditions might be so unpracticed and complex as to justify the development of a challenge and response checklist to ensure items are performed and so done in the correct sequence?"
Your Thoughts are Appreciated!!

Enjoy the Journey!
XO Karlene



10 comments:

  1. Hi Karlene, Thanks for creating awareness around this issue, which I think is very relevant. First of all, I'm not an Airbus pilot, but have been flying ATR 72-600. However the issue is the same regardless of aircraft type.
    Quite honestly, I think that a lot of pilots choose not to make a Go Around, if they find themselves in a non-normal conditions. Human Factors wise, I think this makes sense. It increases your cognitive workload (what to do in this situation?) at the same time, you are occupied with flying the aircraft ( often manually, as you are in non-normal condition) all this with a certain time pressure.
    When I was trained on the ATR in the simulator, I very quickly learned "the way it goes" Engine failure at V1, engine failure at minima and so on. It sort of became a part of my pilot DNA, I knew exactly what would happen when in the simulator. On my last OPC in the simulator, the instructor gave me an engine failure at a non-normal time. It took 3 call outs from the first officer, and 2 whole minuts before I secured the engine. All because this came at a non - normal time....
    When I teach CRM I very often ask the pilots how many Go Arounds they have made in their career. And usually its only a few times. I think, that we as pilots can have a tendency to be target fixated during an approach. Sort of "forgetting" to create the mental picture of "what if?"
    The training in Europe is in small steeps making a shift. Recently I talked to a crew, who had been in the simulator, training only unexpected events. All based on non-normal events. They expressed, that it was actually nice to try out, and helping them in creating the mental pictures of f.x A Go Around from above MSA.
    So in my opinion, I think that we need to rethink the training of pilots, to all these unexpected events. These non-normale events, happens more frequently in real life, than the engine failure at V1. We are of course not able to train all scenarioes, but as a part of the Threat and Error Management, we might be able to make it more relevant, for that specific situation that might occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gitte, Thank you so much for your comment and apologies for my delay. Blogger has been hiding my comments. I found them. I cannot agree with you more. Wait until you here the results of my research. Amazing discovery and training is a key.

      Startle factor and those surprise events, nobody is really ever ready...but could they be? I think they could. And, I do believe we could create training for these types of scenarios.

      Thanks so much for your comment! And... Join me at my defense. Either in Daytona at ERAU or, on line you can watch as a guest at https://eaglevision.adobeconnect.com/ruvfo1dpt09w/
      and, you can send me notes there too. Thanks so much for your comment and huge apologies for the delay!

      Delete
  2. HI Karlene. This is very impressive! You have been writing this blog regularly for 8 years now! Very inspiring. I read your post on automation, and today in my CFI class we were just discussing the inevitable (seems like so)arrival of the artificial intelligence, replacing the pilots. I am going to subscribe to your blog now, I clicked on your facebook link somewhere in the middle left of this page, and the link is "stale", you might need to look at it. Very glad to meet you here. Here is a link to what I do - Hello Brian. I can see that you did put in a great deal of work into writing this post and all the rest of them on your blog. The only way such great posts are possible is because you have the passion, and the dedication. I also noticed that the CFI Training line item in your bucket list is not clickable. I am guessing that's that way cause you already bagged it! :-) Here is a link of what I do - CFI Academy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much!!! I have been delinquent in the blog, but that will be renewed for the new Year! Thanks so much for your comment! And... Join me at my defense. Either in Daytona at ERAU or, on line you can watch as a guest at https://eaglevision.adobeconnect.com/ruvfo1dpt09w/
      and, you can send me notes there too. Thanks so much for your comment and huge apologies for the delay and thanks for following!

      Delete
  3. Unless at minima which in any case is the most practised go around, you should have time to talk through your go around before executing. Takes 10 secs at most. Ie ok John looks like we have to go around.... we will ..do this and this and this. Missed approach altitude set. Go AROUND FLAPS...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, this is briefed before hand, prior to...and in our jets, we don't really have time for those discussions. Prior to arrival, we should say... "If we have to go around... this is what we will do." Then, we follow standard procedures and at the point of go, we follow them. Thanks so much for your comment! And... Join me at my defense. Either in Daytona at ERAU or, on line you can watch as a guest at https://eaglevision.adobeconnect.com/ruvfo1dpt09w/
      and, you can send me notes there too. Thanks so much for your comment and huge apologies for the delay!

      Delete
  4. What percentage of each go around category were pilot-initiated vs. tower-initiated to arounds? Would also like to see correlation to reason for each fo around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natasha, I think most are pilot initiated. But... of my two, the tower told us as we were on the go for one of them. Normally the go is due to what we see (or don't). But, the tower might have more aircraft information and a crossing issue, that could shift. In my case, they cleared someone on the runway, and that pilot was not departing as rapidly as they thought. We saw them, we went the same time the tower advised.
      Thanks so much for your comment! And... Join me at my defense. Either in Daytona at ERAU or, on line you can watch as a guest at https://eaglevision.adobeconnect.com/ruvfo1dpt09w/
      and, you can send me notes there too. Thanks so much for your comment and huge apologies for the delay!

      Delete
  5. Karlene,

    In the 757, we have a high altitude go-around procedure. We still have to press the go-around paddle for several reasons but the main one is that we need to disconnect the autopilot logic from approach mode to go-around mode. Then we immediately press the altitude hold button which freezes everything including and maintains straight and level flight. Then we re-automate the autopilot based on the instructions from atc or what we need to do.

    Hope that helps and super happy your flying again.

    rob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob, thanks so much for your comment. And, great to see you! I think each plane has their functionality. Where this event occurs is definitely a function of what to do. Sometimes a go-around is simply a level off and they fly the missed laterally, and if no climb, no need for the TOGA power.

      Thanks so much for your comment! And... Join me at my defense. Either in Daytona at ERAU or, on line you can watch as a guest at https://eaglevision.adobeconnect.com/ruvfo1dpt09w/
      and, you can send me notes there too. Thanks so much for your comment and huge apologies for the delay!

      Delete

Thank you for your comment! If your comment doesn't appear immediately, it will after I land. Enjoy the journey!