4 ms·

Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of t

by kayfox 6y ago

Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform. So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?

goodcanadian 6y ago
The accident report confirms that neither the pilots nor controllers followed established procedures. This is not simply my idle speculation. The plane was not on the proper published approach for the airport. The controller attempted to give vectors to the aircraft to give it room to descend. The pilot declined to follow the instructions (possible violation). At this point, in my opinion, the controller should have said, "go around." Instead, the controller said, "cleared to land." Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command. Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  So, having twice ignored the ATC instruction to turn left to 180 away from the approach, you think there is a good reason to believe they would've heeded a direction to go around? If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    No I don't think there is a good reason to believe they would have heeded a direction to go around. That doesn't mean that the direction should not have been given. If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC. My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  The pilots busted their approach clearance. ATC could certainly have rescinded their landing clearance and ordered a go-around. That said, ATC's responsibility is to keep planes from hitting each other and maintain an orderly flow of aircraft. They are not any way responsible for the safety of the flight. That is what the second pilot and all of the automated alarms are for. The crew just ignored all of them. It takes a basic standard of professionalism to fly a jet airliner, and unfortunately neither of the crew members on this flight had it. The approach was so bad that they were above the maximum gear extension speed when they tried to put the gear down, and so the Airbus refused to do it, and continuously yelled at them that it was doing this, but somehow they failed to notice. Monitoring airspeed on approach is about the most basic thing a pilot does, and if you're off on speed and/or altitude by much less than these guys were, the absolutely clear requirement is to go around and try again (before you slam the engines on the ground and destroy them).

by kayfox 6y ago

goodcanadian 6y ago

The accident report confirms that neither the pilots nor controllers followed established procedures. This is not simply my idle speculation. The plane was not on the proper published approach for the airport. The controller attempted to give vectors to the aircraft to give it room to descend. The pilot declined to follow the instructions (possible violation). At this point, in my opinion, the controller should have said, "go around." Instead, the controller said, "cleared to land." Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command. Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
So, having twice ignored the ATC instruction to turn left to 180 away from the approach, you think there is a good reason to believe they would've heeded a direction to go around? If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  No I don't think there is a good reason to believe they would have heeded a direction to go around. That doesn't mean that the direction should not have been given. If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC. My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
cameldrv 6y ago
The pilots busted their approach clearance. ATC could certainly have rescinded their landing clearance and ordered a go-around. That said, ATC's responsibility is to keep planes from hitting each other and maintain an orderly flow of aircraft. They are not any way responsible for the safety of the flight. That is what the second pilot and all of the automated alarms are for. The crew just ignored all of them. It takes a basic standard of professionalism to fly a jet airliner, and unfortunately neither of the crew members on this flight had it. The approach was so bad that they were above the maximum gear extension speed when they tried to put the gear down, and so the Airbus refused to do it, and continuously yelled at them that it was doing this, but somehow they failed to notice. Monitoring airspeed on approach is about the most basic thing a pilot does, and if you're off on speed and/or altitude by much less than these guys were, the absolutely clear requirement is to go around and try again (before you slam the engines on the ground and destroy them).