4 ms·

I wonder: would PM have taken control if they had more experience on the 767?

by gib444 21d ago

VBprogrammer 21d ago
Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.
- rob74 21d ago
  If any of the two pilots feel uncomfortable about the approach, they are actually drilled to just order a go-around, not politely ask and hint that they would prefer to do it like this FO did (wastes time). Ideally the pilot flying should then do it, but if they don't, the pilot monitoring can also take control (while clearly stating "my controls, going around") and do it. One major issue that I bet the NTSB will note in the final report is that both pilots were relatively new to the aircraft and to the airline, usually it's preferable to pair an inexperienced FO with more experienced captains. (not an aviation expert, just summarizing various bits and pieces I gathered from various YouTubers over the last days)
  - netsharc 21d ago
    Also not an expert, I wonder if there's some rule where a "Go around!" order has precedence over any other activity anyone in the cockpit wishes to perform. As a passenger I had my first go around a few days ago, but we were 5km away from the runway.
    - MadnessASAP 20d ago
      (I fix airplanes, have been in aviation for 15 years) Yes, it does. I can't speak universally but I would generally expect it to be a written rule, if not then at least it's the expectation.
    - bityard 20d ago
      It totally does. Every approach briefing includes instructions on what they will do in the event of a missed or unstable approach. The procedure is generally full throttle, nose up, gear up, retract flaps, head in the direction briefed, and notify ATC. All automatic from memory. When either pilot calls for a go-around, both are supposed to drop literally everything else, execute the go-around without delay or hesitation, and then pause to analyze the situation once ATC gives them a heading and altitude or holding pattern to regroup. The only thing lost in a go-around is fuel and time. Any sane airline will never punish a call to go-around if done so in good faith.
    - ssl-3 20d ago
      I experienced my first go-around a few months ago, in an A321 that was landing in Tampa. The clouds had been very thick for awhile. The plane was making those weird low-and-slow vibes that it makes on final approach. We popped out of the clouds and there was a highway with cars! A huge parking lot! (An airport, too? Certainly, but I didn't really see a runway or any runway-adjacent stuff.) To my inexpert eyes, we just looked to be impossibly low for our location. The folks in the cockpit apparently didn't like what they saw with their eyes, either. In an instant, the engines roared as they simultaneously pointed the thing upwards. My little pea brain was very impressed by the immediacy of the forces on my body as we disappeared back into the clouds after what was at most just several seconds of visibility. Anyway, it was very clear that there was no hesitation to the go-around. However that decision was reached, it was then simply executed. The next attempt went very smoothly about ten minutes later. (The go-around can be seen here, if anyone wants to have a look at some pretty lines and maps from ADS-B: https://planefinder.net/data/flight/NK630/history/5-48596475 https://planefinder.net/data/flight/NK630/history/5-48596475 )
- gib444 21d ago
  Your comment doesn't answer my question. > Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants Nor crashing and killing 5 people.
- shakna 21d ago
  Isn't it? Pretty sure its actually the drilled and trained commandment. If you doubt, speak up, and if that fails, take control. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
  - VBprogrammer 21d ago
    There are a lot of things which are drilled and trained which have gone wrong in this incident.
    - stouset 20d ago
      Including the complete failure of the FO to act assertively, order a go-around, and to take the controls when it was clear the captain was not responding appropriately. If this had happened and the captain had fought over the controls and still caused an accident, we’d be having a very different conversation. The FO would be lauded as a hero who fought to save the lives of those on the ground.
- pluc 21d ago
  Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..
  - fragmede 20d ago
    linked elsewhere in this thread: CRM is standard practice aboard airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
- usefulcat 20d ago
  > The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording. From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
- stouset 20d ago
  “My controls” is something every single pilot has heard since day 1 of training and has a learned, immediate response to.
  - VBprogrammer 20d ago
    The power dynamic in training is obviously very different during training where the instructor is pilot in command. Making the assumption the PM could have taken control cleanly if the power dynamic was so poor that they weren't able to demand a go-around seems iffy, typical stabilised approach gates are 500ft in VMC, with an aircraft travelling 3nm a minute, 40 seconds before touchdown. But as I said, the human factors involved will be a huge focus of the accident investigation.
    - stouset 20d ago
      My response was to your point about “fighting over the controls”, as if there would have been a tug of war on the yoke as the FO tried to wrest control of the plane from the captain which is nonsense. If anything, it would have been yet one more opportunity to avert catastrophe and perform a go-around. Pilots are trained for this, and it makes less than zero sense for a PM to fail to take the controls from a PF who is flying unsafely over some imagined fear of a battle for control while the plane jostles around hurtling toward the ground. The PM is obligated to do this by every written regulation. If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.
      - VBprogrammer 20d ago
        > If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject. That's a lot of assumptions.
      - singleshot_ 20d ago
        > If you have never actually _______, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject. If this site had a slogan, I think you just guessed it
ibejoeb 21d ago
The PM got his rating about 18 months ago. The PF only got his this past May. The PM had more overall hours, but this is looking a lot like a skills issue. He was flying an unstable approach. He wasn't configured for landing. This pairing, considering past incidents with similar airframe vs. total hours disparity, really does look to be bad practice. You've got to acknowledge the human psychology. Part of it is probably the crazy pipeline over the past few years where people are racing to 1500 hours no matter how they log them, or they're getting on restricted certs with lower hours.
- mrngld 21d ago
  I really don't think time in this particular type is a factor. None of what I've heard or read has anything to do with familiarity with its unique systems. Everything sounds like sloppy flying. Sounds like he, the PF/PIC/Captain, started the descent late, stayed too high, didn't manage the power curve well, landed long and fast and willfully ignored his first officer. One bad decision after another where instead of properly correcting it or making the safe decision to try again he decided to plow onwards. The training pilots go through to get type rated and to be allowed to fly by airlines is incredible. But knowledge is one thing, attitudes and behavior and truly taking safety to heart outside the sim is another. I bet this guy was slightly reckless in every model he's flown. Another alternative is external social factors acting on the captain. Maybe he was distracted by personal issues. There again though, if you're not fit to fly that day, you call out.
  - stouset 20d ago
    Yeah, time in this type could be argued as a reason they weren’t properly configured or on a stable approach, but that is exactly why go-arounds exist. Mistakes happen, errors get made, so you go TOGA, fly a holding pattern until you get sorted, then try again. Happens at every airport every single day. No harm no foul. That is not the reason this incident happened. This happened because the pilots continued to put it on the ground while ignoring at least a dozen clear and unambiguous indicators to abort the approach and go around.
- hbcdbff 20d ago

I wonder: would PM have taken control if they had more experience on the 767?

by gib444 21d ago

I wonder: would PM have taken control if they had more experience on the 767?

Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.

rob74 21d ago
If any of the two pilots feel uncomfortable about the approach, they are actually drilled to just order a go-around, not politely ask and hint that they would prefer to do it like this FO did (wastes time). Ideally the pilot flying should then do it, but if they don't, the pilot monitoring can also take control (while clearly stating "my controls, going around") and do it. One major issue that I bet the NTSB will note in the final report is that both pilots were relatively new to the aircraft and to the airline, usually it's preferable to pair an inexperienced FO with more experienced captains. (not an aviation expert, just summarizing various bits and pieces I gathered from various YouTubers over the last days)
- netsharc 21d ago
  Also not an expert, I wonder if there's some rule where a "Go around!" order has precedence over any other activity anyone in the cockpit wishes to perform. As a passenger I had my first go around a few days ago, but we were 5km away from the runway.
  - MadnessASAP 20d ago
    (I fix airplanes, have been in aviation for 15 years) Yes, it does. I can't speak universally but I would generally expect it to be a written rule, if not then at least it's the expectation.
  - bityard 20d ago
    It totally does. Every approach briefing includes instructions on what they will do in the event of a missed or unstable approach. The procedure is generally full throttle, nose up, gear up, retract flaps, head in the direction briefed, and notify ATC. All automatic from memory. When either pilot calls for a go-around, both are supposed to drop literally everything else, execute the go-around without delay or hesitation, and then pause to analyze the situation once ATC gives them a heading and altitude or holding pattern to regroup. The only thing lost in a go-around is fuel and time. Any sane airline will never punish a call to go-around if done so in good faith.
  - ssl-3 20d ago
    I experienced my first go-around a few months ago, in an A321 that was landing in Tampa. The clouds had been very thick for awhile. The plane was making those weird low-and-slow vibes that it makes on final approach. We popped out of the clouds and there was a highway with cars! A huge parking lot! (An airport, too? Certainly, but I didn't really see a runway or any runway-adjacent stuff.) To my inexpert eyes, we just looked to be impossibly low for our location. The folks in the cockpit apparently didn't like what they saw with their eyes, either. In an instant, the engines roared as they simultaneously pointed the thing upwards. My little pea brain was very impressed by the immediacy of the forces on my body as we disappeared back into the clouds after what was at most just several seconds of visibility. Anyway, it was very clear that there was no hesitation to the go-around. However that decision was reached, it was then simply executed. The next attempt went very smoothly about ten minutes later. (The go-around can be seen here, if anyone wants to have a look at some pretty lines and maps from ADS-B: https://planefinder.net/data/flight/NK630/history/5-48596475 https://planefinder.net/data/flight/NK630/history/5-48596475 )
gib444 21d ago
Your comment doesn't answer my question. > Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants Nor crashing and killing 5 people.
shakna 21d ago
Isn't it? Pretty sure its actually the drilled and trained commandment. If you doubt, speak up, and if that fails, take control. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
- VBprogrammer 21d ago
  There are a lot of things which are drilled and trained which have gone wrong in this incident.
  - stouset 20d ago
    Including the complete failure of the FO to act assertively, order a go-around, and to take the controls when it was clear the captain was not responding appropriately. If this had happened and the captain had fought over the controls and still caused an accident, we’d be having a very different conversation. The FO would be lauded as a hero who fought to save the lives of those on the ground.
pluc 21d ago
Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..
- fragmede 20d ago
  linked elsewhere in this thread: CRM is standard practice aboard airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
usefulcat 20d ago
> The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording. From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
stouset 20d ago
“My controls” is something every single pilot has heard since day 1 of training and has a learned, immediate response to.
- VBprogrammer 20d ago
  The power dynamic in training is obviously very different during training where the instructor is pilot in command. Making the assumption the PM could have taken control cleanly if the power dynamic was so poor that they weren't able to demand a go-around seems iffy, typical stabilised approach gates are 500ft in VMC, with an aircraft travelling 3nm a minute, 40 seconds before touchdown. But as I said, the human factors involved will be a huge focus of the accident investigation.
  - stouset 20d ago
    My response was to your point about “fighting over the controls”, as if there would have been a tug of war on the yoke as the FO tried to wrest control of the plane from the captain which is nonsense. If anything, it would have been yet one more opportunity to avert catastrophe and perform a go-around. Pilots are trained for this, and it makes less than zero sense for a PM to fail to take the controls from a PF who is flying unsafely over some imagined fear of a battle for control while the plane jostles around hurtling toward the ground. The PM is obligated to do this by every written regulation. If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.
    - VBprogrammer 20d ago
      > If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject. That's a lot of assumptions.
    - singleshot_ 20d ago
      > If you have never actually _______, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject. If this site had a slogan, I think you just guessed it

ibejoeb 21d ago

The PM got his rating about 18 months ago. The PF only got his this past May. The PM had more overall hours, but this is looking a lot like a skills issue. He was flying an unstable approach. He wasn't configured for landing. This pairing, considering past incidents with similar airframe vs. total hours disparity, really does look to be bad practice. You've got to acknowledge the human psychology. Part of it is probably the crazy pipeline over the past few years where people are racing to 1500 hours no matter how they log them, or they're getting on restricted certs with lower hours.

mrngld 21d ago
I really don't think time in this particular type is a factor. None of what I've heard or read has anything to do with familiarity with its unique systems. Everything sounds like sloppy flying. Sounds like he, the PF/PIC/Captain, started the descent late, stayed too high, didn't manage the power curve well, landed long and fast and willfully ignored his first officer. One bad decision after another where instead of properly correcting it or making the safe decision to try again he decided to plow onwards. The training pilots go through to get type rated and to be allowed to fly by airlines is incredible. But knowledge is one thing, attitudes and behavior and truly taking safety to heart outside the sim is another. I bet this guy was slightly reckless in every model he's flown. Another alternative is external social factors acting on the captain. Maybe he was distracted by personal issues. There again though, if you're not fit to fly that day, you call out.
- stouset 20d ago
  Yeah, time in this type could be argued as a reason they weren’t properly configured or on a stable approach, but that is exactly why go-arounds exist. Mistakes happen, errors get made, so you go TOGA, fly a holding pattern until you get sorted, then try again. Happens at every airport every single day. No harm no foul. That is not the reason this incident happened. This happened because the pilots continued to put it on the ground while ignoring at least a dozen clear and unambiguous indicators to abort the approach and go around.
hbcdbff 20d ago