Say Again, Over!

Hi Don, I believe that the best way to increase safety is by making pilots and other key players safety aware as opposed to safety compliant. We are only (really) safety minded when we accept, assess and mitigate risk. Trying to proceduralize risk assessment only leads, IMHO, to complacency. Not to say of course that we should now encourage unstable approaches! What I do see is that we made "the stabilized approach gate" the holy-grail of safety when it is only a part of it. Reading the study, I can see that ALAs were incurred when something happened after the decision to land was made "because we are stable". The check marks had replaced solid risk assessment and valid and important cues were missed. Are we not building a form or confirmation bias by insisting on such procedures? This being said, I understand that in a busy, task saturated environment, the procedure is supposed to make risk assessment more efficient by making a few complex decisions simpler (i.e.stable approach criteria). But would seat of the pants flying, in controlled situations, not be conducive to honing those decision making skills? A few (ok, many) years ago, in CYYZ, we used to stay on the dual configuration throughout the day. This meant that during some periods, all 5 positions were opened (North and South towers and Grounds plus Clearance Delivery) and we all shared the 2 or 3 airplanes that were at the airport all with a very low alertness level. We found that this is when the stupid incidents happened (this is true of a majority of incidents in ATC). We proposed that we combine positions and make the operation slightly more complex to keep people stimulated at the proper level and I do believe we had some improvements. I'd be curious to know the metrics of alertness for the ALAs in the study. In the meantime, I forwarded this study to our safety people as well as the instructors in the school. Especially wrt to recommendations 1, 18 and 19.

Hi Don, I'll include this in the reference material for our ATC course. Quick question, though, in light of the statistics quoted: Since over half of the runway excursions followed an otherwise stable approach could it be argued that the problem therefore does not lie with unstable approaches but rather with poor go-around decision skill? Have we been looking in the wrong place all along? I know there is a lot of pressure on operators to come in fully stabilized and we're seeing a difference of late with the "more manoeuvrable" aircraft coming in slower and farther out. Could this have an effect on the philosophy? Looking forward to the answer and discussion. Felix

From a Montreal Habs point of view, I think this qualifies as a political post. MODERATOR!!

Well, considering the cops were involved in the United States, he should count himself luck he didn't get shot! Are terrorism charges pending in his case?

Well, so long as you're not too restrictive with your definitions for "crop" and "dusting", it still looks like a good old fashioned "Crop Duster"!

Hum, Malcolm, Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Or more to the point, what is wrong and what is even more wrong? The scale of righteousness, on top of being a slippery bugger, is far from being a binary issue. There is so much more than being right or wrong, and extenuating circumstances must be considered. A man beats another man in a bar and the man dies: is he guilty? The dead man turns out to have, looked cross at the other man's girlfriend / pushed him / provoked the first man / started the fight / been with a gang of equally unfriendly member.. Please circle the correct answer. Here, you pretending that you have a strong sense of right and wrong only means that you KNOW what is right and KNOW what is wrong and everybody should abide by that. Maybe you should apply to be a Supreme Court Judge.... Felix

Although it's the length of three (or four) regular runways, the "runways" would all overlap as the threshold for each might be different depending on the wind or desired take-off or landing point. Also, the bank angle being a function of speed, different "centerlines" with varying bank angles would need to be used further confusing the operation. To me, it's impractical to the point of being just silly.

I can search as well! What astounds me is that you remember there being a thread about this (and about other much more obscure topics). THAT is the exploit!

Malcolm, Did you remember that there was a thread about this 5 years ago? Or do you see an aviation story and figure it was probably discussed and search for it? How can you possibly resurrect threads that are often 7 or 8 years old? Do you keep a Rolodex of all the topics here that you cross reference with every aviation source available on a daily basis? You're a librarian now, right? Or an archivist? Or are you just weird? Not criticizing.... just amazed! Felix

Maybe just being alone at home while going through a divorce didn't please her at all and the one thing she looked forward to was the routine of a flight and the friendly banter on the flight deck as well as the order of things that would contrast with how she might view her life. Replacing her on the flight deck is a must, but making sure she has someone to talk to when she gets of the airplane must also be a priority.

Outstanding point, GDR! Most of the liberties granted to the media are to protect them from undue influence from those in power. What we see now is a complete meddling of media and politics. Most don't mind because they like what they hear but fail to realize that when the media has such an influence on the masses and is equally manipulated by politicians, it's just as bad as if not worse than when the church did.

DEFCON, I've heard the argument about arming everybody before and I cringe every time. Adding more guns to a gun fight will more than likely dramatically increase the numbers of deaths or injuries. Sure, one or more trained police officers might be a good defence to an armed attacker but a bunch of untrained yahoos with pistols shooting in a crowded area will create a deadly crossfire with a bunch of innocent bystanders in the middle. They might be good shots and be able to shoot pop cans from wherever but for a combat situation (which this becomes) even our soldiers spend a lot of time just learning how not to shoot each other.

Very interesting discussion. We have, of course, to bring it down to the lowest common denominator. While the bulk of our traffic uses FMS and other apparatus that give an artificial magnetic compass, there remains a sizable portion of GA traffic that still relies on magnetic data to get around the airways. The operational hurdle would be minimal, and by that I mean that we would only have to get used to a different set of numbers and map orientation on radars. It would probably take less than a week. However, the costs, in terms of infrastructure, would be huge. Runway signage at all airports (at least in North America) and a whole renumbering of all air navigation data as the proximity of many airports and airspace could create confusion if using different formats. As it stands, there is an amazing workload with just the design changes to approaches and regular upkeep. Imagine a whole redesign... I do believe we'll eventually move away from magnetic bearings and headings. After all, we got rid of primary radar in many sites as the transponder became common place. We will more than likely replace radar altogether with ADS-B as the technology becomes more affordable to GA pilots. It's only a question of time until we start ignoring that moody Magnetic North Pole.

I too work with a group spanning three generations and I find it all to be a gross generalization. To use paperwork as an example, I have seen sloppy work by yound and old as well as detailed through work from both groups. It is true that the younger generation is more at ease with new technology but that was also true 60 years ago when my grandfather got a heavier framing hammer so the screws would be easier to put in... (he thought you only needed to twist them to remove them). In Malcolm's context I disagree there too. Young (youngish) people take risks everyday as evidenced by the hazardous selfies from the top of towers and different Redbull challenges. I agree that there is a VERY vocal minority however that would like to make the world a safer place by removing all hazards. They are representing a group of people of all ages, however, and not a generation in particular. This "warning label" syndrome is a social one, not a generational one. JMHO

To my non-expert eye, this Gen-X, Millenial thing is all about perception. Baby-boomers were carefree and self-absorbed in their teens and early twenties and as they got older started resenting the same from the generation following them. Gen-X folks who are now in their mid- to late-forties resent the Millenials for the same perpetual reasons. It's not about the date you were born, but rather the age you're at now and how you perceive the younger members of society. The expression "Kids, these days" transcends generations and labels. At least that's how I see it....