EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation • Hacker News Board

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#91

Post by t0mas88 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:18 PM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #46

square_usual wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was awful to read. The control tower repeatedly warned them about their trajectory, and even advised them to discontinue the approach. I can't even imagine how awful it must've been to those aboard who placed their trust in the pilots.

In my opinion, ATC is also culpable (though much less so). They could have and should have ordered a go around, but instead, they re-cleared the airplane to land.

That's not how ATC works. The tower controller is responsible for the runway environment. The only reason they can tell a plane to go around is if there is a traffic conflict or the runway is not available, and they're supposed to give the pilots a reason for the go around instruction.

A go around for an unstable approach is 100% the decision of the pilots, because they have the complete picture. They also know the stability requirements of the operator and speed limits of the plane, ATC doesn't know those.

So while ATC can think "wow he is very fast for an A320" or "that looks too high" they cannot see what the actual airspeed is, they cannot see whether the gear is down or not or what the flap settings are. And they don't know the speed limits for each specific type. All they know is roughly how fast the typical plane of that type normally goes.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#92

Post by shawabawa3 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:18 PM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #84

krisoft wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

> reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R)

ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#93

Post by lultimouomo » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:27 PM UTC

shawabawa3 wrote: post #92

goodcanadian wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

> reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?

I think you misread the dynamic of the incident. The pilots were in an unstabilized approach, didn't go around, landed with landing gear up and applied reverse trust, at which point they figured all those sparks were not supposed to be flying around, brilliantly decided to go around and pressed the TOGA switches. Surprisingly the plane was not able to complete the go around, lost both engines, and crashed. This is the stuff of nightmares.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#94

Post by goodcanadian » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:30 PM UTC

shawabawa3 wrote: post #92

goodcanadian wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

> reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?

That occurred long after the point I am referring to.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#95

Post by kayfox » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:34 PM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #84

krisoft wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

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?

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#96

Post by benhurmarcel » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:36 PM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #19

robin_reala wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know already. A perennial topic of annoyance for US immigrants in Sweden is that their US licence is only valid for a year here, then they have to retake their test (unlike immigrants from the EU who get to convert theirs automatically).

I think the OP was referring to Pakistan. More problematic in this respect are the UN accords that allow people from virtually any country to drive while visiting any other country, so you can have people from poorly licensed countries driving in a place where they're unfamiliar with the road system, language, etc. The EU/EEA reciprocity is due to EU regulations, not the assumption that every EU country has better dr…

> In Switzerland […] EU/EEA licenses and US licenses can and must be exchanged within one year

But you don't need to pass any test, they just exchange the paper (at least for EU licenses).

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#97

Post by cbg0 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:37 PM UTC

ohlookabird wrote: post #86

AdrianB1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same situation in other places, even in Europe. In Romania not only that in small cities this is the only way to get a permit, even if you drive well, but we have people that cannot read but having a driver license. Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.

But how does this work in practice? I don't think I ever had to bribe someone. Is it like "Here these $5 are for you!" or you just forget $5 on the dashboard? I can't really picture these situations.

There's no official handbook to bribing, but you can pass your papers to the officer along with some money tucked inside and you'll get back just the papers if the officer is corrupt.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#98

Post by Xylakant » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:53 PM UTC

ohlookabird wrote: post #86

AdrianB1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same situation in other places, even in Europe. In Romania not only that in small cities this is the only way to get a permit, even if you drive well, but we have people that cannot read but having a driver license. Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.

But how does this work in practice? I don't think I ever had to bribe someone. Is it like "Here these $5 are for you!" or you just forget $5 on the dashboard? I can't really picture these situations.

You pay in cash and state you don’t need a receipt. I’m fairly certain that the speeding ticket I received in some southern african country never appeared on the official ledger. You pay “advisors” that facilitate the border crossing. Plenty of ways to keep the image of respectability while still having cash change hands.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#99

Post by vinay427 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

benhurmarcel wrote: post #96

vinay427 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the OP was referring to Pakistan. More problematic in this respect are the UN accords that allow people from virtually any country to drive while visiting any other country, so you can have people from poorly licensed countries driving in a place where they're unfamiliar with the road system, language, etc. The EU/EEA reciprocity is due to EU regulations, not the assumption that every EU country has better dr…

> In Switzerland […] EU/EEA licenses and US licenses can and must be exchanged within one year But you don't need to pass any test, they just exchange the paper (at least for EU licenses).

Yep, and the same goes for US, Canadian, Australian, and a few other licenses. There's no preference towards EU/EEA licenses but probably due to reciprocity (?) Switzerland implements it for all EU/EEA countries. My point was in response to the EU license exchange facilitation in Sweden that the GP mentioned, as that isn't specifically due to the more stringent licensing in all of those countries.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#100

Post by goodcanadian » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

kayfox wrote: post #95

goodcanadian wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

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…

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.