Air Berlin Pilot buzzes Tower

Storm 10

Last flight for Air Berlin at least he should have warned everyone

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-41664894/air-berlin-plane-does-lap-of-honour-in-dsseldorf

PukkaStukka

Storm 10 wrote: »

Last flight for Air Berlin at least he should have warned everyone

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-41664894/air-berlin-plane-does-lap-of-honour-in-dsseldorf

Tenger

Bloody hell...you can't be doing that with pax onboard.
And at so a busy airport like DUS.

Filing a flyover plan could have been an option.

AndyBoBandy

Tenger wrote: »

Bloody hell...you can't be doing that with pax onboard.
And at so a busy airport like DUS.

Filing a flyover plan could have been an option.

Probably a few weeks away from pension/retirement age and just said;
“F**k Everyone” “I’m going out in style”

Third_Echelon

Jesus!!! That's crazy! I'm sure people in the terminal were thinking it was some sort of terrorist incident...

Snotty

Crew were suspended...... from what exactly, their now non-existent job?

duskyjoe

A stupid manoeuvre with 200 pax on board.

murphaph

That would have been quite terrifying for most pax on board I dare say. Even if a warning was given, not everyone will have understood it.

Comhrá

After an average A330 trip - most likely long-haul, the last thing most passengers need is another 15-20 mins. of unnecessary flying.

Imagine looking forward to being on the ground and out of the aircraft, then a go-around, with engines powered up, a steep climb & bank and a further delay while the aircraft has to go and set up another approach.

I love flying, but there's a time & place for everything.

martinsvi

a very different atmosphere and reactions in the tower - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bZaghb1CU

clearly they were expecting this and from that point of view doesn't look that extreme..

Etc

Has to be done !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHBsWXaHN8

CalamariFritti

Tower was in on it. Pax were informed. He didn’t just do it. I mean they had cameras ready in the tower and a round of applause.

Formally it was a missed approach and requested what I believe they call a go around. Everything was tower approved and cleared.

Now we all know he did it cos it was the last flight etc but they had their arses covered.

martinsvi

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Formally it was a missed approach and requested what I believe they call a go around. Everything was tower approved and cleared.

Now we all know he did it cos it was the last flight etc but they had their arses covered.

I've yet to see an approach plate that says - for missed approach, remain below 500ft and with high bank turn left, climb after passing the tower on the dead side.

Cloudio9

I wonder how many of the passengers were thinking this guy is getting fired tomorrow and it’s going to be another German Wings suicide mission.

Larbre34

Cloudio9 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the passengers were thinking this guy is getting fired tomorrow and it’s going to be another German Wings suicide mission.

I'm guessing zero.

I don't care who he arranged it with, its not Farnborough, low passes over a busy apron in a heavy belong in FlightSim. Presumably some of the complicit crew will be looking for other jobs at some stage....Stupid.

Mr rebel

Informed or not, I'm sure the majority of the passengers just wanted to land normally and not have an extra 20 minutes of flight time added on to the end of their long haul flight.

goingnowhere

There is video from onboard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL6NzrQn834

No screams, no panic, everyone seems quite happy and enjoying the experience

ATC was in the loop and the go around was executed well and remained above the apron and not the terminal building (DUS is a curved terminal building)

A Dub in Glasgo

I wish I was on that last flight

CalamariFritti

Mr rebel wrote: »

Informed or not, I'm sure the majority of the passengers just wanted to land normally and not have an extra 20 minutes of flight time added on to the end of their long haul flight.

From the interview it seems more they all thought it was quite cool and enjoyed it.

Negative_G

Probably wasn't the smartest move all things considered.

However, the faux outrage expressed by some here is laughable.

Negative_G

martinsvi wrote: »

I've yet to see an approach plate that says - for missed approach, remain below 500ft and with high bank turn left, climb after passing the tower on the dead side.

Have a look at the missed approach procedure for ILS 07 at Le Bourget.

I didnt see a 'high bank turn' (whatever that is) for what its worth. It looked very close to circa 30 degrees AOB. An aircraft will quite happily and safely manoeuvre at low altitude while fully configured at Vapp.

Was it a non standard unpublished manoeuvre? Yes. Was it reckless or dangerous? No. It actually looked quite benign.

Cloudio9

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm guessing zero.

I don't care who he arranged it with, its not Farnborough, low passes over a busy apron in a heavy belong in FlightSim. Presumably some of the complicit crew will be looking for other jobs at some stage....Stupid.

You’d guess wrong. A lot of people are nervous flyers and even to those who are not a steep bank angle close to the ground is going to worry a lot of people

Negative_G

Cloudio9 wrote: »

You’d guess wrong. A lot of people are nervous flyers and even to those who are not a steep bank angle close to the ground is going to worry a lot of people

Out of interest could you clarify what you constitute a "steep bank angle" as?

Tenger

Negative_G wrote: »

Probably wasn't the smartest move all things considered.

However, the faux outrage expressed by some here is laughable.

I wouldn't call my reaction 'outrage'. I saw a BBC news report on an unplanned manuevere in close proximity to an active airport.
Shock certainly was a word to use. The story and the accompanying video gave the idea that it was a rogue turn. (That term sounds very overly dramatic, but I'm leaving it there)

As a final farewell to Air Berlin, if it was done so in co-operation and advance knowledge of all involved I say simply "very cool".
Similar to the TAP A300 (?) very low fly past from a good few years back.

martinsvi

Negative_G wrote: »

Have a look at the missed approach procedure for ILS 07 at Le Bourget.

I looked at it, what about it?

Negative_G wrote: »

I didnt see a 'high bank turn' (whatever that is)

you know exactly what I meant, no need to be snippy

Negative_G wrote: »

It looked very close to circa 30 degrees AOB. An aircraft will quite happily and safely manoeuvre at low altitude while fully configured at Vapp.

whatever happened to 400ft rule? No turns exceeding 15° bank below 400ft and not exceeding 25° above 400ft?

Irish Steve

Not sure what all the fuss is about. I've seen 330's turn with a similar bank angle and at a similar height, and they were probably a lot heavier as they were departing, admittedly it was to avoid some nasty precipitation and low CuNim cloud that was on the normal departure track. If the people on board had been advised what was going to be happening, I'd be surprised if many or any of them were overly upset by what was done.

Negative_G

martinsvi wrote: »

I looked at it, what about it?

you know exactly what I meant, no need to be snippy


whatever happened to 400ft rule? No turns exceeding 15° bank below 400ft and not exceeding 25° above 400ft?

If you looked at it properly then you shouldn't need me to explain it to you. You said you never saw "xyz" in an approach plate and I referred you
to one off the top of my head that is very similar to what you described.

How do you know what height the manoeuvre was flown at? Unless you were sitting in the jumpseat you are just guessing like the rest of us.

The AOB limitation (for want of a better word) that you refer to is widely referred to for the take off phase of flight only. It also has significance as the minimum height for acceleration, OEI and transition to the next climb segment.

As this was a go-around rather than a take off phase of flight, the 'rule' you refer to is not entirely applicable and can be safely mitigated by increasing airspeed. I have no idea what the Vref may have been but I would wager that the PF was flying a significant margin above it.

The aircraft was flown well within the flight envelope and it was apparently a planned event which received clearance from ATC. The PF likely broke many company SOP's which will be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

Quoting a few lines from the ATPL syllabus isn't a convincing argument.

Irish Steve

Negative_G wrote: »

The aircraft was flown well within the flight envelope and it was apparently a planned event which received clearance from ATC. The PF likely broke many company SOP's which will be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

So true. A good few years ago, as part of some very complex research work we were doing, we very deliberately explored the edges of the flight envelope, albeit in the comfort of a Level D simulator, and it was incredibly educational in terms of what you can ACTUALLY do with an airframe as compared to what the SOP TELLS you that you are allowed to do.

Some people will regard what follows as a bit of a rant, if they do, sorry, but it is something that I do have strong feelings about, because of what I've seen happen over the last 30 years

I have a lot more respect for pilots that have taken the time to find out what the real limits are, rather than just rely on what the book says, in that you never know when an incident that happens will be so far outside of anything that's covered in the SOP's, the way you will survive is by using the capabilities of the airframe to the edge of but not beyond the flight envelope.

It used to be the case that a pilot could explore those limits in the simulator without anyone having a major meltdown, but between bean counters worrying about the hourly operating cost of the sims, and flight operations training being rigid that SOP's are the mantra that everyone has to obey, a pilot who wants to expand his understanding of the aircraft he flies is likely to be looked at with extreme suspicion by the people who should be encouraging that interest.

The result is that most sim sessions now are primarily recurrent checks, and once the legal stuff is out of the way, there may be a few emergencies, or some new training as a result of an accident or incident that's raised awareness of a shortcoming in procedure.

There are all manner of seemingly valid reasons why this has now become the norm, but my concern is that there are now significant number of pilots who don't actually really know how to "fly" the aircraft, they have become system operators who know how to program the aircraft to get where they want to go, and if all that automation for some reason throws its toys out of the pram, the problem then is that in some cases, the raw data, and the skills to use that raw data to fly the aircraft are no longer there in the way they were in previous generations.

What was flown the other day wasn't even close to the edge of the envelope, and any pilot should have been able to fly something like that without even breaking a sweat. No, they weren't following the magenta lines that define where they are supposed to be going, but that should not be an issue. If it was/is, then it's the system that has the problem, and the system needs to change to ensure that the people at the sharp end have all the skills that they need to operate the aircraft.

And yes, I recognise that it's important that both (or all) the crew members on the flight deck know what the other crew member(s) are doing, and why, to avoid any nasty surprises or mistakes, but that should not be a problem as long as they are communicating, and that they have had the chance to expand their knowledge beyond just the basics of operating the aircraft.

Negative_G

Irish Steve wrote: »

I have a lot more respect for pilots that have taken the time to find out what the real limits are, rather than just rely on what the book says, in that you never know when an incident that happens will be so far outside of anything that's covered in the SOP's, the way you will survive is by using the capabilities of the airframe to the edge of but not beyond the flight envelope.

I agree with you entirely.

I was going to mention it in my previous post but elected not to as it might have been deemed off topic.

The "children of the magenta" are alive and well and the reference about to the 'rule' above is one such instance of the curse of that is the question bank. If it isn't written down or referenced somewhere then it cant be done.

If someone learning to become a pilot is conditioned into learning that the answer to every question is black or white (or 1 in 4 in a MCQ) then you are conditioning them to begin their career in the same vein. There is little room or lateral outside of the box thinking.

SOP's serve a purpose, don't get me wrong, but it has gone too far the other way in my opinion. Airmanship and the ability to make good sound decisions is often hindered by company SOP's.

The Air France crash is a prime example of the problem that is faced today.

People are posting about how unsafe an ATC authorised non standard go-around is and yet the qualified crew of a long haul widebody couldn't effectively identify and correct a stall condition.

I'm aware I'm not exactly comparing like with like in this instance but I am really quite surprised at some of the reaction here regarding the video.

Given the choice, I would much rather fly with someone who has the ability to be practical yet efficient while at all times being safe than someone who has an inability to think or operate outside of the box.

martinsvi

Negative_G I think you seriously need to take a chill pill, I never suggested the given act was dangerous, merely pointed out that - depending on how you interpret ICAO docs, some rules might have been broken.. does that mean you have to take a stab an anyone who remembers stuff from their ATPL writtens? or anyone who is used to a more modern way of navigating? I'm all in favor for a little bit of fun in the sky and personally would loved to be in that aircraft at that time, but... I guess I would have been a bit more comfortable if the plane was a bit more old fashioned rather than one where sometimes computers have the mind of their own when procedures are not followed

Negative_G

martinsvi wrote: »

Negative_G I think you seriously need to take a chill pill, I never suggested the given act was dangerous, merely pointed out that - depending on how you interpret ICAO docs, some rules might have been broken.. does that mean you have to take a stab an anyone who remembers stuff from their ATPL writtens? or anyone who is used to a more modern way of navigating? I'm all in favor for a little bit of fun in the sky and personally would loved to be in that aircraft at that time, but... I guess I would have been a bit more comfortable if the plane was a bit more old fashioned rather than one where sometimes computers have the mind of their own when procedures are not followed

Thank you for the concern, however no chill pill is required. Your rather dramatic recount of events is not what I would call a "more modern way of navigating". The entire procedure could've been flown aided by the flight directer for all we know. Computers don't have a mind of their own, they operate within specific parameter's. Basic tech type will tell you that. Unless of course you haven't done tech type on that aircraft.

martinsvi wrote: »

I've yet to see an approach plate that says - for missed approach, remain below 500ft and with high bank turn left, climb after passing the tower on the dead side.

I'm not taking a stab at someone who had completed ATPL's. Sitting the ATPL exams is one thing. Having real life operational experience is another. Perhaps when you have the latter you may change your outlook a little.

martinsvi

Negative_G wrote: »

Your rather dramatic recount of events is not what I would call a "more modern way of navigating".

my what now? that's not even a sentence!

Negative_G wrote: »

The entire procedure could've been flown aided by the flight directer. Computers don't have a mind of their own, they operate within specific parameter's. Basic tech type will tell you that. Unless of course you haven't done tech type on that aircraft.

buddy, I have 10 years and a degree behind me in software engineering, trust me when I tell you I know how computers work. It takes one know-it-all in front of a pc to make the entire organization lose their infrastructure in a matter of minutes. But we're not talking about computers here. We're talking about that 777 incident in SFO where the captain thought he had it but he didn't. We're talking about the Air France demo flight that ended up in the trees.. and the Lufthansa A320 in the stormy day that clipped the wing simply because of undocumented feature

Negative_G wrote: »

I'm not taking a stab at someone who had completed ATPL's. Sitting the ATPL exams is one thing. Having real life operational experience is another. Perhaps when you have the latter you may change your outlook a little.

yeah no mate, you're all cool, like in that statement alone not a tiny hint of a w@nkery

Irish Steve

Cool it. We really don't need handbags swinging over a missed approach procedure that had clearly been planned, discussed, talked about and everyone that needed to know about it did.

It wasn't dangerous, or even close to the limits of the airframe envelope, even more so given that this was the end of the flight, so the aircraft was light and well able to cope with a lot more than it was asked to

Skerries

will somebody not think of the 20 minutes!!!!

smurfjed

@martinsvi, I'm curious, where are you getting the 400 foot rule from?

smurfjed

This is the missed approach that Negative_G was talking about, it leads you into going over the airport and the town at 500 feet, certainly not my favourite missed approach.

Negative_G

smurfjed wrote: »

This is the missed approach that Negative_G was talking about, it leads you into going over the airport and the town at 500 feet, certainly not my favourite missed approach.

You can say that again.

Flying it on raw data is eventful!

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

@martinsvi, I'm curious, where are you getting the 400 foot rule from?

JAR–OPS 1.495 or as it is now called - CAT.POL.A.210 Take-off obstacle clearance:

(2) Track changes shall not be allowed up to the point at which the net take-off
flight path has achieved a height equal to one half the wingspan but not less
than 50 ft above the elevation of the end of the TORA. Thereafter, up to a
height of 400 ft it is assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more than
15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater than 15°, but not more than
25° may be scheduled.

smurfjed

@martinsvi.... thanks for digging that out, it wouldn't apply to a missed approach.

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

@martinsvi.... thanks for digging that out, it wouldn't apply to a missed approach.

you're right. Had to dig out the ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS for this one, couple of relevant points there:

6.3.2 The intermediate missed approach track may be changed by a maximum of 15° from that of the initial
missed approach phase.

6.4.4 Turn parameters
The following parameters are specific to turning missed approaches:
a) bank angle: 15° average achieved;

faoiarvok

martinsvi wrote: »

you're right. Had to dig out the ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS for this one, couple of relevant points there: ...

Not a pilot and genuinely don't know the answers to these questions:

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?
If the pilot did not intend to land on this occasion, is it still a missed approach?

smurfjed

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?

Excellent question, PAN OPS and/or TERPS only apply to instrument approaches. The crew can call visual and all of these requirements no longer apply.
@martinsvi, 8168 is for instrument procedures, JAR25 is for aircraft design procedures, OM-A (AOM) will have the airline requirements, the fun part is that sometimes none of these coincide with each other. For example an instrument departure begins at 394 feet, under part 25, the minimum acceleration height is 400 feet, but some OM-A's may only permit a turn above 500 feet.
I would be very surprised if the German authorities found fault with these crew, but if they do, then it will be media driven rather than airmanship.

martinsvi

faoiarvok wrote: »

Not a pilot and genuinely don't know the answers to these questions:

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?
If the pilot did not intend to land on this occasion, is it still a missed approach?

generally the term "missed approach" applies to instrument approaches. VFR fliers use a "go-around". In either case pilot should fly the runway heading until a safe altitude is obtained.

If the pilot did not intend to land, he has no business being below 500ft

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

Excellent question, PAN OPS and/or TERPS only apply to instrument approaches. The crew can call visual and all of these requirements no longer apply.
@martinsvi, 8168 is for instrument procedures, JAR25 is for aircraft design procedures, OM-A (AOM) will have the airline requirements, the fun part is that sometimes none of these coincide with each other. For example an instrument departure begins at 394 feet, under part 25, the minimum acceleration height is 400 feet, but some OM-A's may only permit a turn above 500 feet.
I would be very surprised if the German authorities found fault with these crew, but if they do, then it will be media driven rather than airmanship.

either way, the airline, albeit bankrupt, was not impressed and suspended pilots, which kind of indicates that some SOPs might have been broken. If you break SOPs that might in return trigger the authorities. Could go either way really, personally I don't blame them, I just think that it is virtually impossible to cover your butt legally and fully when doing a stunt like this. Even if no law or regulation was broken I think the authorities might still exercise their own "judgement"

goingnowhere

Pilots cleared of any wrong doing by the authorities