4 pilots looking for a job

[Saab2000]

I give it greater than 75% probability that a causal factor was the extra crewmember's reluctance to offer feedback when the pilot flying was screwing up. That's a cultural thing that exists throughout all the Korean airlines. The glide slope was inop on that runway and I'm guessing that they flew final in vertical speed mode. Not the best level of automation. I'm also guessing that the auto throttles were disconnected when they hit minimums and wanted to continue to the runway. The auto throttles should have re-engaged when they got slow. Hard to figure out why they didn't. Gonna be an interesting report when it finally comes out.

I have, on three occasions, called out pilots who flew in V/S mode with no floor altitude set. One was a captain who thought I was a huge dick for calling him out but that's one of the most dangerous ways to fly an airplane. I was glad I called him out on it. I've since had two F/Os who did something similar. On each occasion it was when we were cleared for a visual approach with no G/S available and the PF didn't want to hear the audible altitude warning.

I have a pretty wide latitude for letting them fly their way in these situations as long as it's safe, but resetting the alt capture to a higher altitude than we're at and flying with the autopilot in vertical speed mode down with no floor is where I draw the line and will put an end to it.

Glad it wasn't worse. We have an autopilot limitation of 400' AGL for visual approaches. It must be off at latest 400 feet. And it's almost always off by 1000' AGL.

[Mabouya]

I'm still amazed that those guys managed to botch a CAVU VFR approach. If they needed instruments for that landing, why even bother to have pilots in the plane? Just get rid of them completely and let the autopilot do the job - I bet you Boeing and Airbus + Honeywell / whoever can build them to be more reliable than these bozos.

[busdriver1959]

Mabouya, If you saw what the automation will do occasionally, you would think differently. Saab, I believe they flew v/s with the MDA set. They ended up with one flight director off and the other on. That's how Boeing recommends it for sidesteps and descending out of MDA. I don't think it's the best use of the tools available. They probably should have used VNAV for the LOC or done the RNAV to that runway.

[Mabouya]

Mabouya, If you saw what the automation will do occasionally, you would think differently.

I was being sarcastic. Believe me, I want a man/woman in the loop, just not those guys.

As I said, you'd think that given those conditions they should have been able to land safely.

[busdriver1959]

You're right, it all boils down to a CAVOK visual approach. I wonder if they were so bogged down with the automation that they weren't really flying. A company called Calspan has run successful tests of UAVs in flight refuelling with other UAVs. Then there's the recent UAV carrier landing. I'm a freight dog, my job is going away. People carriers probably aren't as threatened by UAVs. The only thing saving grace is that as long as there are Airbusses out there, there will be pilots on board watching the automation screw up and then saving them.