ASRS CALLBACK includes excerpts from ASRS incident reports with supporting commentary. In addition, CALLBACK may contain summaries of ASRS research studies and related aviation safety information. CALLBACK is one of the ASRS's most effective tools for improving the quality of human performance in the National Aviation System (NAS) at the grass roots level.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

CALLBACK 453 - October 2017


CALLBACK From the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System
Issue 453
October 2017
Re-sourcing Crew Management
The application of team management concepts in the flight deck environment was initially known as cockpit resource management. As techniques and training evolved to include Flight Attendants, maintenance personnel, and others, the new phrase “Crew Resource Management” (CRM) was adopted. CRM, simply put, is “the ability for the crew…to manage all available resources effectively to ensure that the outcome of the flight is successful.”1 Those resources are numerous. Their management involves employing and honing those processes that consistently produce the best possible decisions. Advisory Circular 120-51E, CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRAINING, suggests that CRM training focus on “situation awareness, communication skills, teamwork, task allocation, and decisionmaking within a comprehensive framework of standard operating procedures (SOP).”2

Aircrews frequently experience circumstances that require expert CRM skills to manage situations and ensure their successful outcomes. Effective CRM has proved to be a valuable tool to mitigate risk and should be practiced on every flight. This month CALLBACK shares ASRS reported incidents that exemplify both effective CRM and CRM that appears to be absent or ineffective.
Who Has the Aircraft?
A B737 Captain had briefed and instituted his non-standard method to transfer aircraft control when the FO performed takeoffs. When he did not employ his own technique, confusion was evident and aircraft control was questionable.
[As we were] pushing back in Albuquerque, ATC switched the airport around from Runway 26 to Runway 8. The Captain and I ran the appropriate checklist and proceeded to taxi…. I was the Pilot Flying (PF) [for this leg]. The Captain stated previously that he likes to spool the engines up and transfer controls while the aircraft is moving.

Once cleared for takeoff, the Captain spooled the [engines]. I was expecting him to transfer controls. I monitored him spool them up to takeoff power. While he was accelerating, my comment was, “I’m not flying the aircraft. You have the controls.” He seemed confused briefly, and we took off with the Captain in full control without incident. The Captain needs to [abandon] the habit of transferring thrust levers to the First Officer while moving. It’s a bad habit. It can be confusing if one of the crew members is saturated.… Under no circumstance should transfer of thrust levers and aircraft happen while saturated in the takeoff phase while moving.
Freedom of Speech
This Captain received uncommon, simultaneous inputs from two unexpected sources. An accident may have been averted when the Heavy Transport crew exercised simple, effective CRM in a critical situation and high workload environment.
This was a night takeoff,…and it was the FO’s first flying leg of Initial Operating Experience (IOE). Two Relief Pilots were assigned for the flight. We were cleared onto the runway…after a B737 [had landed]. The FO taxied onto the runway for takeoff. Once aligned for takeoff, I took control of the throttles. At this point I thought we were cleared for takeoff, but apparently we were not. I advanced the power to 70% and pressed TOGA. At about that same time, a Relief Pilot alerted the flying pilots that the other plane that had just landed was cleared to [back-taxi]…on the runway, and the Tower alerted us to hold our position. I disconnected the autothrottles and immediately brought them to idle. [Our speed was] approximately 30 knots, and we had used up approximately 200 to 400 feet of runway. The back-taxiing B737 exited the runway.

Looking back, somehow the clearance to take off or the non-clearance was lost in the translation. The Controllers in ZZZZ most often use non-standard phraseology with an accent not easily understood.… Higher than normal workloads [existed] due to a new hire first leg, and the flight was late and had been delayed from the previous day. I had assumed situational awareness with the airport and runway environment. Generally in past practice, ZZZZ holds the landing traffic in the holding bay after landing and does not have two airplanes on the runway at the same time. What “saved” the situation was good CRM and situational awareness by the Relief Pilots.
Finishing Strong
This MD80 crew finished the last leg of their trip, but distractions degraded the performance of their duties. Unmanaged threats had contributed to the misperception that the job was done when it was clearly incomplete.
From the Captain's report:
The landing was uneventful, and we were given an expedited crossing of the departure runway. We accomplished the after landing checklist, but due to the expedited crossing, I wasn’t sure if the First Officer started the APU (which had been consistent/standard practice so far in the trip). We were cleared to enter the ramp, and I consciously elected to leave both engines running (which was contrary to my standard practice during the trip). As we turned to pull into the gate,…an unmarked van cut across our path. We saw him coming, so no immediate stop was necessary.… At the gate,…we pulled to a stop normally, parked the brakes, and I believe I commanded, “Shut down engines.” The FO believes he heard, “Shut down the left engine” (which had been the standard command throughout the trip). He shut down the left engine. The right engine continued to run and we finished the Parking Checklist and departed the cockpit.

Minutes later…I received a page…requesting that I return to the gate. I returned to find the right engine running. I immediately shut off the fuel lever. No damage or injuries occurred. The aircraft was chocked and the brakes parked. In my estimation, there are three distinct contributing factors in this event.
1. Complacency when reading the checklist. I assumed items had been accomplished and felt no need to follow up the response with a tactile and visual check.
2. Complacency when relying on past actions as a predictor of future actions. We had done things the same way each leg, therefore we would continue to do them the same way on every leg.
3. Distractions. The expedited crossing to the ramp side of the runway, compressed time frame for completing the after landing checklists, and vehicular traffic all led to this event.… These issues…still keep happening. Strict, unyielding adherence to policy and procedures is a must. No one is perfect, and that is why policies and procedures exist. An event like this WILL happen if you allow yourself to become too comfortable.
From the First Officer's report:
We arrived at the gate, and the parking brake was parked. The Captain remarked, “Shut down the Number 1 Engine, Parking Checklist.” I read the checklist as the Captain responded. At the end of the checklist, I exited the aircraft.… I had walked about 10 gates down from the aircraft…when I heard an announcement asking the flight crew inbound from our flight to please return to the gate.… No one was there when I returned.… About 5 minutes later the agent walked up…and told me that one of the engines had been left running. She let me on the jet bridge and the Captain was walking off the aircraft.…

I believe this problem came about because of a pattern we developed during all our flights.… I started the APU…after landing, and…about two to three minutes [later], would shut down the Number 2 Engine at the Captain’s request. We did this every flight. After landing on this flight, it got very busy.… When…at the gate, the Captain called for me to shut down the Number 1 Engine, I didn’t think about the Number 2 Engine still running.… I read the checklist and listened to the Captain’s responses. I should have been double checking him, but I didn’t.… This has never happened to me.…I’m just grateful that no one was hurt….
Here, Here! and Hear, Hear!
This Dash 8 crew experienced a flight control problem that required extensive coordination. Thorough, effective CRM contributed to the orderly sequencing of their decisions and to the successful completion of their flight.
We had to deice prior to takeoff, and we checked all flight control movements twice before we took off. At the beginning of the cruise portion of the flight, the…Master Caution Annunciators…and two amber Caution [lights] illuminated: ROLL SPLR INBD HYD (Spoiler Inboard Hydraulics) and ROLL SPLR OUTBD HYD (Spoiler Outboard Hydraulics). We completed the associated Spoiler Failure Checklist, including confirming that all spoilers [indicated] retracted at the PFCS (Primary Flight Control System) indicator. The Pilot Flying, the Captain, continued to hand fly the aircraft (as our autopilot was [inoperative] for all legs). We evaluated all facts, discussed all of our options, and [advised Center of our flight control situation]. We informed them that we were not requiring any assistance (upon landing or elsewhere).

The Captain talked to Dispatch and Maintenance, while I hand flew the aircraft. The Captain, Dispatch, and I all agreed that ZZZ, with its long runways, was the best place to land. I informed our Flight Attendant that we were planning on a normal, uneventful landing with no delays. ATC issued [our runway], and we executed a visual approach. [We accomplished] a normal landing and taxi. We thanked ATC for all of their help. At the gate, the maintenance write up was completed. The smooth outcome can be attributed to very good CRM exhibited today.
Check Out
ASRS Safety Topics!
ASRS Database Report Sets each consist of 50 de-identified ASRS Database records relevant to topics of interest to the aviation community.  View/Download Report Sets »
CALLBACK Issue 453
 Download PDF & Print
 View HTML
ASRS Online Resources
 CALLBACK Previous Issues
 Report to ASRS
 Search ASRS Database
 ASRS Homepage
Subscribe to CALLBACK for FREE!
Forward to a Friend
Contact the Editor
Special Studies
Meteorlogical and Aeronautical Information Services Data Link and Application Study
ASRS, in cooperation with the FAA, is gathering reports of incidents that occurred while pilots were utilizing weather or AIS information in the cockpit obtained via data link on the ground or in the air. Learn more » Read the Interim Report »
Wake Vortex Encounter Study
In cooperation with the FAA, ASRS is conducting an ongoing study on wake vortex incidents, enroute and terminal, that occurred within the United States. Learn more »
August 2017
Report Intake:
Air Carrier/Air Taxi Pilots 5,349
General Aviation Pilots 1,391
Controllers 598
Flight Attendants 516
Military/Other 321
Mechanics 203
Dispatchers 196
TOTAL 8,574
ASRS Alerts Issued:
Subject No. of Alerts
Aircraft or Aircraft Equipment 2
ATC Equipment or Procedure 1
TOTAL 3
Subscribe to CALLBACK for FREE!
Forward to a Friend
Contact the Editor

NOTE TO READERS:     Indicates an ASRS report narrative    [   ]  Indicates clarification made by ASRS
A Monthly Safety Newsletter from The Office of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System
Issue 453

   



NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System | P.O. Box 189 | Moffett Field | CA | 94035-0189

CALLBACK 452 - September 2017


CALLBACK From the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System
Issue 452
September 2017
What Would You Have Done?
This month, CALLBACK again offers the reader a chance to “interact” with the information given in a selection of ASRS reports. In “The First Half of the Story,” you will find report excerpts describing an event up to a point where a decision must be made or some direction must be given. You may then exercise your own judgment to make a decision or determine a possible course of action that would best resolve the situation.

The selected ASRS reports may not give all the information you want, and you may not be experienced in the type of aircraft involved, but each incident should give you a chance to refine your aviation decision-making skills. In “The Rest of the Story…” you will find the actions that were taken by reporters in response to each situation. Bear in mind that their decisions may not necessarily represent the best course of action. Our intent is to stimulate thought, training, and discussion related to the type of incidents that were reported.
The First Half of the Story
What’s All the Flap?  B737 First Officer’s Report
As the Pilot Flying while maneuvering in the busy terminal area, I didn’t notice that the flap indicator did not match the [flap] handle (2 indicated, 30 selected) until the Captain identified it with the…Before Landing Checklist. We checked the Leading Edge Device [LED] indicator on the overhead panel; the LED’s [indicated] FULL EXTEND. We discussed how the aircraft felt as it was being hand flown. The feel was normal.… The airspeed indicator was normal. The aircraft flew normally in all aspects except for the flap indication. All this occurred approaching the final approach fix..

[The] airport (with a single runway) was undergoing major construction and had no parallel taxiway.… The only exit from the runway was a single narrow taxiway at the [approach] end of Runway 02 leading between some hangars to and from the FBO. [There was] no operating Control Tower, only UNICOM. Before departure I asked…the FBO what the active runway was, and the reply was, “People are taking off on Runway 02 and landing on Runway 20 to avoid a back taxi on a long runway.” Taxiing out to Runway 02 for departure I encountered another…single engine airplane near the runway end taxiing in on a narrow taxiway…, so we talked ourselves past each other on UNICOM. I had apparently not heard the radio call…of a small jet landing on Runway 20, so I started my takeoff roll on Runway 02.… The aircraft that had [just] landed…was at taxi speed. During my takeoff roll, I only saw that aircraft when I was near rotation speed.







The Rest of the Story

The Captain elected to continue to land. We used flaps 15 Vref [speed for the approach] and added 10 knots. Landing was uneventful. The flap indicator moved to match the [flap] handle shortly after clearing the runway during taxi. We notified maintenance on gate arrival.


I thought the best option was to immediately lift off with a slight turn to the right to laterally clear the runway in any case, and that worked. I missed him vertically by 50 feet and laterally by more than 150 feet. Was that the best split-second decision? I thought so - I am an [experienced] pilot. In my opinion, the airport management had made some bad decisions concerning their improvement construction (reconstructing the parallel taxiway), and the airport was dangerous considering their heavy corporate jet traffic. I had not heard the small jet on UNICOM - possibly due to my conversation on UNICOM with the…plane taxiing in (opposite direction) just prior to takeoff. The wind was…light, and Runway 20 was apparently chosen by the jet traffic to, likewise, avoid a back taxi since the only runway exit was at the [departure] end of Runway 20.


I [requested] to level off at FL350, then to descend to FL320. I was the pilot monitoring. I did not [request priority handling] at this time because we received no EICAS messages or alerts telling us of this situation.

After rechecking the engine instruments and conferring with the pilot flying, I made the decision to shut down the engine inflight via the QRH Engine Failure/Shutdown Checklist.… I also made the decision that we would attempt to restart the engine because no limitations or engine parameters or engine vibrations were present or were exceeded. At this time we were about 20 minutes into the flight.… The inflight shutdown checklist was completed, and the engine inflight start checklist was completed. The engine started and accelerated normally,…and all parameters [remained within] limitations.… I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control…. After speaking with them and informing them of our situation and what transpired, I made the decision to continue to destination.


[I] told him to stop the descent. We stopped 150 feet below the MDA, continued the approach, and landed. Looking back at the approach, I should have called for a missed approach and received vectors for another approach. The only reason for continuing was…poor judgment or just a bad decision at the time.


[We] requested a 360 degree turn for our descent from the Tower. They approved us to maneuver either left or right as requested, and we initiated a go-around and a 360 degree left turn in VMC conditions. We initiated the go-around above 1,000 feet but descended slightly during the first part of the turn. I directed the FO to climb to 1,000 feet, which he slowly did. I had referenced the approach plate and noticed that the obstacles on the plate in our quadrant were at 487 feet and our climb ensured clearance from them. During the 360 [degree] maneuver, the FO lost sight of the airport, but I had it in sight and talked him through the turn back to the landing runway.

The FO completed the maneuver, but we were, again, not in a position to make a safe landing, as we were not well aligned with the landing runway.… We initiated another go-around, again getting approval to stay with Tower, but we maneuvered in a right hand pattern so the FO could see the runway in the turn. I directed a climb to 1,500 feet for the 579 foot towers west of the field. The FO…had lost sight of the field and wasn’t sure what maneuver we were doing while on downwind.… I had not adequately communicated my intentions for the pattern we were flying. We were maneuvering visually, so I took control of the aircraft and directed the FO to re-sequence the FMC…and extend the centerline. I completed the base and final turns and landed uneventfully on Runway 18.









ASRS Database Online
The ASRS Database is a rich source of information for policy development, research, training, and more.
 Search ASRS Database »
CALLBACK Issue 452
 Download PDF & Print
 View HTML
ASRS Online Resources
 CALLBACK Previous Issues
 Report to ASRS
 View ASRS Report Sets
 ASRS Homepage
Subscribe to CALLBACK for FREE!
Forward to a Friend
Contact the Editor
Special Studies
Meteorlogical and Aeronautical Information Services Data Link and Application Study
ASRS, in cooperation with the FAA, is gathering reports of incidents that occurred while pilots were utilizing weather or AIS information in the cockpit obtained via data link on the ground or in the air. Learn more » Read the Interim Report »
Wake Vortex Encounter Study
In cooperation with the FAA, ASRS is conducting an ongoing study on wake vortex incidents, enroute and terminal, that occurred within the United States. Learn more »
July 2017
Report Intake:
Air Carrier/Air Taxi Pilots 5,224
General Aviation Pilots 1,261
Controllers 622
Flight Attendants 451
Military/Other 345
Mechanics 204
Dispatchers 179
TOTAL 8,286
ASRS Alerts Issued:
Subject No. of Alerts
Aircraft or Aircraft Equipment 1
ATC Equipment or Procedure 1
TOTAL 2
Subscribe to CALLBACK for FREE!
Forward to a Friend
Contact the Editor
NOTE TO READERS or  Indicates an ASRS report narrative    [   ]  Indicates clarification made by ASRS
A Monthly Safety Newsletter from The Office of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System
Issue 452


   



NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System | P.O. Box 189 | Moffett Field | CA | 94035-0189

Blog Archive