Terminology and ‘clutter’.
The use of the term ‘cadet’ muddies the waters a bit and without hard fact we are left making assumptions. But if we look on the ‘bright’ side, lets assume the ‘cadet’ had completed a simulator type rating and all the trimmings; before doing either in the aircraft, we can assume that both take off and landing had been correctly executed to a satisfactory standard. The modern simulators very closely represent the actual aircraft and, in theory at least there is little to no difference that matters. Soon or late the ‘cadet’ must fly the real aircraft – on line. The system using a TC as PIC and a seasoned FO in the jump has proved to be a good one, I assume many ‘cadets’ have been eased into operational flying through the system, quite safely and properly. So let’s not quarrel over the word ‘cadet’, it may be a misleading title, but we have to call ‘em something until they become FO’s proper. I don’t think we can lay any blame at the door of the ‘training’ given or the system used. Which takes us back to the shabby report.
Item 1: let's say the cadet has had a good grounding in the sim and four sectors as PM; so this is not the first rodeo; yet there was a tail strike – why? An independent analysis of what caused the strike would be of benefit to all and sundry.
“The cadet pilot applied a larger than normal side-stick pitch input to initiate rotation. This resulted in a high rotation rate during the take-off and the aircraft’s tail contacted the runway.”
This is cited as a ‘contributing factor’. Bollocks, after the fact result. “a larger than normal side-stick pitch input to initiate rotation”. What brought that on? IMO it is essential that we understand why the child, despite training, practice, mentoring and monitoring managed such a thing. Under rotation due to caution – OK, I could accept that. Over rotation due to unfamiliarity - in the Sim; I could accept that; but by the time young spotty is conducting a take off, for real, then the reasons for the action need to be examined – if only to fully understand it as a matter for future training. It is no ones fault and I don’t seek to lay blame, however I would like to know exactly what was going on in the ‘cadets’ head at the time, simply to prevent this happening again. An independent assessment by the ATSB could have shed some light on this event and perhaps prompted a minor modification to the training system – one which may have been overlooked - who knows. Statistically, this event would be a tiny dot; betcha there are 100 good, clean, first real take offs made by ‘cadets’ to this one. Even so – if it can happen once, it can happen again and early prevention is better than a late cure. No doubt the airline T&C system has already taken pro-active steps; but without the ATSB being involved in any meaningful way – again.
The changing of seats puzzles me; the PIC effectively operating single pilot for the short period. Now if the ‘cadet’ was full bottle why bother? It was only a tail strike, and return – ops normal - not a full on ‘emergency’. What if there had been fire, smoke or any of the other gremlins which make a time critical ‘emergency’. What then? Low level, emergency, turbulence, two out of three pilots unstrapped, falling over each other trying to reposition while the whistles and bells are demanding multi crew attention - now - now. Nah, not funny. If the rules say that the FO must be qualified to be ‘crew’ during abnormal or emergency operations; then the crew operating must be capable of dealing. You can’t have people leaping about the cockpit when the do-doo hits the windmill. ATSB fail, yet again, to offer advice or analysis on a potential cluster of ducks. Once again we must rely solely on the good sense of the operating company T&C system to take a long hard look at the case, draw their own conclusions and fix it. This does not excuse the ATSB from having a meaningful, independent input to the incident.
Aye well; something nothing – that ‘cadet’ is unlikely to repeat the error; the T&C will sort it out and the ATSB will continue providing reports with less meaning than the Sunday papers mention of it. It’s Hi-viz, hot air and no responsibility for all in the political world of the ATSB.
Toot toot.
The use of the term ‘cadet’ muddies the waters a bit and without hard fact we are left making assumptions. But if we look on the ‘bright’ side, lets assume the ‘cadet’ had completed a simulator type rating and all the trimmings; before doing either in the aircraft, we can assume that both take off and landing had been correctly executed to a satisfactory standard. The modern simulators very closely represent the actual aircraft and, in theory at least there is little to no difference that matters. Soon or late the ‘cadet’ must fly the real aircraft – on line. The system using a TC as PIC and a seasoned FO in the jump has proved to be a good one, I assume many ‘cadets’ have been eased into operational flying through the system, quite safely and properly. So let’s not quarrel over the word ‘cadet’, it may be a misleading title, but we have to call ‘em something until they become FO’s proper. I don’t think we can lay any blame at the door of the ‘training’ given or the system used. Which takes us back to the shabby report.
Item 1: let's say the cadet has had a good grounding in the sim and four sectors as PM; so this is not the first rodeo; yet there was a tail strike – why? An independent analysis of what caused the strike would be of benefit to all and sundry.
“The cadet pilot applied a larger than normal side-stick pitch input to initiate rotation. This resulted in a high rotation rate during the take-off and the aircraft’s tail contacted the runway.”
This is cited as a ‘contributing factor’. Bollocks, after the fact result. “a larger than normal side-stick pitch input to initiate rotation”. What brought that on? IMO it is essential that we understand why the child, despite training, practice, mentoring and monitoring managed such a thing. Under rotation due to caution – OK, I could accept that. Over rotation due to unfamiliarity - in the Sim; I could accept that; but by the time young spotty is conducting a take off, for real, then the reasons for the action need to be examined – if only to fully understand it as a matter for future training. It is no ones fault and I don’t seek to lay blame, however I would like to know exactly what was going on in the ‘cadets’ head at the time, simply to prevent this happening again. An independent assessment by the ATSB could have shed some light on this event and perhaps prompted a minor modification to the training system – one which may have been overlooked - who knows. Statistically, this event would be a tiny dot; betcha there are 100 good, clean, first real take offs made by ‘cadets’ to this one. Even so – if it can happen once, it can happen again and early prevention is better than a late cure. No doubt the airline T&C system has already taken pro-active steps; but without the ATSB being involved in any meaningful way – again.
The changing of seats puzzles me; the PIC effectively operating single pilot for the short period. Now if the ‘cadet’ was full bottle why bother? It was only a tail strike, and return – ops normal - not a full on ‘emergency’. What if there had been fire, smoke or any of the other gremlins which make a time critical ‘emergency’. What then? Low level, emergency, turbulence, two out of three pilots unstrapped, falling over each other trying to reposition while the whistles and bells are demanding multi crew attention - now - now. Nah, not funny. If the rules say that the FO must be qualified to be ‘crew’ during abnormal or emergency operations; then the crew operating must be capable of dealing. You can’t have people leaping about the cockpit when the do-doo hits the windmill. ATSB fail, yet again, to offer advice or analysis on a potential cluster of ducks. Once again we must rely solely on the good sense of the operating company T&C system to take a long hard look at the case, draw their own conclusions and fix it. This does not excuse the ATSB from having a meaningful, independent input to the incident.
Aye well; something nothing – that ‘cadet’ is unlikely to repeat the error; the T&C will sort it out and the ATSB will continue providing reports with less meaning than the Sunday papers mention of it. It’s Hi-viz, hot air and no responsibility for all in the political world of the ATSB.
Toot toot.