Originally Posted by
deja vu
In the early 1990's whilst inbound to HKG, (Kai Tak), I overheard a United 747 crossing the FIR boundary and be cleared to "TD and expect vectoring for the CC NDB approach to R13". The IGS was out for 3 days and R31 tailwind over limits. The CC NDB approach was a series of figure 8's to let down to a point where, if visual at the minima, the R13 lead in strobes were visible and a visual approach to the runway to follow. The United came back with a slow Texas drawl.." say what ma'am" ,, ATC explained what was involved but United made a request for " vectors to Taipei" explaining he had not done an NDB for over 20 years. All the way across the pacific to end up in Taiwan.
Loss of Basic skills???? been happening for awhile
Caution --- Thread drift --- at least in part.
I remember the Chung Chow (CC) NDB so well, and the full procedure would only be needed when the weather was foul, low ceiling and rain --- which is what caused the out of limits tail wind component on RW31.
Back to the thread --- as we have seen on a number of occasions in recent, manual flying ability has saved the day (including twice on QF A330) , so what should be the "company policy"?
To accept that the loss of an aircraft due to "modern" philosophies on "flight deck management" is a reasonable response in cost/benefit terms.
Finally, "company policy" that seeks to limit the authority of the pilot in command is ultra vires, (in every jurisdiction, in which I have worked, and that is quite a few) but sadly, the company ability to enforce such policies by firing a pilot is a compelling argument.
Tootle pip!!