Originally Posted by
galdian
SONICBOOM et al
You're in a position where you can either;
- hang around and shoot another approach and decide what YOU will do to get in or
- divert to somewhere else and hope you can get there on fumes
and you want to talk about how the regulator "..might have done better...".
People are going to live or die - and you want to talk about regulatory theoreticals!
Really??
If, and I say if there are flaws in the system they need to be tackled so that the same mistakes are not repeated. In aviation there must be a fail proof system as consistent as possible and safety nets need to be placed where there is an identified risk. The regulations allow me to start a flight with minimum flight plan fuel and 0 extra fuel even with crap weather because a) I have contingency b) I have 1 or more alternate depending on circumstances. The regulations allow me to start a diversion right a minimum diversion fuel and land at my alternate with 30 min fuel (EU OPS) by following exactly my flight plan route. Are we doing this on a day to day scenario ? Of course not, because we assess the threats of bad weather, load extra fuel and use it wisely. Is this system fail proof ? Not at all, especially because we aim everyday on reducing the amount of fuel we carry by reducing contingencies, planning shortest routes flying through all sorts of weather, etc..
But I guess that if for every 100.000 flights one screws up and land on vapours then it's good enough for the statistics.