BOAC:
Quote:
I doubt we can reconcile our differing view on the authorities responsibilies at their air carrier airports
- I think we are well apart on other issues too!
I didn't realize that.
Quote:
Bad analogy. The ill-fated captain wasn't attempting an unauthorized procedure.
- my 'authorisation' never permitted me to CTL 4nm outside the protected area in the hills - did yours?
Nonetheless, unlike your flying CAT III on a CAT II ILS, he was authorized to CTL. Using your ILS analogy, he was flying an authorized CAT II ILS, he just couldn't keep the localizer from going full scale.
Quote:
See my recent post on that one.
- yep - seen it. My comment was about 'circuit' not 'circle'.
My Post 483 was about both.
Quote:
They wouldn't have been required to file any report because they didn't do anything wrong nor did they request priority handling.
- no understand.
I thought my statement was quite clear. Where did I go wrong?
BTW, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I believe both you and I have been operating on the premise that the ill-fated captain was required to keep the airport, if not runway, in sight at all times during the CTL. Because it was an in-country carrier, they were subject to only state aviation rules. In the U.S., until 1981, or so, we did not have to have the runway in sight if we knew the area and had objects we could associate with the airport in sight during progession to sighting the actual runway. It was called "The Farmer Jones' Barn Rule." The Pakis may have a similar such rule today.