It saddens me that this "can-do" attitude still exists in what should be a professional operation defined by fairly clear & easy to understand limits.
Way back in the days when I was a "yoof" the company also had an Aztec available for charters.
This was operated by our C.F.I. a bit of an ace with a distinguished military background, who eventually decades later may indeed have found the limit the hard way courtesy of a fatal accident. Sharing the air-taxi duties with him was another bright-eyed "yoof", an Instructor with a shiny new CPL.
Although I was not flying the "beast" as we viewed this twin engined wonder-plane, I was sufficiently close to the operation to be aware of the modus operandi if/when I was elevated to this status.
Basically, limits were for sissies, if you couldn't "hack it" and get the client to his chosen destination it was likely that A - he possibly wouldn't make another booking , & B - you could probably look forward to going back to instructing on the Cessna 152 again.
I doubt if this mentality, whether you explain it courtesy of ex-military fast jet 70's mentality of the CFI/youthful stupidity/cowboy outfit/poor example by dodgy leadership, or a combination of all the above, was not entirely representative of how, regretably, the great majority of companies in this sector conducted their business.
Perhaps these days the Mediterranean mentality is still a little more mucho macho than our N European equivalent, & the LHS occupant may have defined the mood in this unfortunate cockpit, particularly when alongside him was one, still , in aviation terms , in diapers. Certainly from what I have seen living here in Spain, their safety record in this category of aviation, fixed and rotary wing, is not exemplary, and for sure won't be better when operating far away from the eye of their regulator, whom if he behaves anything like the Italian version in ENAC, is sadly wholly devoid of teeth
Sad indeed that 30 years after I avoided it by going elsewhere, this mentality still exists, and is perpetrated so blatantly for all to see on 3 consecutive approaches, one of which could not have been legal for ANY operator due the lack of minimum RVR required for the 35 Cat1 only ILS.
It is indicative of the lack of fear of prosecution/repercussions, that they felt comfortable to accept 3 approaches with an RVR less than legally required, and the relevant regulator must also shoulder a part of the blame here.
Even if eventual responsibility rests solely with the Commander, the system should be robust enough , such that the crew would not even contemplate busting limits so publicaly/blatantly by accepting multiple approaches when the given RVR's were so obviously short of the required minimum.
Last edited by captplaystation; 27th Mar 2011 at 12:32.