Originally Posted by Lippstadt
Surely if Cork ATC had refused permission for a change in runway (as no emergency had been declared) we would probably not be talking about this now?
I think you misunderstand the role of ATC in this sort of sutuation, certainly in the UK/Eire environment. In broad terms, and subject to common sense bounds (which includes consideration of the traffic levels at Cork), ATC is there to provide the service that pilots request.
In foggy conditions there is little wind and the runway in use selected is normally that which offers the best landing/lighting aids. Whatever the reason that a pilot asks for the reciprocal, if the traffic situation permits it, ATC will 'switch ends'. In my day (a few years ago now) at an airport with some similarities to Cork, this was quite common and certatainly didn't require anyone to declare an emergency.
Why was this request for a 2nd approach on a runway not in use at the time, not refused out of hand by Cork ATC in the absence of any declared emergency or other problem?
Again, as other have pointed out, this is not ATC's role.
Whilst there are a number of posts in this thread seeking to spread 'the blame about', professionals in this industry are aware of the respective responsibilities of each person involved. Sadly, as it turned out in this case, the pilots of this aircraft appear not to have discharged their responsibilities properly. It well may be that the regulators that issued the AOC may not have adequately discharged their responsibilities or that the EASA rule regime does not adequately control this type of activity, but that is something for the accident investigation to consider.