PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Will Other Controversial BOI's Be Reviewed?
Old 17th Jul 2011, 17:37
  #4 (permalink)  
Brian 48nav
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 1,094
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
OD

I'm intrigued by the figure you quote of 9400 aircraft lost! Are you able to break it down by major losses?

For example (and I'm just making these up); 500 Meteors,500 Canberras etc.

On the subject of the Vulcan surely the crew were operating to a set Break-Off Height and if it was say 200' then if they were not visual with the lights/runway then they should have initiated an overshoot. LHR wx on the day was given as w/v calm,1100yds vis,scattered down to 300' and 7 oktas at 700' (from 50yrs of Heathrow ATC).

I have no axe to grind either way, being equally proud of my 8years service as a Herc' nav and my time as a civilian ATCO, 14 of which were at LHR.

I have also held a PAR rating, a requirement at Boscombe where the ATC was provided by CAA until 1992. You can not talk an aircraft into the ground, unless his BOH/DH is 0'!!

In my experience it was not unusual for the MOD to try to put blame on civilian ATCOs - a good mate was blamed for an airmiss involving a Royal and a BA747, when quite clearly the Andover had bust its level due to inadequate monitoring by the 'professionals' and it was only the good words by the BA skipper that made 'the powers that be' see sense.

I've always believed that the Vulcan crash was caused by press-on itis by Broadhurst. Why men of Air Rank are allowed anywhere near the controls of an aircraft has always mystified me.
Brian 48nav is offline