mary meagher - I am sure you mean well with your contribution, but it is unfortunately typical of some of the contributions here from non-aviators. You do not understand how aviation safety works - it does not matter if someone got hurt or something got damaged. It is all about risk to future operations and an incident has occurred which has to be considered carefully in the light of future risk. Next, you cannot say with certainty that the interface between arms and legs will be sorted and that the pilot and FlyBe will make sure of that. How do you know? The way we know is that the regulator in charge (UK CAA) investigates and makes absolutely certain that mitigation strategies are in place to ensure this does not happen again. It is absolutely not down to the pilot and airline to reassure everyone that all is well - what else are they going to say other than that? Regarding your comments on aircraft cockpit design, without having flown an Airbus professionally, you cannot know or understand what happened in the AF accident. It is far more complex than someone having a sidestick. It is off-topic, but as one who has flown an Airbus for many years, I think it has many overwhelming safety advantages over conventional aircraft, but good training is critical to ensure the pilot fully understands how it works.
Bealzebub - Fine and eloquent as your post is, I do not agree with your analysis. First of all, the pilot concerned was not somehow doing his company a favour by reporting the incident. He had an obligation to report any safety incident by ASR - like any professional pilot he did so. Not to have reported the incident would have opened himself up to disciplinary action.
Secondly, much is being made by a few people over alleged inappropriate comments purported to have been made by non-aviation professionals. There are no doubt a few of the usual trolls and berks on here, but my reading of this thread is that a significant number of the contributors are professional pilots who do not believe a Class 1 medical should have been given to the pilot concerned. These are people of significant experience in the airline industry who see the issues here for what they are, and are looking for rational discussion.
Thirdly there are a group of contributors demanding that the mods close this thread down. They need to frankly get out there and see what a big deal this is in the wider world - it is massive. As I write this, CNN is on in the background and the details of this incident are being broadcast round the world. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, this is a big deal to the outside world - telling everyone to wind their neck in is not really the answer. We have to understand that it is the unusual and bizarre which gains publicity - that is the way life is. 'Dog bites man' will never be a headline in The Sun, but 'Man bites dog' will be because it is unusual and bizarre. A professional pilot with a prosthetic arm is unusual and bizarre to the overwhelming majority of people - you may offended by that, but it is nonetheless the way it is and the situation has to be addressed. This one incident has massive traction outside the professional aviation community, and the one thing not to do is pretend it is not happening.
Now onto the issue in question. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting the pilot concerned is incompetent or anything else other than a highly professional aviator. That, nonetheless, does not mean that his medical situation should be ignored. The airline industry is first and foremost one that relies on confidence. It is vital for the maintenance of confidence in an airline that the travelling public believe the people flying their aircraft are fit and proper people to do so. Offensive as this is to some of our more vocal contributors, many people do not want to be flown by a pilot with one arm, particularly so given that as a direct result of his disability a temporary loss of control of the aircraft occurred near the ground. I think most people are staggered that it is possible to be a pilot of a commercial aircraft with only one arm. It would appear we are one of a handful of countries that permit such disabilities, and regrettably the risk taken appears not to have worked out as well as everyone had hoped.
People like Matey are understandably defensive of those with medical issues, due to his own experience. We all know of great people who have lost licences on medical grounds (mainly heart related) and we feel a sense of unfairness and loss both to the individual and the industry. What we have to balance that against is the minimising of risk to our aircraft and passengers, but we must err on the conservative side for the greater good. No one wants to see the demise of a pilot's career, particularly a really high-quality one. There is, however, a bigger picture here - namely the maintenance of public confidence. We accept that the CAA granted a medical in good faith, but is entirely reasonable to review that in the light of the event in question. That does not mean he is a dead cert for a medical suspension, but it does mean the evidence has to be overwhelming that the incident which took place was a one-off and is guaranteed not to happen again. Whatever final decision is arrived at here can never be based on the feelings of the pilot or his employer - it has to be based on the greater good to the travelling public and the industry as a whole.