Bungling CAA puts paid to 747 landing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Africa
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bungling CAA puts paid to 747 landing.
What an absolute bunch of bungling idiots the CAA are.
Rumour has it that they initially give consent, (not that they needed it), to the 747 to land at Pilansberg with certain requirements to be put in place before they landed.
All said and done at an extremely high cost, everything is put in place, and everyone eagerly awaits the landing.
The captain is told on landing at Polokwane, that should he attempt to land at Pliansberg he will be prosecuted, (which in my books, equates to be put in jail).
Apparently the CAA have a few EX-CO-PILOTS that are experts in their field and are 747 arm-chair captains which apparently told the Commissioner, (who is a NON-pilot), that it definitely cannot be done as they have an aunty, who has a cousin, that goes out with a tractor driver that works at SAA that it could not be done.
So these idiots listen to the tractor driver and, "wait for it", NO...yes, a big NO.
I would love to know who is now going to foot the bill for all the bits and pieces that CAA first asked for.
I also believe it was a private flight.
Rumour has it that they initially give consent, (not that they needed it), to the 747 to land at Pilansberg with certain requirements to be put in place before they landed.
All said and done at an extremely high cost, everything is put in place, and everyone eagerly awaits the landing.
The captain is told on landing at Polokwane, that should he attempt to land at Pliansberg he will be prosecuted, (which in my books, equates to be put in jail).
Apparently the CAA have a few EX-CO-PILOTS that are experts in their field and are 747 arm-chair captains which apparently told the Commissioner, (who is a NON-pilot), that it definitely cannot be done as they have an aunty, who has a cousin, that goes out with a tractor driver that works at SAA that it could not be done.
So these idiots listen to the tractor driver and, "wait for it", NO...yes, a big NO.
I would love to know who is now going to foot the bill for all the bits and pieces that CAA first asked for.
I also believe it was a private flight.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, it was to be a private flight I understand. A full motivation and copy of the workings was submitted to the CAA and was initially accepted. The calculations were done and the only question was if the turning circles were able to accommodate the aircraft. In case this did not work out a tug was in place to tow the aircraft safely round so that it did not go off the tar and also to position it on the hardstand, well clear (as far as can be with a 744!!) of other aircraft. Permission was initially granted and then it seems that individuals gotr nervous that should something happen they would be held accountable. In my short aviation career (28 years) the Captain has always been responsible. Surely we are not going into a situation where we all have to submit proposals for operations to the CAA and have them overrule the Captain??! I understand that this was a unique situation and that it certainly went against the "SAA 747 Full of Pax, Airline Operations" but it was carefully worked out, the hoops that were required by the CAA were complied with but then....? Sad
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Africa
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe that the 747 was absolutely full of passangers..yes, full to the brim.....A whole 15......did I say full.
Damm..
Where you get arse coverers from....I can think of a different word for the bungling idiots.
A new meaning to AIC 50.4...........Sorry for you, your C130 may not land on the strip even for humanitarian aid as the captain has no authority.
Suck my ice-cream.
Damm..
Where you get arse coverers from....I can think of a different word for the bungling idiots.
A new meaning to AIC 50.4...........Sorry for you, your C130 may not land on the strip even for humanitarian aid as the captain has no authority.
Suck my ice-cream.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft has been put to bed at Polokwane and that is where it is apparently going to stay till departure for the next destination. Crew are on their way to Pilanesberg by bus. I am told by el Kapitano that voices were not raised but he had stood by his calculations and was refused start clearance for Pilanesberg. sad
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: JOHANNESBERG
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome Sevice At Pilansberg Today.
We landed at Pilansberg today at 12.30(B) to be met by about 12 fire engines.I joked to my F/O that obviously they knew it was his leg hence all the equipment.I think the staff and handlers we so grateful to see something land and yes with our 2 nineteen hundreds we had a whole 34 pax.Trust me I've never seen our baggage taken off so quickly , I wish a 747 was going to land there more often
By the way its digusting that everything was ready at the airport and CAA pulled the plug at the last minute with everybody in place.I hope they sue CAA for all the costs involved.
By the way its digusting that everything was ready at the airport and CAA pulled the plug at the last minute with everybody in place.I hope they sue CAA for all the costs involved.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HAHAHEHE LAND
Age: 63
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ750
It is a Saudi Royal Family flight (747-400) with 46 PAX and 16 Cabin staff.
My only question is would SAA put one of their jumbo'sin at Pilanesberg on a charter
My only question is would SAA put one of their jumbo'sin at Pilanesberg on a charter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ZA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole saga sounds like an embarrasing and expensive mess.
Why did the CAA give the OK and then pull the plug at the last moment ?
And exactly why was permission needed in the first place ?
Now there is a precident set that the CAA can decide what type of aircraft lands where. I mean ...if its not OK for a 747 ..is it also not OK for an A340 or 757 ...or exactly where is the cut off ... 737 OK then ?
If the Saudi Royal Family had been on board and intending to meet Mbeki at Pilanesburg ... would the flight have been stopped
Why did the CAA give the OK and then pull the plug at the last moment ?
And exactly why was permission needed in the first place ?
Now there is a precident set that the CAA can decide what type of aircraft lands where. I mean ...if its not OK for a 747 ..is it also not OK for an A340 or 757 ...or exactly where is the cut off ... 737 OK then ?
If the Saudi Royal Family had been on board and intending to meet Mbeki at Pilanesburg ... would the flight have been stopped
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Africa
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ750.
You ask the question would SAA put one of their Jumbo's there on charter.
..
Regardless of them not flying them out, the CAA let them take in, not one, but two 747's into Rand.
Now if you look at Rand, as the last time that I saw it, it was plum centre in a residential area, with a runway like a postage stamp...(can you imagine them losing an engine on landing and going bundu bashing there)...(so sorry, we are talking of SAA here so it does not happen).
Should something have gone wrong there, would the pilot have said, "Oh sheeeet, we go down with the sheeeep"...(not a sheeeet, he would have said, we are SAA you cannot go wrong, and pooof, the engine would have started).
Pilansberg has a fairly long runway, so you are not bound by a postage stamp like Rand...(but yet CAA were very quick to give permission there...twice).
..
Now, do you ,(and all the sceptics), honestly believe that the Kapietaaaaan of this bird, would in all honesty just decide that today he is going to plonk his 747 down on Pilansberg runway without doing his homework.
I beg to differ there...as you saw from one of the other postings, the number of fire/ambulance on standby, and, only for a crew of 15..(sorry, there were no pax's on board).
..
I think that this okie pokie Kaapeetaaan (and co-jo) thought long and hard about his (their) paycheck at the end of each month, before deciding to take his (their) favourite 747 for a trip down memory lane.
Nah, I think here we are discussing a very experienced 747 crew, who are used to flying into strips like this and who have done there homework and their preperation flipping well.
..
Rumour has it that CAA were not even interested in discussing the merits with the crew and on top of things, got a previous "stand in Commissioner" to sign the "Up your's letter", which apparently to the "legal begals", is a very contentious issue as he does not have the authority to sign such letter as the Commissioner...(comments on that one VERY welcome).
...
In all honesty, CAA screwed up beeeeg time here and are going to get a VERY BEEEEEEEEEG bill from the Larney involved.
Who in all honesty at the CAA has the experience to read a 747 graph....(raise you hands class, pick me..pick me ...pick me).
..
If I had been the captain, I would be a very pissed off puppy today after going to all that trouble to explain to a bunch of idiots that a 747 can land at Pilandsberg quite comfortably.
Oh and for the rumour record, my cojo overheard one of the CAA experts at Pilandsberg, discussing the merits with someone and saying that according to him, it was a safe operation.....EXPLAIN THAT ONE.
Ja boet..as Guns would say, open another case of Tassies.
You ask the question would SAA put one of their Jumbo's there on charter.
..
Regardless of them not flying them out, the CAA let them take in, not one, but two 747's into Rand.
Now if you look at Rand, as the last time that I saw it, it was plum centre in a residential area, with a runway like a postage stamp...(can you imagine them losing an engine on landing and going bundu bashing there)...(so sorry, we are talking of SAA here so it does not happen).
Should something have gone wrong there, would the pilot have said, "Oh sheeeet, we go down with the sheeeep"...(not a sheeeet, he would have said, we are SAA you cannot go wrong, and pooof, the engine would have started).
Pilansberg has a fairly long runway, so you are not bound by a postage stamp like Rand...(but yet CAA were very quick to give permission there...twice).
..
Now, do you ,(and all the sceptics), honestly believe that the Kapietaaaaan of this bird, would in all honesty just decide that today he is going to plonk his 747 down on Pilansberg runway without doing his homework.
I beg to differ there...as you saw from one of the other postings, the number of fire/ambulance on standby, and, only for a crew of 15..(sorry, there were no pax's on board).
..
I think that this okie pokie Kaapeetaaan (and co-jo) thought long and hard about his (their) paycheck at the end of each month, before deciding to take his (their) favourite 747 for a trip down memory lane.
Nah, I think here we are discussing a very experienced 747 crew, who are used to flying into strips like this and who have done there homework and their preperation flipping well.
..
Rumour has it that CAA were not even interested in discussing the merits with the crew and on top of things, got a previous "stand in Commissioner" to sign the "Up your's letter", which apparently to the "legal begals", is a very contentious issue as he does not have the authority to sign such letter as the Commissioner...(comments on that one VERY welcome).
...
In all honesty, CAA screwed up beeeeg time here and are going to get a VERY BEEEEEEEEEG bill from the Larney involved.
Who in all honesty at the CAA has the experience to read a 747 graph....(raise you hands class, pick me..pick me ...pick me).
..
If I had been the captain, I would be a very pissed off puppy today after going to all that trouble to explain to a bunch of idiots that a 747 can land at Pilandsberg quite comfortably.
Oh and for the rumour record, my cojo overheard one of the CAA experts at Pilandsberg, discussing the merits with someone and saying that according to him, it was a safe operation.....EXPLAIN THAT ONE.
Ja boet..as Guns would say, open another case of Tassies.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just off the phone with the captain and we've got a sincere request to you guys to cool it. Good guys wearing differing hats and shouldering opposing pressures are still trying to come up with something workable.
They'd really appreciate you cooling it for the next 18 hours or so just to give them a chance of salvaging this trip.
Regards
Rob Lloyd
They'd really appreciate you cooling it for the next 18 hours or so just to give them a chance of salvaging this trip.
Regards
Rob Lloyd
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding....................
Facetious........ would our comments have an impact on the CAA? Do they read this forum? If our comments can have an outcome (positive or negative) on this sorry debacle, it reflects poorly on the CAA then that they could be swayed by what is written here !
This entire matter is an indicator of the sorry mess that is called the Civil Aviation Authority. I would now not hesitate to say that a court order should be applied for to close the entire mess down until a solution is found - would aviation be any worse off for three months with no control, as opposed to a situation where the incompetant are led by the ignorant. From the top down the department is a conglomeration of the useless, spineless and dare I say it, the odd criminal as well, ( I have the court documents proving it),who has been hidden and protected by those in control. I am so embarrassed to hold a SA licence, that I suggest they scrap the whole department and start again ! Rumours, (and lets accept they are only rumours) have it that the CAA is so short of QUALIFIED personnel and disorganised that the FAA is considering downgrading it's status which would mean no ZS aircraft flying into the USA. And finally - send the bill to the CAA for the costs of the entire flight to SA- that will get their atention!
This entire matter is an indicator of the sorry mess that is called the Civil Aviation Authority. I would now not hesitate to say that a court order should be applied for to close the entire mess down until a solution is found - would aviation be any worse off for three months with no control, as opposed to a situation where the incompetant are led by the ignorant. From the top down the department is a conglomeration of the useless, spineless and dare I say it, the odd criminal as well, ( I have the court documents proving it),who has been hidden and protected by those in control. I am so embarrassed to hold a SA licence, that I suggest they scrap the whole department and start again ! Rumours, (and lets accept they are only rumours) have it that the CAA is so short of QUALIFIED personnel and disorganised that the FAA is considering downgrading it's status which would mean no ZS aircraft flying into the USA. And finally - send the bill to the CAA for the costs of the entire flight to SA- that will get their atention!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Africa
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always another side to the story.
CAA did not give permission but the DOT did. The aircraft supposedly weight exceeds the that allowed by the LCN of Pilanesburg. If that is so I presume that CAA has the right to overrule the Captain.
CAA did not give permission but the DOT did. The aircraft supposedly weight exceeds the that allowed by the LCN of Pilanesburg. If that is so I presume that CAA has the right to overrule the Captain.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger Bob, for the record, I have it on first hand account that the Captain submitted to the CAA full details of the aircraft ACN which at its heaviest weight for the flight to Riyadh would have been 630,000 pounds with a resultant ACN of 52 calculated for a flexible pavement subgrade (C). The AIP for Pilanesberg lists the PCN the surface at 58. There is thus no question that the ACN/PCN limits were exceeded and this was supported by documentation and graphs.
Before you go the performance way, graphs and data were supplied to show that the aircraft was easily capable of taking off at the planned weight even with the temp at 35C.
Before you go the performance way, graphs and data were supplied to show that the aircraft was easily capable of taking off at the planned weight even with the temp at 35C.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: JNB
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know much about this at all, but just heard the CAA on 702 sais the runway is too "small". Is it too small, or is the LCN the problem? Personally I think this is all a load of 
. Don't know why the CAA had to give approval in the first place if there was no problem with a 747 landing there. Maybe next time you want to take your piper warrior to mmabatho, they should be contacted first. Not sure what to make off all this.
. Don't know why the CAA had to give approval in the first place if there was no problem with a 747 landing there. Maybe next time you want to take your piper warrior to mmabatho, they should be contacted first. Not sure what to make off all this.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so indeed
I am familiar with the Captain, who by the way is a South African and an absolute stickler for the book.
He submitted all the graphs, figures and the operating parameters required and received permission in writing.
Somebody in malfunction junction then decided to backtrack this decision and they are left with egg on their faces - lets hear their side from the CAA - all I heard on the news was the usual "safety & standards" back door -and this from a collection (with the very odd exception) of aviation misfits who have smuggled, falsified logbooks, and crashed our country's aviation heritage.
This is an embarrasment not only to the CAA, but the country as well. Oh Trevor Abrams please come back ! - all is forgiven!
This is a Part 91 flight, - the airport apparently meets the requirements for the flight- and, here is the kicker,........... in my humble opinion there is NOBODY in the CAA who is actually qualified to comment on this operation, or who is even capable of reading the performance charts. In fact never mind capable, what about the relevant person's credibility to comment or make a decision.
Anybody want to put their money where their mouths are and see if the flight eventually goes ahead? - shades of the Zaire CAA !
This is the last I will post - the level of dishonesty and incompetance in that Department makes me sick to my stomach.
He submitted all the graphs, figures and the operating parameters required and received permission in writing.
Somebody in malfunction junction then decided to backtrack this decision and they are left with egg on their faces - lets hear their side from the CAA - all I heard on the news was the usual "safety & standards" back door -and this from a collection (with the very odd exception) of aviation misfits who have smuggled, falsified logbooks, and crashed our country's aviation heritage.
This is an embarrasment not only to the CAA, but the country as well. Oh Trevor Abrams please come back ! - all is forgiven!
This is a Part 91 flight, - the airport apparently meets the requirements for the flight- and, here is the kicker,........... in my humble opinion there is NOBODY in the CAA who is actually qualified to comment on this operation, or who is even capable of reading the performance charts. In fact never mind capable, what about the relevant person's credibility to comment or make a decision.
Anybody want to put their money where their mouths are and see if the flight eventually goes ahead? - shades of the Zaire CAA !
This is the last I will post - the level of dishonesty and incompetance in that Department makes me sick to my stomach.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your certainly welcome in La$ Vega$
www.mccarran.com
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KLAS.html
www.mccarran.com
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KLAS.html
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HAHAHEHE LAND
Age: 63
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilanesberg Debacle
There seems to be conflicting reports of who to blame. I have to admit right away that i do not have the experience of that sort of metal but have a few queries about operating a Jumbo into Pilanesberg (I have experience of smaller high performance jets into FAPN)
The runway is maybe long enough but why should you use the field if you need a tug to manoeuvre you around so you don't go off the tar. That is not normal ops is it. How is the clearance on either side of the runway for trees and long grass as far as the engines are concerned. Turning circles is another question i have. Also what about the taxiway and apron. Would they have towed the plane on departure all the way around the apron onto the runway and reversed it (BY TUG) to the end of the runway for the take-off. AGAIN I ASK IS THIS NORMAL OPS AND IF NOT WHY BOTHER.
Now if you cannot operate the aircraft into FAPN and on the apron normally why go there in such a big plane. This is not europe or the middle east this is a small African airfield without many facilities so go in one of the many other smaller planes in the ROYAL fleet .I heard the pax did go off in a bunch of caravans to go hunting so what is the problem.
MONEY cannot get you everywhere and everything you want.
CAA have their problems yes but lets hear their side of the story.
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
The runway is maybe long enough but why should you use the field if you need a tug to manoeuvre you around so you don't go off the tar. That is not normal ops is it. How is the clearance on either side of the runway for trees and long grass as far as the engines are concerned. Turning circles is another question i have. Also what about the taxiway and apron. Would they have towed the plane on departure all the way around the apron onto the runway and reversed it (BY TUG) to the end of the runway for the take-off. AGAIN I ASK IS THIS NORMAL OPS AND IF NOT WHY BOTHER.
Now if you cannot operate the aircraft into FAPN and on the apron normally why go there in such a big plane. This is not europe or the middle east this is a small African airfield without many facilities so go in one of the many other smaller planes in the ROYAL fleet .I heard the pax did go off in a bunch of caravans to go hunting so what is the problem.
MONEY cannot get you everywhere and everything you want.
CAA have their problems yes but lets hear their side of the story.
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uuuhhh....NO !
Willing to betcha money can buy you most anything, especially where this kind of money is concerned. let's see if the captain pushes for the flight to be done or not !
So, how about this scenario....you are the fourth richest man in the world, you have bought yourself the BEST personal aircraft money can buy. You DO train your pilots at the best facility money can buy. You pay them exceptionally well. You ask your pilots to take you to Plianesburg. They spend time with the books (these guys who fly the plane every day) They get the necessary permission (in writing) You fly the airplane all the way to Polokwane. There you are told that someone who does not have a rating, who remains nameless, who in fact does not have a pilot's licence, has in his incedible ignorance, decided that "the runway is too small" (CAA's words not mine).
Not too sure about you, but after having spent a million Rand or so of my money, only to be stopped after being given permission, I would be pretty bent out of shape. Maybe a large enough lawsuit would shut those incompetants down for once and for all.
Come on CAA - for once in your miserable useless lives, have the balls to be counted, and issue a statement detailing the EXACT sequence of events - what was done and said by whom, and substantiate the stopping of this flight ! What's that? - sorry, nothing to say ?
So, how about this scenario....you are the fourth richest man in the world, you have bought yourself the BEST personal aircraft money can buy. You DO train your pilots at the best facility money can buy. You pay them exceptionally well. You ask your pilots to take you to Plianesburg. They spend time with the books (these guys who fly the plane every day) They get the necessary permission (in writing) You fly the airplane all the way to Polokwane. There you are told that someone who does not have a rating, who remains nameless, who in fact does not have a pilot's licence, has in his incedible ignorance, decided that "the runway is too small" (CAA's words not mine).
Not too sure about you, but after having spent a million Rand or so of my money, only to be stopped after being given permission, I would be pretty bent out of shape. Maybe a large enough lawsuit would shut those incompetants down for once and for all.
Come on CAA - for once in your miserable useless lives, have the balls to be counted, and issue a statement detailing the EXACT sequence of events - what was done and said by whom, and substantiate the stopping of this flight ! What's that? - sorry, nothing to say ?