Zs-gaa Missing Near Plett?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myself and Suitcaseman are clearly wasting our time here in trying to seek some sort of compassion from you vultures. Guilty until proven innocent it seems. But that's very much a modern day attitude and the internet of course, gives a voice to people who would otherwise have been otherwise ignored in our society.
The aircraft crashed in the sea in the vicinity of it's destination. We don't know anything about it's configuration, flight path, serviceability or the medical condition of the pilots. We don't know if it was trying to land or go around. We know nothing. The fact that the weather was poor isn't a reason. A factor for sure but not a cause. And cetainly not an indication that, as some of you are suggesting, for trying to bust any limits. And as for MAYDAY calls. If you're dealing with a sudden or catastrophic failure in the cockpit then radio calls are the last thing on your mind.
I suspect most of the experts here are either Sunday afternoon PPL drivers, PC simulator enthusiasts or plane spotters that still live at home with mum. If any of you knew the first thing about air accidents investigation, and were yourselves professional aviators, then you would know these events are never as straight forward as they seem. You're all incredibly quick to talk about weather minima, cloud break procedures over the sea, fog, LVP etc. But what you don't know is EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT COCKPIT. Could any of you idiots stand by your accusations in a court of law while holding a bible? No. So how dare you pass judgment on a fellow pilot without knowing any of the facts yet. You heartless bunch of p&#$ks.
The aircraft crashed in the sea in the vicinity of it's destination. We don't know anything about it's configuration, flight path, serviceability or the medical condition of the pilots. We don't know if it was trying to land or go around. We know nothing. The fact that the weather was poor isn't a reason. A factor for sure but not a cause. And cetainly not an indication that, as some of you are suggesting, for trying to bust any limits. And as for MAYDAY calls. If you're dealing with a sudden or catastrophic failure in the cockpit then radio calls are the last thing on your mind.
I suspect most of the experts here are either Sunday afternoon PPL drivers, PC simulator enthusiasts or plane spotters that still live at home with mum. If any of you knew the first thing about air accidents investigation, and were yourselves professional aviators, then you would know these events are never as straight forward as they seem. You're all incredibly quick to talk about weather minima, cloud break procedures over the sea, fog, LVP etc. But what you don't know is EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT COCKPIT. Could any of you idiots stand by your accusations in a court of law while holding a bible? No. So how dare you pass judgment on a fellow pilot without knowing any of the facts yet. You heartless bunch of p&#$ks.
Last edited by Sir KDM Lowe; 13th Feb 2011 at 16:17.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir KDM Lowe,
The sad reality is that with today's modern aircraft, most crashes are due to pilot error. Very rarely is it due to an aircraft system malfunction that is unrecoverable by a pilot, sometimes yes, but mostly no. Even a total engine malfunction in a PC12 does not lead to an uncontrolled crash - there is a procedure to deal with the situation - and the fuselage is incredibly tough.
However, I don't think anyone here is saying that their conclusion is the definite cause, just more likely than not. What they are saying is that IF the pilot did X, Y or Z then they are culpable. There is nothing heartless in that. Pilots must learn from the mistakes (and actions) of others, they won't live long enough to do them themselves and this is a primary function of PPRuNe.
Yes it is a tragic event and no one likes to think of the possibility of the pilots making a tragic error or decision but in many cases it is the reality and we have to accept it or get out of aviation. A very good friend of mine died at the controls of his aircraft. He wouldn't of died if he hadn't been doing something stupid. He wouldn't have put his mother in a situation of having to be held up through the funeral service because she couldn't cope with the knowledge that her only son was dead. However, I learnt something from his death that has stayed with me and I have tried to pass it on to others so that they don't make the same mistake. Some listen, some don't.
By calling the posters on here as you did is to ignore what good can come out of the crash (I refuse to call them accidents). If you don't like it then I suggest there are better forums for you to read.
I suspect most of the experts here are either Sunday afternoon PPL drivers, PC simulator enthusiasts or plane spotters that still live at home with mum. If any of you knew the first thing about air accidents investigation, and were yourselves professional aviators, then you would know these events are never as straight forward as they seem. You're all incredibly quick to talk about weather minima, cloud break procedures over the sea, fog, LVP etc. But what you don't know is EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT COCKPIT. Could any of you idiots stand by your accusations in a court of law while holding a bible? No. So how dare you pass judgment on a fellow pilot without knowing any of the facts yet. You heartless bunch of p&#$ks.
However, I don't think anyone here is saying that their conclusion is the definite cause, just more likely than not. What they are saying is that IF the pilot did X, Y or Z then they are culpable. There is nothing heartless in that. Pilots must learn from the mistakes (and actions) of others, they won't live long enough to do them themselves and this is a primary function of PPRuNe.
Yes it is a tragic event and no one likes to think of the possibility of the pilots making a tragic error or decision but in many cases it is the reality and we have to accept it or get out of aviation. A very good friend of mine died at the controls of his aircraft. He wouldn't of died if he hadn't been doing something stupid. He wouldn't have put his mother in a situation of having to be held up through the funeral service because she couldn't cope with the knowledge that her only son was dead. However, I learnt something from his death that has stayed with me and I have tried to pass it on to others so that they don't make the same mistake. Some listen, some don't.
By calling the posters on here as you did is to ignore what good can come out of the crash (I refuse to call them accidents). If you don't like it then I suggest there are better forums for you to read.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without getting too poetic, one needs to realise in accident investigations that in order to understand and piece the events together, there can be no emotional quotient applied whatsoever. Yes people perished, and while that in itself is a tragedy, it has no relevance whatsoever in reaching a conclusion as the causal factors that resulted in an aircraft ending up in millions of pieces, in the ocean.
One also needs to acknowledge off the bat, that in the vast majority of cases, the human link, is the weakest in the chain. Fact.
Now, with that in mind, it is prudent to start with the most elementary explanations for the possible demise of this aircraft. Ockam's razor applies. Once you find that the simplest and most plausible factors do not apply, is it worthwhile looking for the more obscure events that could have lead to this result.
Right now, off the bat, it seems, and note I said seems, that we will find the answers within the more simple realms of possibility. Machines can fail. Man can fail. One of these, however, fails more regularly. Not because of any other reason than man being the most fickle and easily influenced by external, often non-mission critical issues.
This is by no means an indictment on any crew in any accident aircraft, but what it is, is an objective, non emotional response to an unfortunate event.
Human factors have brought down aircraft for decades, and unfortunately, we see very few new methods emerging. In the vast majority of crashes, if one could cure only one facet of possible causal factors, it would be in remedying the human link that would have lead to avoiding the final result. Start with the simple reasons-they are simple for a reason-because they are the most common. If none of them fit, by all means dig deeper, but initial response needs to consider only that which is known about man, machine and medium, without being drenched in emotion.
One also needs to acknowledge off the bat, that in the vast majority of cases, the human link, is the weakest in the chain. Fact.
Now, with that in mind, it is prudent to start with the most elementary explanations for the possible demise of this aircraft. Ockam's razor applies. Once you find that the simplest and most plausible factors do not apply, is it worthwhile looking for the more obscure events that could have lead to this result.
Right now, off the bat, it seems, and note I said seems, that we will find the answers within the more simple realms of possibility. Machines can fail. Man can fail. One of these, however, fails more regularly. Not because of any other reason than man being the most fickle and easily influenced by external, often non-mission critical issues.
This is by no means an indictment on any crew in any accident aircraft, but what it is, is an objective, non emotional response to an unfortunate event.
Human factors have brought down aircraft for decades, and unfortunately, we see very few new methods emerging. In the vast majority of crashes, if one could cure only one facet of possible causal factors, it would be in remedying the human link that would have lead to avoiding the final result. Start with the simple reasons-they are simple for a reason-because they are the most common. If none of them fit, by all means dig deeper, but initial response needs to consider only that which is known about man, machine and medium, without being drenched in emotion.
Está servira para distraerle.
I never have been a fan of single engine IMC flying. As far as I know there is no flight path profile procedure for single engined aircraft engine failure in IMC. I think too that ditching is pretty much a one shot exercise which very few pilots have practised. You only get one attempt at landing on the surface of a hard sea, one teeny wave, one feathering wing tip?
Most pilots with IMC experience (at the least that certainly excludes from commenting, all PPLs without an IR) will have made up their own minds as to what they would like to think that they would have done on that day. By now too, they will have had the time to refresh their minds on IF Procedures and legalities. If I were to imagine that I had been there I can think of an extraneous force or happen stance or two which might easily enough have occurred and which could have led me into a sudden and unscheduled crash.
In human endeavours there are often many faults abounding but in my opinion fault does not always and should never inherently occasion blame.
And at the risk of making myself really unpopular, this business of good coming out of the crash is just a platitude. It's an often used excuse for people to seriously sprout any old amount of rubbish whilst claiming justification for their rhubarb.
Most pilots with IMC experience (at the least that certainly excludes from commenting, all PPLs without an IR) will have made up their own minds as to what they would like to think that they would have done on that day. By now too, they will have had the time to refresh their minds on IF Procedures and legalities. If I were to imagine that I had been there I can think of an extraneous force or happen stance or two which might easily enough have occurred and which could have led me into a sudden and unscheduled crash.
In human endeavours there are often many faults abounding but in my opinion fault does not always and should never inherently occasion blame.
And at the risk of making myself really unpopular, this business of good coming out of the crash is just a platitude. It's an often used excuse for people to seriously sprout any old amount of rubbish whilst claiming justification for their rhubarb.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most pilots with IMC experience (at the least that certainly excludes from commenting, all PPLs without an IR) will have made up their own minds as to what they would like to think that they would have done on that day.
Having said that it seems to me that certain posters are in denial about their own bad practices and are desperately trying to attribute the crash to something, indeed anything, other than the minimums that they believe they are skilled enough to ignore.
So what do we know ?
1) Visibility was undeniably bad due to coastal fog.
2) The airfield at Plettenburgbaai has no ILS and visibility was definitely below limits for a visual approach.
3) The PT6 is one of the most reliable engines ever to fly so despite the PC12 having only one engine the statistical probability of catastrophic engine failure is negligable.
4) The PC12 is a high performance aircraft and is therefore a slippery character not best suited to low speed manoevering at low level. We should therefore consider the possibility that the crew could have been too focussed on searching for a hole in the weather and allowed the aircraft to get ahead of them.
What do we not know ?
1) Was there sufficient fuel for a diversion to George or Cape Town.
2) Was there some other factor requiring an immediate landing such as smoke or maybe someone needing urgent medical attention.
3) Were the crew under pressure, The Polish presidential flight is a recent example.
What conclusions can we reach at this early stage ?
In the absence of any evidence (yet) of mechanical failure it is clear that a strict adherance to minimums and an early decision to divert to a more suitable landing site could well have prevented the accident.
RIP.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 13th Feb 2011 at 12:21. Reason: Bad grammar, fix typos
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify here, the 12 is very far from being a slippery machine. She just loves low speeds, and is extremely stable, some might even say too stable, at landing speeds of around the mid seventy knots as Vref for 40 flap. Been a few years, but I'm sure it was around there. There are really no easier, more docile machines out there than a PC12.
Some mistakenly call them idiot proof.
Some mistakenly call them idiot proof.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suitcaseman
Evidently you KNOW nothing:
1. You know what the weather was like in George maybe. Only the crew on board this flight know what the "actual" weather was at Plett.
2. The visibility was below minima - a fact you know????
3. Whilst the PT6 is very reliable it can still suffer failure from a birdstrike for example?
4. PC12 slippery - you have obviously never flown one.
Loss of control still remains a possibility which should be investigated.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
Having said that it seems to me that certain posters are in denial about their own bad practices and are desperately trying to attribute the crash to something, indeed anything, other than the minimums that they believe they are skilled enough to ignore.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett,
First of all, I make no apologies for upsetting a few anonymous posters on this forum. Surely that's better than what the majority of people are doing here and that's trying to discredit the professional actions of deceased pilots before the investigation has even started.
Just because weather was a factor, doesn't mean it's the cause. Human error is very possible but that's for the investigators to determine. To assume it was somehow the result of a botched approach just because of fog is very narrow minded. If the wreckage was in the undershoot or on the airfield then I could see how that could become a tempting conclusion. But it wasn't. Let's at least give these pilots the benefit of the doubt.
What I find offensive is this. Fellow posters are amusing themselves by trying to play amateur detectives with very little data while refusing to even consider other possibilities. These forums can be quite informative and a place for all of us to learn the lessons of past accidents. But only once a conclusive report has been published. I have an awful feeling we may never no the real answer due to a lack of flight and voice recorders.
I stand by my earlier assessment of the professional qualifications of those posting BS here. They've damned the deceased pilots already. Guilty. Must have been trying to get in at what ever cost etc. Very harsh and very unfair.
First of all, I make no apologies for upsetting a few anonymous posters on this forum. Surely that's better than what the majority of people are doing here and that's trying to discredit the professional actions of deceased pilots before the investigation has even started.
Just because weather was a factor, doesn't mean it's the cause. Human error is very possible but that's for the investigators to determine. To assume it was somehow the result of a botched approach just because of fog is very narrow minded. If the wreckage was in the undershoot or on the airfield then I could see how that could become a tempting conclusion. But it wasn't. Let's at least give these pilots the benefit of the doubt.
What I find offensive is this. Fellow posters are amusing themselves by trying to play amateur detectives with very little data while refusing to even consider other possibilities. These forums can be quite informative and a place for all of us to learn the lessons of past accidents. But only once a conclusive report has been published. I have an awful feeling we may never no the real answer due to a lack of flight and voice recorders.
I stand by my earlier assessment of the professional qualifications of those posting BS here. They've damned the deceased pilots already. Guilty. Must have been trying to get in at what ever cost etc. Very harsh and very unfair.
Last edited by Sir KDM Lowe; 13th Feb 2011 at 16:49.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ancient Greek
I can see why Suitcaseman is getting upset with you. The above statement suggests you've nearly come to a conclusion already. Very pompous statement if you ask me. Less than a week since the crash, no black box evidence or ATC transcripts available. No evidence to suggest they were not adhering to minimums. There is some suggestion from an earlier post, that a cell phone call from a passenger indicated they were diverting.
I just feel everyone is jumping to conclusions and are only doing so in order to try and impress fellow readers how sanctimonious and smart they are. Monday morning quarter backs we call them.
I hope none of you ever get called to sit on a jury. Let's not waste time compiling evidence.
In the absence of any evidence (yet) of mechanical failure it is clear that a strict adherance to minimums and an early decision to divert to a more suitable landing site could well have prevented the accident.
I just feel everyone is jumping to conclusions and are only doing so in order to try and impress fellow readers how sanctimonious and smart they are. Monday morning quarter backs we call them.
I hope none of you ever get called to sit on a jury. Let's not waste time compiling evidence.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you all don't mind too much, I would like to pose a totally hypothetical question at this point.
What would the general feeling be if the crew in this case made no attempt at flying the published cloud break and went directly out to sea and commenced a descent to below airport level?
Would that change any of the perceptions stated thus far?
What would the general feeling be if the crew in this case made no attempt at flying the published cloud break and went directly out to sea and commenced a descent to below airport level?
Would that change any of the perceptions stated thus far?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread somehow reminds me of the very similar discussion about ZS-OLD hitting a mountain near Bakavu in the DRC - till this day the actual cause is unknown. Possibly this story will remain open ended too, which tends to cause frustration amongst those, which are interested in what really happened - be it to learn from others mistakes, to find closure or anything else whatever the case.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why Suitcaseman is getting upset with you. The above statement suggests you've nearly come to a conclusion already.
We simply do not know enough to reach a conclusion on the causes of this specific accident. For example we know what the actual weather was on the ground but we do not know what the crew believed they were flying into. We have all been misled by bad information at some time.
My comments are not about what happened, they are about preventing a repeat.
What we do know is that history is full of similar tragedies where professional and well qualified pilots have allowed themselves to be sucked in to a chain of bad decisions and bad luck with fatal consequences.
The common factor in these tragedies is a combination of bad visibility and busted minimums. We have all felt the temptation to go "just a little bit lower". It may seem like a safe thing to do at the time but safety margins have been eroded and there is no longer any room left for any of the host of little surprises which fate can throw at us.
Having been there, done it, and survived with fouled underwear and greenery wrapped around the gear I feel well qualified to pontificate from the comfort of my retirement.
Have I made myself clear yet - Do not go there, if the minimum is 500 feet it means 500 not 499. There are no medals for breaking the rules and we already have too many dead heroes. Diverting is always a safe option. There are good reasons for carrying fuel reserves and specifying an alternate in your flight plan.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Propellerpilot is correct. In the absence of any data and cockpit recorder on the PC12 I doubt whether the official report is going to be much more than speculation.
They should be able to tell what configuration the aircraft was in at the point of impact and from the damage to the airframe, what the impact forces were, but how it got there and the thought processes that led to it being there are gone forever.
Pratt and Whitney's best are not immune from failures. A PC12 in Australia recently suffered an engine failure at night over remote country. Fortunately the aircraft has a massive glide range and the pilot (female, for those who earlier questioned why there were two female pilots on the fatal flight) was able to reverse her track and glide back to her departure point. The cause of the failure was due to a maintenance error by some people who should have known a lot better.
For those who think they are a slippery little beast, the normal approach is around 90 knots and they can do it slower still if needed. They have an enormous flap span and from memory they are Fowler flaps. They could almost be classed as category A for IFR purposes.
They should be able to tell what configuration the aircraft was in at the point of impact and from the damage to the airframe, what the impact forces were, but how it got there and the thought processes that led to it being there are gone forever.
Pratt and Whitney's best are not immune from failures. A PC12 in Australia recently suffered an engine failure at night over remote country. Fortunately the aircraft has a massive glide range and the pilot (female, for those who earlier questioned why there were two female pilots on the fatal flight) was able to reverse her track and glide back to her departure point. The cause of the failure was due to a maintenance error by some people who should have known a lot better.
For those who think they are a slippery little beast, the normal approach is around 90 knots and they can do it slower still if needed. They have an enormous flap span and from memory they are Fowler flaps. They could almost be classed as category A for IFR purposes.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks, before passing judgment or trying to work out what happened please keep this in mind:
Being a commercial pilot on a single engine aircraft, flying in IFR, single crew (or with inexperienced second crew), in Africa for the private owner of the aircraft is no easy task.
There is no "ops" or charter company to help you. No engineer to help you with whatever may be going wrong with the aircraft halfway through a multi leg trip. Sometimes no easy means of getting a proper weather report.
Having to constantly battle with fuel issues such as: fuel promised at airport but finished by the time you get there. Fuel falsely advertised as been available. More often than not no fuel at all at the little dorpie where the pax want you to go. Or the fuel is there but the guy who was suppose to come refuel you is nowhere to be seen and can now no longer be contacted. And so on... This may force you to fly with not quite the amount you had in mind.
You are alone to deal with all problems that come up. Alone to deal with all flying tasks in bad weather. Hell it can get very busy even with two experienced crews when things suddenly don’t go according to plan.
The pressure will be on because you are not flying some strangers you have never met before. You know the owner very well, he may even be a nice guy and possibly now even a "friend" of yours. He may not even knowingly pressurise you but it will happen, and because you now have a personal relationship with the guy, it’s a lot harder to distance yourself and make totally uninfluenced decisions. It’s a lot easier in an airline or when flying strangers on a charter.
All of this to make the point that it really is no easy task. Because of all this and more, things are sometimes not done absolutely perfectly and errors are bound to creep in. Sometimes even two pilots won’t catch them.
No idea what happened, I'm not inferring that any of the above was a factor in this accident. May have been factors totally out of her control. Fact is she no doubt had a tough job on her hands.
Being a commercial pilot on a single engine aircraft, flying in IFR, single crew (or with inexperienced second crew), in Africa for the private owner of the aircraft is no easy task.
There is no "ops" or charter company to help you. No engineer to help you with whatever may be going wrong with the aircraft halfway through a multi leg trip. Sometimes no easy means of getting a proper weather report.
Having to constantly battle with fuel issues such as: fuel promised at airport but finished by the time you get there. Fuel falsely advertised as been available. More often than not no fuel at all at the little dorpie where the pax want you to go. Or the fuel is there but the guy who was suppose to come refuel you is nowhere to be seen and can now no longer be contacted. And so on... This may force you to fly with not quite the amount you had in mind.
You are alone to deal with all problems that come up. Alone to deal with all flying tasks in bad weather. Hell it can get very busy even with two experienced crews when things suddenly don’t go according to plan.
The pressure will be on because you are not flying some strangers you have never met before. You know the owner very well, he may even be a nice guy and possibly now even a "friend" of yours. He may not even knowingly pressurise you but it will happen, and because you now have a personal relationship with the guy, it’s a lot harder to distance yourself and make totally uninfluenced decisions. It’s a lot easier in an airline or when flying strangers on a charter.
All of this to make the point that it really is no easy task. Because of all this and more, things are sometimes not done absolutely perfectly and errors are bound to creep in. Sometimes even two pilots won’t catch them.
No idea what happened, I'm not inferring that any of the above was a factor in this accident. May have been factors totally out of her control. Fact is she no doubt had a tough job on her hands.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic,
Quote: "This may force you to fly with not quite the amount you had in mind."
I absolutely disagree with that sentence. No responsible PIC can be "forced" to do anything, least of all to knowingly commit a crime - which it would be if he/she executes a flight with serious doubts - fuel and other "short-cuts" would be one of these. As PIC it is imperative to be satisfied with the conditions concerning the safety of the flight at all times - if this is not the case I would call it extremely careless, especially if no immediate corrective actions are implemented, when the first signs of the situation become apparent. What a paradox: Known ignorance ? That certainly is in nobody's favor and greatly prone to a gross human failure - the point of extremely bad decision making.
Persons not having the backbone to say "No" in fear of other consequences are not right for this job. In turn, if somebody does not accept my decision not to fly, based on information or lack of information at hand, it shows they do not respect my professionalism and preventing me performing my duties.
I wouldn't know or speculate whether the crew was confronted with this type of scenario - the element of surprise is more probable I believe. Maybe somebody else who knew the client's attitude could elaborate on that.
Quote: "This may force you to fly with not quite the amount you had in mind."
I absolutely disagree with that sentence. No responsible PIC can be "forced" to do anything, least of all to knowingly commit a crime - which it would be if he/she executes a flight with serious doubts - fuel and other "short-cuts" would be one of these. As PIC it is imperative to be satisfied with the conditions concerning the safety of the flight at all times - if this is not the case I would call it extremely careless, especially if no immediate corrective actions are implemented, when the first signs of the situation become apparent. What a paradox: Known ignorance ? That certainly is in nobody's favor and greatly prone to a gross human failure - the point of extremely bad decision making.
Persons not having the backbone to say "No" in fear of other consequences are not right for this job. In turn, if somebody does not accept my decision not to fly, based on information or lack of information at hand, it shows they do not respect my professionalism and preventing me performing my duties.
I wouldn't know or speculate whether the crew was confronted with this type of scenario - the element of surprise is more probable I believe. Maybe somebody else who knew the client's attitude could elaborate on that.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flying with not quite what you had in mind" does not mean you neccessarily flying with an illegal amount of fuel. You may very well have the legal minimus but would've like some extra gas for an extra approach or just to be able to hang around waiting for some improvement in the weather. It just takes some of the pressure off, gives you options, helps getting the people where they want to be.
For example, flying charters in Zim back when the whole country was out of fuel did not make things simple regarding fuel planning. Nothing has to be illegal, just illustrating what a corporate/charter pilot has to deal with.
For example, flying charters in Zim back when the whole country was out of fuel did not make things simple regarding fuel planning. Nothing has to be illegal, just illustrating what a corporate/charter pilot has to deal with.
Originally Posted by cavorting cheetah
...As far as I know there is no flight path profile procedure for single engined aircraft engine failure in IMC.
Michael
