Bungling CAA puts paid to 747 landing.

[Spray boy]

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.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Life'sShort-FlyFast]

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

[Solid Rust Twotter]

What else did you expect from that quango of professional arse coverers in Midrand?

[Spray boy]

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.

[Sir Cumference]

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

[V2+ A Little]

Bunch of a :mad: 's!

[CALCULATOR]

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.

[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:cool:

[Parrot]

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 ?:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

If the Saudi Royal Family had been on board and intending to meet Mbeki at Pilanesburg ... would the flight have been stopped :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[Spray boy]

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.:ugh:

[PPRuNe Towers]

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

[Parrot]

:oh: :oh: :oh:

[RSQ]

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!

[Tiger Bob]

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.

[Sir Cumference]

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.

[V2+ A Little]

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 :mad: . 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.

[RSQ]

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.

[B Sousa]

Your certainly welcome in La$ Vega$
www.mccarran.com

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KLAS.html

[CJ750]

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.

[RSQ]

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 ?

[Parrot]

Anyone out there with news, it seems to have gone quiet. Did the squirrels at CAA win ?

[4HolerPoler]

Affirm on the squirrels.

I'll post my side of the story, with substantiation when I get to a decent connection but now it's time to sit at the pool & chill.

Frustrating? Yes. The end of the world? No.

See you in CT on Sunday.

4HP

[Sir Cumference]

I understand that the Captain went to the CAA yesterday and had a 'pleasant' conversation. Long and short, it will not happen. I thank that the Captain has gracefully stepped down and agreed not to push the issue. I ma sure that if he had the energy it could have been made to happen.

Does make you wonder where to from here with the CAA? A question asked earlier on this thread went around the issue of 744 too big, 757 too big, 737 ok? What is going to be deemed to be ok and on what basis is it going to be judged? Will it be judged by a retired airline driver operating as a consultant to the CAA on the basis of what he 'feels?'

The CAA must be careful of collecting all sorts of increased fees and then having perfectly safe skies by keeping aircraft grounded and in the hangars!!

[Parrot]

Salaamahdontliken,
Your bait is so obvious its not worth biting

[Commander 690]

4HP,

Hope you had fun with the air to air shoot???

I would love to have seen you arrive at FAPN:{ :{ , but taking a picture of SA Flyers 182 behind your BEAST made my day:ok: :O :O :O :O :O
690

[B Sousa]

Fish ON.................I will grab it........

"Things aren't always as they seem and all support for our okes for keeping these frivolous meglomaniacs from using our country as their doormat. They should stay in their sandpits and carry on playing feud-feud amongst themselves."

Its a matter of folks wanting to visit South Africa rather than you, as some peon, deciding who will spend their tourist dollars and where. Even with all the confusion, Im sure they helped out the economy quite a bit.
Sounds like a bit of jealousy from a have not.
With things as they are, you had better be lucky that people are still willing to visit SA. When and if other African Countries get the message that there is money in the tourist dollar, SA might just lose a few.
This little fiasco should be considered a South African embarrasment. Third world at its highest.

Lets see if we can squeeze post #4 from Turkey Neck.

[4HolerPoler]

We had a blast - such a pleasure working with professionals like Pierre & Frans.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/4HolerPoler/B747.jpg

4HP

[B Sousa]

Now that is a sweet shot. Whats the bubble on the back an observatory?

No wonder salmanderwhatever made his snotty post. Hes jealous as hell.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

No doubt, in keeping with the great astronomical traditions of the Arabian past, the Saudi of today still uses the stars as a means to navigate from the Heliopolis of the northern hemisphere to the Sun City of the southern.;)

[mutt]

At a guess, the bump is the antennae for Boeing connexion.

CJ750, Just for the record, the B747-400 is a private aircraft, it was offered as transportation to a big-wig Prince. The company had no other suitable aircraft to offer.



Mutt

[4HolerPoler]

Affirm. it's the Connexion by Boeing antenna. Since Boeing pulled the plug on this system it can no longer be used for web or internet connections (still available through the Inmarsat antennas) but it still provides its primary function of supplying live-TV feed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/4HolerPoler/B7473.jpg

4HP

[Commander 690]

What and AWESOME aircraft.... Stunning Interior. Would have loved to have been there before you arrived back at FAPP tho...

690