Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!

[Phil Space]

From the BBC website

Rules stopped pilot's fog landing

A pilot with 30 years experience told passengers on a flight to Paris that he was returning to the UK because he was not qualified to land in foggy weather.

Flybe flight BE1431 from Cardiff was approaching Charles De Gaulle airport on Tuesday when the captain made the announcement over the tannoy.

A spokeswoman for Flybe said there had been dense fog at the airport in Paris.

She said the company stood by the pilot's decision and said passenger safety had not been compromised.

The Flybe pilot concerned has 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types, said the Flybe spokeswoman.

"He has relatively recently transferred his 'type-rating' from a Bombardier Q300 to a Bombardier Q400 and has not yet completed the requisite low-visibility training to complete a landing in conditions such as the dense fog experienced in Paris Charles de Gaulle," she said.


I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman

"The captain therefore quite correctly turned the aircraft around and returned to Cardiff; a decision which the company stands by 100%.

"Aviation is the most highly regulated form of public transport in the United Kingdom. As a result, technical situations like these arise where a pilot with 30 years experience correctly abides by regulatory rules.

"At no point was passenger safety compromised."

Flybe added that when the pilot took off from Cardiff, the weather at Paris Charles De Gaulle was clear.

The Civil Aviation Authority described the incident as "quite unusual but probably not unheard of".

"I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land," said a spokesman.

"There are different classifications of aircraft and when an aircraft is updated, pilots who have flown an older version have to completely retrain.

"There can be significant differences in terms of how an aircraft is operated.

"Different climactic conditions like fog require a certain level of skill and he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."

[CAT1 REVERSION]

Not unusual, I flew the Q400 for Flybe for a few years, and the way my OPC/LPC's fell meant I was CAT2 qualified throughout Summer, but not Winter as they only re-validated every 12 months.

Some may say stupid, but I'm sure there was method in their madness!!

It may of changed now???

[G SXTY]

Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!

Oh per-lease. CAT II conditions, captain not yet CAT II qualified on type, aircraft diverts. Big deal.

If there's one lesson to learn, it's to avoid giving pax too much information, as you'll be splashed all over the news. "Ladies and Gentlemen, we regret the weather in Paris has deteriorated. It is unsuitable for landing and unfortunately we will be diverting." End of story.

[Phil Space]

Not diverting....returning to Cardiff and so back to square one.:ok:

[Chesty Morgan]

Phil, I'm not sure why you named this thread as you did.

It sounds like the weather deteriorated to below the Captains limits. Captain diverts, everyone lives - job well done.

I see no reason for "red faced" - ness!

Weather goes below my limits. I divert, everyone lives - job well done. Nothing to be embarrased about really.

he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."

He probably recieved the same level of training as every other Q400 pilot. He may NOT have recieved specific Low Vis. training, or completed the required number of hours or sectors, whichever they use these days, on type to allow him to legally operate to lower minima.

And a diversion is a diversion no matter where you go.

[Cyclone733]

Rules stopped pilot's fog landing

Can't see the reason for any red faces. It's not like he had a go and cocked up an approach, he (and his possibly his first officer) weren't qualified for. Better for the passengers and the company to divert back to Cardiff than to dump them at another airport in France or England.
Rule 1: When possible divert to where your car is parked

There is also the possibility the conditions would still be out of limits for a Cat II approach as the reduction in minimas isn't huge

Cat II training is increasingly time consuming in the Sim and requires on the line training, so even at the best of times can take several months to get signed off on initially. Can't say I've had to use one in anger as of yet

[Final 3 Greens]

No big deal at all and no need for any embarassment

Fair enough that the captain made the decision, obviously cannot land below minima.

BUT, if I had been a pax, on the way to an important meeting, I would have been furious and probably considered suing Flybe to recover the cost of the airfare and a day's lost fees.

In my opinion, the small claims court would not look too kindly at and airline despatching a captain not qualified to land in low vis in winter.

And madness for an airline to treat pax this way in a hard market.

But no criticism of the captain for following the book.

[captplaystation]

Tosh := and if the weather dropped below CAT2 limits I suppose you would sue the manufacturer for not upgrading it's capability to CAT3

I suppose you sue the rail company every time there are the wrong sort of leaves on the line ,or BMW ( actually no, probably Jaguar ) if your car breaks down on the way to YOUR IMPORTANT MEETING.
Try living in the USA, plenty solicitors just waiting eagerly for your business :mad:

BTW it did say the fog was not forecast, I imagine if it had been forecast a replacement standby Capt would have been called in & used, or do you think airlines gleefully enjoy having their programmes disrupted just for the pleasure of interrupting YOUR important plans. Mind you . . . . there is a certain attraction there :hmm:

[Final 3 Greens]

So you would be suing them for what?

Breach of contract (implied terms and conditions) in failing to provide a qualified crew for weather conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur in winter.

The amount would be any expenses incurred and also lost fees.

Furthermore, the small claims division takes a fairly broad view of the law, so I believe that this would be a reasonable argument.

I have (infrequently) taken similar cases to the court and won.

Interestingly the 'other side' took a similar attitude to the last two posts and found that the administrator did not appreciate such bravado.

[eagerbeaver1]

I would like to see you try to claim expenses in court for "an act of God". The crew chose a safe and from what I read sensible course of action.

I am Cat 3a - so if it goes below 200metres I divert also (assuming lighting etc is correct then it may be a higher rvr)

[Forkandles]

What if there had been unforecast fog when he arrived back at Cardiff and also any nearby alternates? Unlikely, I know, but what if?

[Chesty Morgan]

Forkandles, then he would have gone somewhere less foggy.

[Forkandles]

Thank you Chesty, I would imagine that to be the intended course of action, but what if fuel computer said no?

[Final 3 Greens]

You lot just don't get this, do you?

I am not criticising the captain, who had no choice and did the right thing.

If an aircraft encounters conditions beyond its capabilities or those of its crew, then obviously it must divert.

But, in my opinion, if a capable aircraft cannot land due to being despatched with a crew who are less capable, then company despatching that aircraft are going to have a hard time convincing a small claims court that they acted reasonably.

One has paid an airline to provide an airline flight and that implies the crew will be up to doing the job, for low visibility is hardly unknown in winter.

[Chesty Morgan]

Forkandles, if there are NO other possibilities then you have to land. Preferably before you run out of petrol:} I should imagine a dead stick CAT2 wouldn't be very relaxing.

Simply put I'd land regardless because I have no other option.

But I must stress that I would have exercised every other alternative before I make that decision.

[learjet50]

GENTLEMEN


The FlyBe crews are not idiots

They look at all the cenarios and asset it from Departure Airfield/Destination airfield

Please lets drop this ridiculous forum they Guy did his job and he did it 100 percent to the book

By the way I am not the Pilot concerned and I dont want to know who it was but he acted correctly and in accordance with company regulations


Thats it gents lets put this one to bed

[Final 3 Greens]

Learjet50

I have no criticism of the captain, he acted correctly and in the best interests of all.

The thread title is silly.

[captainspeaking]

Gentlemen:
One teacup, one small storm. Move on.

[PanzerJohn]

As SLF I am a little suprised. I have always assumed that pilots flying hundreds of passengers would be trained and capable of flying/landing in all circumstances. Its a bit like ,say, travelling on a coach and the driver pulling over and saying "I can't drive in fog". A pilot doesn't have the option to pull over. Reading previous posts this event doesn't perturb the insiders and experts....but to a pax like me it does a bit. I realise that this seems to be a case of the paperwork catching up the pilot but it doesn't look good for the company either.
I'm off to the Far East next week, I hope my pilot will be cleared for all possibities. :confused:

[jiffajaffa]

slightly off topic i know but im just curious and cant seem to find an answer anywhere, can any flybe pilots tell me why they raise the speedbrake when cleared to enter the runway and drop it when given takeoff clearance must be company sops, just something ive noticed when queueing behind the jerseys waiting for departure havent seen any other operator use this policy??

[FL370 Officeboy]

It's the air/ground logic of the aircraft. They are not speedbrakes, just spoilers. When on taxi etc, they are held down by use of a flight/taxi switch, the logic system realising that they are not needed. When the switch is moved to the 'flight' position on line-up they raise as the aircraft thinks it has landed and needs the spoilers up (low power lever angle, weight on wheels). As the power levers are advanced, the aircraft knows it's taking off so retracts the spoilers.

[smith]

I have no criticism of the captain, he acted correctly and in the best interests of all.

The thread title is silly.

I think it was his announcement that caused the red face, not the diversion decision.

[davidjohnson6]

I have no quibble with the need to divert to somewhere other than Paris. I am puzzled as to why a return to Cardiff was chosen, rather than perhaps a diversion to somewhere like Southampton ? Big BE base and closer to Paris than Cardiff...

Is there some obvious factor that I'm missing ?

[max zedeffdubya]

when in doubt/chicken out
below limits/end of story

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Happened to a GO Captain a few years back.

Good decision, no harm done.

Next time consider re-phasing the PA - there are numptys back there!

FOK :)

[ShotOne]

Absolutely correct decision by the Captain -but he might wish he'd phrased his PA better!

[RAPA Pilot]

I should imagine that the company SOP is that a departure should not be undertaken unless the weather is forecast to be above minima at the destination 1 hour before and one hour after the expected arrival time and the same would go for the destination alternate.
BUT.
I think that if the airline return to the departure point, Cardiff in this case, then the airline don't have any responsability for the Pax. ie, they wont have to hotac them or feed them or transport them to their destination by other means so its a cost factor. All part of the small print. But a forecast is exactly that and you cannot plan for every eventuality. The Captain in this case made a standard decision and this isn't a story, it's just another day at work.

;)

[foresight]

I suspect this happens frequently. Has certainly happened to me when I had a newly joined F/O who was a recently retired BA 747 skipper - far more experienced than me. It was just that he hadn't yet fulfilled the company CAT 3 criteria.
There is no option but to divert - and don't breathe a word to the pax!
All this talk of suing is Cr**
Good old Beeb at it again!

[corsair]

Panzerjohn and threegreens, your posts are exactly the reason why many working airline pilots reading this forum get irritated by uninformed and ridiculous statements posted here in R&N. The original poster equally demonstrated his ignorance of the subject with his ridiculous headline.

All of you need to go and do some basic research before you come here spouting rubbish. The fact that all three of you are PPLs and therefore should have some basic knowledge of the subject makes it worse.

:rolleyes:

[Flapping_Madly]

Sounds really bad to me as simple SLF.
The CAA refer to "climactic conditions" Crikey That bad!!!:eek:

[UP and Down Operator]

..there WAS a reason to get red ears according to this article written in www.vg.no (http://www.vg.no):

Luftfart (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/spesial.php?id=233) / RSS (http://www.vg.no/rss/generateUrl.php?keywords=233)Lag din egen RSS (http://www.vg.no/rss/)
Flight BE1431 fra Cardiff var i innflygningen til Paris da kapteinen meldte fra til passasjerene:

- Beklager, jeg er ikke kvalifisert til å lande dette flyet.

Deretter gjorde han vendereis og satte kursen tilbake mot Cardiff, melder BBC.


It is in norwegian but basically states that the captain made a PA to the pax, stating: "sorry guys, but I am not qualified to land the aircraft", and then returned to Cardiff

I agree in all the previous, that he made the right choice, but if it is true that he made this PA to the pax, it might have made some of them slightly anxious in the back :E

[Topslide6]

...simple SLF.

If the hat fits.

The job was done correctly. It really is as simple as that.

[Flapping_Madly]

Climactic Climatic

Hope that helps.:rolleyes:

[WindSheer]

The Cardiff Echo were selling this story today as " unqualified pilot horror"!

:mad::mad:

[davidjohnson6]

While I sympathise with the pilot for not being formally qualified for the landing and thus the decision to divert being required, Flybe as a company have done a terrifically bad job at explaining this to the press.

Yes, the pilot was unlucky to come up against unforecast dense fog when he'd recently moved to a new type, but Joe Public wonders why someone unqualified to land in fog was flying a plane in winter.

When Ryanair had an incident at Ciampino recently, they were very quick at putting out prominent press releases on their website, updating every hour or two as more information became available. The result was the press understood what happened, and Ryanair got off lightly. Had the press not understood the cause, it is easy to imagine the more tabloid headlines...

Looking at the Flybe website, I can see *nothing* prominent about this incident. The reason for the diversion is simple to explain - putting together a press release with a few sentences and publishing it on a website is easy.

Instead, Flybe just say 'We back the pilot 100%', and people assume the company is trying to cover something up.

[demomonkey]

I think we're missing the big picture here people: Fog in Channel, Europe isolated! Now you know why you treat European flights are 'Island Reserve'!

:8

[jackharr]

I can't recall the exact details so might not be absolutely correct, but it went something like this. The aircraft type was newly in service with the airline so not all pilots had amassed the requisite number of hours on type to be Cat 2. Doubtless, the litigious people on this thread would have demanded that all pilots would have been suitably qualified by building up the requisite number of hours before being let loose. Our airline did its best, but sometimes the best just didn't work out. Commonsense, not threat of litigation, ruled twenty years ago I am pleased to say.

There had been some unavoidable crew changes over the previous few days. All aircraft destined for a foggy STN.

Aircraft A had both Capt and F/O qualified Cat 2. Unfortunately, minor technical problem and aircraft was limited Cat 1 only.

Aircraft B (at a different departure airfield) was fully serviceable with a Cat 2 Captain. Unfortunately F/O was Cat 1 only

Aircraft C also fully serviceable and although F/O was Cat 2, Captain was new and only Cat 1.
Fortunately, ("Is there a pilot on board?") there was a Cat 2 (Training) Captain scheduled to dead head on the flight (but still within hours) so original captain was unceremoniously thrown out of his seat and replaced.

Jack

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Breach of contract (implied terms and conditions) in failing to provide a qualified crew for weather conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur in winter.

Better check the general conditions of carriage of the ticket before paying for lawyer! Generally the contract is to get you from A-B, no specific date, no specific time, no specific number of flights needed to complete it.

[nelsonmadiba]

guys,sorry for my ignorance,but I have a question:

why would an airline prefer to return to cardiff rather than land somewhere else close to paris,drop the pax there,pick up the others (transferred by coach from the original airport) and then fly back ?

wouldn`t that make more sense?moneywise as well?

If I were on board I`d prefer to land somewhere close to paris and get there late rather than not getting there at all...or am I totally wrong?

[Loop... Hole]

..I'm only guessing here but if the weather is out at CDG then it's probably not too great at the surrounding Paris fields.

Also a possibility that Cardiff being furthest west might have been his 'rock solid alternate' as the weather east of there was pretty foggy everywhere. The crew had taken enough fuel to return to Cardiff after all. I sat on the hilltop at Leeds airport for 6 hours waiting to return to fogged out Southampton on the day in question. When we finally went, going back to Leeds was our diversion plan.

[Deano777]

Because the destination alternates were out of limits as well, (Orly, Lille, Brussels) so why sit in the hold burning fuel that you may need to get back?

[WHBM]

guys,sorry for my ignorance,but I have a question:

why would an airline prefer to return to cardiff rather than land somewhere else close to paris,drop the pax there,pick up the others (transferred by coach from the original airport) and then fly back ?

wouldn`t that make more sense?moneywise as well?

If I were on board I`d prefer to land somewhere close to paris and get there late rather than not getting there at all...or am I totally wrong?
Commercially it's better for the carrier.

Aircraft returns to its base pretty much as expected (in fact early). Aircraft can then depart on next flight as scheduled, with rostered crew. No costs of going to an unfamiliar airport, having to dig out handling agents, getting delayed, messing up the rest of the day's schedules for that aircraft. No costs of coaching pax on to Paris, which they always moan about anyway. Passengers mostly live near origin/have their cars there so can be sent home without incurring additional costs, or can be put on next departure.

[Otto Throttle]

I am loathe to add more to a total non-event, but there is a world of difference between what a pilot is currently certified to be able to do by the relevant CAA and what a pilot is actually able to do.

I'm sure with 30 years experience the pilot in question has been CAT II qualified many times over and will have made numerous approaches in CAT II conditions over the years. It is just his/her bad luck that on the day in question their licence did not have the necessary legal CAT II validation.

For those wondering what if there was an emergency and they had to land in the fog, simple - they would have landed in the fog. Just because the paperwork may not be correct, does not mean a pilot suddenly loses the ability to fly. :rolleyes:

[cheeseman]

Not sure it's at all fair to criticise the announcement. When travelling SLF I get pretty fed up of the 'for operational reasons' brand of announcement. Better to know the reason, and in my experience the news is taken much better if it's felt that the operators are just being honest.

[jetjockey737]

Sky news are saying the the skipper was cat 5 qualified when he needed to be cat 2 qualified... I wish I was cat 5, damn I thought I had reached the top of the low vis ops tree when I became Cat3b qualified....better get studying!! Anyone any idea where I can find the required information as I cant find it anywhere???

Will try and put the link on here but I am technophobe so cant promise anything!!!
'I'm Not Allowed To Land In Fog' - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081218/tuk-i-m-not-allowed-to-land-in-fog-45dbed5.html)

cheers and Merry Christmas all

jj

[Stop Stop Stop]

It probably says more about what is wrong with this world when a simple decision to divert makes National news. The captain was absolutely correct in making a commercial decision for his company. I would have done exactly the same.

Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News? "Mr. Joe Bloggs, 28, who missed his grandmother's funeral stated that there was mild panic at the announcement that the plane would be diverted because of the fog and that he would be seeking damages in the High Court to have his grandmother re-interred on another occasion when he could be sure to attend!" Hypothetical maybe, but you get the drift!

I personally would not have even thought about calling the BBC- I would want to make sure I was on the next flight.

Perhaps the way this world is going that all pilots should not do PA's in case there is something said that is either misconstrued or said wrongly at a high workload time. Perhaps we should have pre-recorded PA's that just say..."owing to poor weather the aircraft is diverting. More information will be given on landing."

Perhaps that would satisfy the lawyers and litigators?

[NigelOnDraft]

As SLF I am a little suprised. I have always assumed that pilots flying hundreds of passengers would be trained and capable of flying/landing in all circumstances. Its a bit like ,say, travelling on a coach and the driver pulling over and saying "I can't drive in fog". A pilot doesn't have the option to pull over. Reading previous posts this event doesn't perturb the insiders and experts....but to a pax like me it does a bit. I realise that this seems to be a case of the paperwork catching up the pilot but it doesn't look good for the company either.
I'm off to the Far East next week, I hope my pilot will be cleared for all possibitiesI suggest you don't go then :=

No pilot is cleared to land in all possibitiesi.e. zero vis. There are 3 limiting factors - aircraft design (and serviceability), airfield equipment (and serviceability) and pilot qualification. The latter can vary due to time on type, last sim details etc. never mind his own licence and experience.

You would be surprised how often you might be flying with a "well known carrier" and into well known airports and the aircraft is carrying a defect, or the airfield is simply not equipped, for weather below CAT1 (~200' / 550m) (or even higher - NPA). The pilot issue here is less common, but not unheard of...

Non event, but as above, maybe we need to employ spin doctors before we make PAs :D

NoD

[Hamish McTuck]

The Capt clearly took the correct course of action, unlike Mr P. Space :=

[flux]

I had a look at the first couple of posts, then lost interest. I don't know about you, but every company I have ever worked for, the skipper needed a set amount of hours in type before you were allowed to do an actual Cat II. Irrespective of legallity. Well done to the Captain! :ok:

[Flap 5]

There are some less knowledgable than others asking questions who are just being flamed. For the benefit of those not in the know an airline pilot qualifies with a full Instrument Rating for the aircraft type. That allows him to fly the aircraft on instruments down to minimums.

However in recent times (last 20 years or so) the aircraft have become capable of landing automatically at airfields with the required facilities. However the licencing of pilots has not changed. Therefore pilots become 'fully qualified' without having the extra training necessary to make autolands.

Contrary to popular belief autolands make the pilots job harder, not easier, in that the pilot needs to know all of the failure scenarios on the approach for a low visibilty approach. The low visibilty procedures are therefore taught in the simulator when the pilot has already been flying the line for a while. Both pilots must be LVP qualified for an approach to be flown using LVP's.

[Pizzaro]

If converting on Q400 at Flybe you need 50 sectors post line check to carry out a Cat II approach and have completed the training.

[eagerbeaver1]

WingoWango - Can I presume that 80' is the minimum use height of the autopilot?

Nigel on draft - Nice post - we must all not forget the effect degredation of the approach/runway lighting has on the minimum rvr requirements - I have nearly been caught twice.

Phantom drriver - I dont get it?

[Hartington]

How much part does the forecast (as opposed to actual) weather obtained before departure play in the decision to fly? On a long haul I can understand that the forecast can change. But in a short haul case like this it's probably fairly accurate. I also accept that it could well have said that the RVR was improving (or expected to improve) which would (in my view) have justified the departure. But if the forecast had been for weather that the crew were not equipped to handle is it legal and/or sensible to depart?

[Grizzle]

Hartington

The rules are quite simple - The commander must satisfy himself etc etc.....

Faily accurate is correct - say plus or minus 50feet or 50m visability.This represents 50% of the permitted cloudbase which is (100 feet) or 16% of the permitted visability (300m) for a CAT 2 approach.

At the planning stage, the weather needs to be forecast to be sufficient from an hour before to an hour after the estimated time of arrival. This must be the case for at least two airports and the requisite fuel must be carried to reach the furthest of the two (including sufficient reserves). One of the two airports may be the destination but not necessarily so. It may also be the departure airfield permitting a return to base. It is permissable to set off for your destination with the weather forecast to be below (and remain below) minima provided sufficient fuel is carried to reach the furthest of the two alternates, where the weather is deemed satisfactory. There is another whole set of rules which dictate (at the planning stage) what is and what is not satisfactory depending on the approach aids available at the alternate. This means that you can set off for a destintion in the knowledge that you might need to hold for a while in the hope of an improvement (which may or not be forecast) before diverting to an alternate with weather above minima/sufficient for landing.

It must also be noted that the requirements for planning (in the crewroom) are one thing but the rules can be changed once airborne. This because a forecast is a forecast and the weather is the weather!

The bottom line is that the crew get paid for making the decisions on a day like this. They likely have wives/husbands and kids at home too. The crew want to get their passengers to their destination but only if it is safe to do so. Days like this often cause disruption but that is life in this industry - it is better than dying.

You must trust the crew to make the right decisions on the day 'weather' or not you like the outcome because it will always be safety first.

[Leezyjet]

Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News?

Those 24 hour news channels have to have somthing to keep the air time filled.

We had a similar situation a few years back at a well known Airline when the ERJ135/145's first came into the fleet. The SAAB 340's were in and out all day, but the ERJ's couldn't go as they were so new, and the crews had not completed the required number of sectors to operate in the conditions. Try explianing that to the angry pax who's route had been upgraded from the "old propeller plane" to the "shiney new jet plane".

:confused:

[Flap 5]

My expertise is on 737, A320 and A330 so I am not familiar with the BQ400. However the general procedure is the same with any aircraft for the LVP's for that particular aircraft.

Clearly in the case of the BQ400 if the autopilot is only authorised for use down to 80ft then that is the minimum for the BQ400. Of course 80ft is substantially lower than the normal ILS minima of 200ft and therefore to legally achieve an 80ft minimum low visibility procedures would have to be used.

[wingbar]

As to the posters original post, there should be no red faces. The Captain acted as per usual in CAT II conditions if both crew aren't qualified, then thats it,it's a no go.

It's open and shut, normal ops, the only embarrassment he has, is people, who know not of what they speak, coming in here and creating it.

WB

[parabellum]

Clearly in the case of the BQ400 if the autopilot is only authorised for use down to 80ft then that is the minimum for the BQ400.


Not necessarily so, I think, Cat2 can be hand flown, Britannia used to do it in the B737-200 but I believe minima was 100 feet. (I may have misunderstood you Flap5?).

[Sciolistes]

Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News?
Maybe this might go some way to explain: Adam Curtis: "The Rise and Fall of the Television Journalist as Hero" BBC, 2007 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7889586355561291332&ei=QxxLSe_ROJLAwgODnamJCw&q=Adam+Curtis)

[Loose rivets]

I was waiting for a flight to get me from HOU to LGW. I'd guessed that the aircraft change was going to make me late.

A couple of hundred people listened expectantly as the Tannoy came live.

"We're sorry for the delay...etc., but at this time we're looking for a replacement crew that know how to fly the plane."

I fell about, mostly because of the faces of my fellow travelers.

[strake]

Seems to me that the pilot did the right thing and the company did the wrong thing.

No matter how much the company might try to portray it as "one of those things", to allow a commercial aircraft to be sent to a destination without a fully qualified crew for all conditions surely has to be questionable and leaves them open to ridicule.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Was once critcised by a pax. for diverting from LHR to MAN because of low ceiling and vis. in fog, he - quote " ... was a private pilot and could land in fog, so what was wrong with me ?... "

As I disembarked at MAN I learned that Graham Hill, the racing driver, had just crashed and killed himself and his passengers, in fog at his own airstrip. I wish I could have told that passenger that news.

Another pax. on the same flight - from New York - asked why I hadn't told them earlier that it was foggy in London, I asked him what he would have done if I had told them - got off ? ( no cellphones or satellite comms.in those days, ATC HF the only link ) his wife sniggered behind her magazine.

Better on freighters.

[Flap 5]

To avoid confusion may I just point out that any minima below the normal ILS minima will involve low visibility procedures, whether they are cat2, 3, 3a or 3b. As already stated LVP's require further training beyond the normal instrument rating training. Therefore a fully rated pilot, fully qualified to fly the aircraft, will still need further training to fly LVP's.

[Capt Pit Bull]

There are any number of reasons why a crew might not be low vis qualified, few of which involve the airline being 'negligent' or 'commercially unwise'. In fact, quite the reverse.

Those that know, know.

As for the rest of you, I recommend smearing yourself in whale blubber and swimming the Channel instead.

pb

[The Trappist]

Re post #67

The guys at the Orval tell me that MCR is the airport code for Melchor De Menco, Guatemala…

Long way to divert from LHR? ;)

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

Seems to me that the pilot did the right thing and the company did the wrong thing


Lets take ourselves out of the front and place ourselves in the back just for a second, shall we?

Pilot unquestionably takes right decision (and in fact would have been rightly sluaghtered by management if he'd done anything else) but chooses wrong words and put the wind up passengers. Bad news sells and one or more of them gets on the blower to Phil Space at the Crapola Gazette.

Phil phones the airline who are faced with a quandry. They can't lie (journos are nasty sorts who always catch you out), so they agree a statement that a) bigs up the Captain's record of 30 years experience b) Says safety wasn't compromised c) Paints a factual picture of his type-rating change. I'm guessing the statement was agreed with top brass within the management and they rightly thought they were doing the correct thing.

What would you have done, strake? Told the journalist that he was making a fuss over nothing and send him away with a flea in his ear? Tell him that there are lots of pilots similarly 'unqualified' flying throughout the industry? Get real.:=

[A. Muse]

As only SLF, but one who frequently travels to small islands with the inevitable weather challenges I can only agree that the guys up front made the correct decision.

As for going to court ...WHY? what does it prove? A small personal financial gain (if successful) a lot of time wasted, and the only real winner is the lawyer.

At this time of year disruption is almost inevitable at some part of my journey, I try to leave enough time in my schedule to get a later flight still make my appointment/ connection, I get to the airport with plenty of time to spare and a good book. Most things can be controlled but not the weather, and forecasting is just that - a forecast - a prediction, not a statement of fact.

Go back to Cardiff? Yes the sensible thing commercially - less disruption to schedules and pax on familiar territiory.

Gents please be careful for the next few weeks, the press are on the lookout for copy..Parliament in recess, the US election is over, child welfare done to exhaustion, pop star divorces a bit quiet....Watch what you say and do......:ok:. In the trade it is known as 'silly season'. Don't be a part of it:ooh:

[NigelOnDraft]

No matter how much the company might try to portray it as "one of those things", to allow a commercial aircraft to be sent to a destination without a fully qualified crew for all conditions surely has to be questionable Errrr have you actually read the thread :ugh: If to be "fully qualified" you have to fly a certain number of sectors / hours on type / in role, how can you become "fully qualified" (whatever that means) whenever you fly for the airline :=

NoD

[davidbrent]

I think that the Captain, made a safe and informed decision.

I perhaps would have asked if it was possible to have a First officer on board who had the relevant qualification, should the situation arise where the weather deteriorated.

However, failing that, given the circumstances, he made the right decision.

But as it has already been mentioned, his announcement was very naive, although honest. He should have told a white-lie, to keep passengers calm and avoid any embarrassment.

[puddle-jumper2]

I wouldn't be so harsh as to say he chose the wrong words, just that there were too many honest and factual words there.

To all passengers.......this is why you hear statements like,

a) Due to operational reasons,

b) Due to a technical problem,

c) Due to adverse weather

Of course it's frustrating when you are not given the full details etc.....most pilots would prefer to be honest and factual.......they just can't. :ugh:

[davidbrent]

absolutely agree.

its a burden of the job, when you have to explain your actions to people, who will more than likely, not understand, or care about your reasons

[NigelOnDraft]

I perhaps would have asked if it was possible to have a First officer on board who had the relevant qualification, should the situation arise where the weather deteriorated.I cannot think of a scenario where a FO qualification makes up for the lack of one on the part of the Captain? In most areas both of the pilots require a qualfication - after all, it is 2 crew Ops. There are certain matters (and LVPs might be one?) where just the Captain needs the qualifcation / recency.

NoD

[Atreyu]

From my own experience (CATIIIb) You do require BOTH crew to be Lo-Vis qualified, infact it is the first statement on our CATII/III briefing aide-memoire.

In this example even if the Captain was CATII certified, if the first officer isn't, how can a safe (or legal?) CATII approach be flown? During a CATIII approach, the F/O is the handling pilot down to DH where the captain (who has been looking for the required visual cues) will make a decision; LAND or GO AROUND, if the decision is LAND the captain will take the controls and monitor the flare and rollout (F/O mointoring too of course:})

If the decision is GO AROUND, the F/O will fly the missed approach procedure.

Our CATII ops are as described, only difference being the DH and RVR, the DH affecting the choice of a CATII Autoland or CATII Manland (DH100 or below a CATII autoland may be flown)

And yes as I'm sure many people are aware, if your A/C has CATIIIb available, a CATII autoland does exist (the aircraft will still annunciate CATIII Autoland, another requirement of performing a CATII Autoland)

Not sure of flybe procedures, but I'd bet money it'll be monitored approach during LVPs, hence required BOTH crew to have completed the Low Vis training.

Atreyu:ok:

[G SXTY]

Seems to me that the pilot did the right thing and the company did the wrong thing.

No matter how much the company might try to portray it as "one of those things", to allow a commercial aircraft to be sent to a destination without a fully qualified crew for all conditions surely has to be questionable and leaves them open to ridicule.


The opinion of someone with a PPL. And an IMC rating. Where can I get one of these qualifications that lets me fly in "all conditions"?

Seems to me that the Professional Pilots (i.e. the only ones who actually understand low-vis operations, and who seem to be a minority here these days) agree that this was a total, complete and utter non-event. The only ones who think it newsworthy are either journalists fishing for a story, litigious businessmen or PPLs who really should know better.

[Cyclone733]

davidbrent,

Both the Captain and First Officer must both be CAT II qualified and current to fly a CAT II approach so unfortunately even if the FO is qualified does nothing to help the situation.

All,
Reading some of the news articles on this subject there are a few strange quotes floating about including this one:
"'They are asking for a level two qualification and I only have a level five. We'll have to fly back.'"

Perhaps a timely reminder that what you say over the PA isn't always what the passengers hear and take away with them. While I wouldn't want to have to read from a script every time I use the PA, perhaps using the KISS approach is the way forward.

I'm trying to work out how this has generated 4 pages of posts, is everyone as bored as I am?

[parabellum]

We definitely misunderstood each other Flaps5! I thought you were saying that a Cat2 approach could not be flown below the auto-pilot disconnect height stipulated by the company/manufacturer, which isn't the case. Well aware of additional training required for LVP, done a lot of it! Cheers.:)

[faheel]

Talk about a storm in a teacup sheesh !

[ExSp33db1rd]

Trappist - post 70

What, or where, is Orval, and should I care ?

So I got it wrong, big deal, were you or your very smart friends in any doubt as to where I diverted to, having first flown from New York ( Kennedy ) to London ( Heathrow )?

And MAN or MCR or LHR or EGCC or MGMM or EGLL or NYC or KJFK wasn't the point anyway - or did that escape you ?

Goodnight.

Later ......... just Googled orval ........

" This site presents the adventures of Orval the pig as he wrestles with the issues of the day in Arkansas and nationwide. Orval Comics is published weekly "

Got it, thanks, my education is enhanced.

[The Trappist]

Re post #83

Dear, oh dear…touchy, touchy… :uhoh:
Not surprising that you also got that wrong… :ugh:
Must have had to go pretty low to find that snippet?
Near the top of the list is: Orval Brewery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasserie_d%27Orval)

To help you in your septuagenarian state:
"Abbaye, célèbre pour sa bière et ses fromages, située dans le sud du Luxembourg. Villers-devant-Orval, Wallonie, Belgique."
Maybe this is easier?
Orval Brewery (Brasserie d'Orval) is a Belgian Trappist brewery located within the walls of the Abbaye Notre-Dame d'Orval monastery in the Gaume region of Belgium. :ok:

[Xorthis]

Not sure of this has already been said, but I live and work near Southampton and can say 100% that on Tuesday morning you'd have needed pilots with x-ray vision to fly in or out of that airport, so the diversion to Cardiff instead really was a no brainer ;) I'm guessing that the people (Or person) who is saying they would have been annoyed at the diversion are the same people driving along the M27 with all their lights off in 0 visibility that day :mad:

Also, as is what happens 99% of the time here, most people have missed the point of the OP... he made a PA that passengers and the press have sensationalised and thus may regret the wording. :8

[PPRuNe Radar]

Seems to me that the Professional Pilots (i.e. the only ones who actually understand low-vis operations, and who seem to be a minority here these days) agree that this was a total, complete and utter non-event. The only ones who think it newsworthy are either journalists fishing for a story, litigious businessmen or PPLs who really should know better.

And that sums it all up very nicely :ok: Perhaps the thread is long overdue for a 'diversion' to the Spectators Balcony forum :rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

May I suggest that you move it to SLF.

The pilots have had their say, maybe the users would have something to add?

[Grizzle]

God forbid the pilots have their say on a professional pilot rumour network!!

It is a disgrace.

I ask the mods to remove all professional pilots from the forum immediately. This will enable well informed individuals, such as Final 3 Greens, to twist and contort niff naff and trivia to their hearts content.

I have no doubt that the 'users' will have plenty of real, solid value to add to the debate.

To be honest, I would be happier if the SLF were to be banned from posting anywhere other than their own forum. Whilst I am absolutely for freedom of speech, professional pilots should be allowed to discuss thier profession without the interpretations of the misguided.

[Flap 5]

Maybe the 'SLF' can view this excellent forum and become wiser such that the next time they experience this problem they will know why it has happened. Furthermore they could then inform other passengers and avoid shock horror stories in the tabloid press. Maybe that is too much to ask as that is how the tabloid press sell newspapers. :*

Maybe sarcasm should be banned Grizzle. :rolleyes:

[Greystoke999]

3 greens : I think that you would not have a case.... because you had your flight and even went to france. The only thing was that you didnt stop!

I think that you need to just look on the bright side...you had a lovely flight in a super aircraft. Probably had a smashing meal and some fine wine with a group of people who have now come to be known as not just your fellow passengers but true friends!! All that and I bet Flybe refunded you the cost of the flight!!

On top of all that I bet you had the ideal excuse to miss that meeting that would of been just as boring as they always are!

If it had happened to me I think I would of just been grateful!! Sorry could resits it - Now I will remove my tongue from my cheek!!

[Sandy Toad]

3 Greens absolutely right sue those naughty airlines. Airlines should only despatch flights they can guarantee will arrive trouble free. Any doubts about, weather, crew capability, in flight entertainment, toilet blockage or shortage of shandy and the flight should be cancelled. Hmm... bit quiet at the airport now....Anyone know what time the Cutty Sark leaves for Australia I have an important meeting in 3 months time.:}

[mickyman]

Final 3 greens

The title is as silly as your contributions to it.

small claims court - my arse !

MM

[AnthonyGA]

So many messages on such a trivial matter! The pilot followed the rules. The airline supported him completely. And if I were a passenger aboard that flight, I'd support him, too. Everything was done correctly and by the book. Where's the problem?

I found interesting the comment that safety was not compromised at any point. Isn't that self-evident? The whole reason for returning was to maintain safety, so OF COURSE safety was not compromised. Landing in unsatisfactory conditions, with an inadequately trained crew—now that would have been compromising safety!

[bubbers44]

I have been a restricted captain with less than 100 hrs in type and could not land below cat1 minimums. I think all airlines have to meet the same requirements so no matter how qualified you are as a captain you still need to meet the min requirements in new equipment.

[Finn47]

While the captain certainly acted correctly in the situation, I don´t think his too detailed PA announcement did his airline any favours in the eyes of the general public as it´s in the news all around the world by now.
Here´s an imaginary conversation probably taking place in the average John and Mary´s kitchen somewhere in the Cardiff area:

"Darling, what was the name of the airline whose captain had been flying for a living for thirty years but didn´t have the qualifications to land the plane?"
"Flybe, dear"
"Yes. Please remind me never to book a flight with them"
"Sure. Now, pass the marmalade"

So, shoot me :p

[Final 3 Greens]

Airlines should only despatch flights they can guarantee will arrive trouble free

Airlines should only despatch flights with a reasonable probability of arriving at destination.

I found interesting the comment that safety was not compromised at any point. Isn't that self-evident?

Not when issuing a media release. Journalists also look for what isn't in a statement, ergo if you don't say safety wasn't compromised, they may assume it was and that really wouldn't be good for the organisation at the heart of the story.

Do you remember the phrase "being economical with the truth?" In other words, not lying, but omitting relevant facts? I would imagine that is used as a case study at journo school.

Where's the problem?

Operationally, there isn't. PR disaster (see Finn 47's post #95) and commercial nightmare. But if you look only though the eyes of a pilot, it was a non event.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Post 84.

Of course, the dreaded booze.

[puddle-jumper2]

Finn47,

Or it could go like............


"Darling, what was the name of the airline whose captain had been flying for a living for thirty years but didn't have the qualifications to land the plane?"
"Flybe, dear"
"Yes. Please remind me never to book a flight with them"
"Nonsense dear, I'd rather fly an airline that follow the regulations than one that doesn't, besides FlyBe has an excellent safety record"
"Sure, now pass the marmalade"

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Out of interest, what was the weather at Orly? Reason I ask is because I've been flying in and out of CDG recently and although its been below CAT I minima in CDG it was CAT I in Orly (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

[68+iou1]

Great safety record! Ops/Training department .........well?
How can an airline dispatch a crew in a European winter that is not cat II/III qualified?

[puddle-jumper2]

68+iou1,

It wasn't Cat II in Paris when he departed and it wasn't forecast to be Cat II either.

If by.... 'European winter' you mean the possibility of any airfield in Europe getting un-forecast fog then I suppose Flybe could keep him on the ground for 6 months until the summer :ugh: but that wouldn't really be productive now would it. Also how is he supposed to acquire the minimum hours on type for Cat II qualification if they keep him on the ground ?

No_Speed_Restriction,

When you are Cat I only and divert you need to find an alternate that has better than Cat I weather.......if Orly was Cat I it was unsuitable as an alternate.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Disagree, once in the air then you dont downgrade your alternate requirement. That only exists at the planning phase before departure.

[SoaringTheSkies]

This is a mildly entertaining thread and even though I usually only read these days, let me say this:

I've had my very own FlyBe (or maybe not) experience the other week, when the total flight time FRA-MAN-FRA was 3:40 and the total delay for the two legs was 9 hours. (six hours FRA-MAN due to dense fog and traffic, three hours on the return two days later due to a cabin door problem and a fuel truck that was lost or so. Not knowing what goes on behind the scenes, none of those seem to be the immediate fault of FlyBe. The lack of sandwiches on the first leg was, though.)

Now here, as much as I would hate sitting in a flying tin can all the way to Paris just to find out the weather is below minima (no matter what they are, it could have been below CAT III just as well) and then sittig on in the same can all the way back home again (probably without any decent catering, since it's FlyBe), it's still better than a) diverting to some stupid place where none of us wanted to be or b) risking an unsafe landing.

Get me home allright, let's try again tomorrow.

Thumbs up for the crew, for their decision to return and for their openness in the PA. Thumbs down for those pax who don't understand aviation (and aviationese) and start bitching about an "unqualified" pilot.

pj

[Chesty Morgan]

68+iou1

So how do you propose we all become CAT2 qualified then? Please bear in mind that I've used CAT2 approaches, for real, in the middle of summer before. If you were our FOD nobody would ever fly!

As an aside the 195 is CAT3 capable. Unfortunately it hasn't yet been approved by the authorities and nobody at Flybe is CAT3 qualified. I suppose if the weather goes below CAT3 then that's another one to sort out in court.

[stue]

But if you look only though the eyes of a pilot, it was a non event.


You are on a Professional Pilots Rumour Network, hence the amount of posts stating how much of a non event this all was. :rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

Stue

The post I was replying to said.... And if I were a passenger aboard that flight, I'd support him, too. Everything was done correctly and by the book. Where's the problem?

Thus I was answering in the fullest sense, not just the piloting sense, which is the view I think most pax would take.

If you look at my previous posts, I have consistently said that the flying decision was the right one.

[puddle-jumper2]

No_Speed_Restriction,

Disagree, once in the air then you dont downgrade your alternate requirement. That only exists at the planning phase before departure.

Exactly, he didn't plan to go and have a look at Orly which means he may not have had the fuel for that.

He planned to return to an airfield that had 'non-precision' weather.

If he had had a go at Orly, not got in because lets face it the fog at CDG was not forecast to be Cat II so could have happened there too, then not had the fuel to re-land at his original 'non-precision weather' airfield - that indeed would have been reckless.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. :rolleyes:

[stue]

I’m not disagreeing with you at all F3G, but like I said, this is being discussed on a Professional Pilots Rumour Network, therefore the majority of people posting will be Professional Pilots stating that a weather diversion is a complete non event and all in a days work.

A passengers take on what was said on the PA though? Now that might be completely different, but I wasn’t there so I don’t know what was said, so I can’t comment.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

As I'm sure you know, CAT 2/3 on 09L/27R normally equates to CAT I on 08R/26L (then again $hit happens and it could have been thicker on both sides). Reckless at attempting an approach at Orly where the weather was more than likely better and a suitable/standard alternate for CDG?.....disagree.

would like to see the Metars/Taf's on the day in question out of interest.

[criss]

Judging by some of the posts, all airlines have dozens of spare a/c and heaps of pilots doing nothing, just waiting to replace some other pilot "in case of". Small wonder so many airlines have difficulties these days...

Everyone proposing that an airline should simply replace the cpt with someone else should bear in mind that the roster is run to schedule, people have leaves, go for sim sessions etc. etc. Maybe you think that dispatch guys have this kind of dialogue daily:

"Joe, there is this flight to CDG, RVR is forecast to be less than 500, but the proposed Captain is only CAT I certified, what do we do?"

"Ah, don't worry Jim, fortunately we have 50 replacament drivers available on standby, and btw. all based in Cardiff!"

"Wow, and 20 of them incidentally right now in the terminal longue, so it will only take 3 minutes to change the crew".

That's just life. I remember an E145 wanting to go to Munich, ready at 15UTC. But Munich was ATM CAT III, while said E145 and its crew weren't. Forecast said CATIII was expected to last until 23UTC, and CFMU imposed a zero-rate to all flights without "cat III" in rmk section, resulting in a CTOT at 2130 for the unlucky Embraer. They just had to sit and wait, calling us from time to time "we're still ready, just opening the door for a moment to disembark a passenger that doesn't want to wait".

[puddle-jumper2]

No_Speed_Restriction,

I said it would have been reckless if he had not planned enough fuel to have a look at Orly. It is also possible he was told by OPS to return to base if he could not get in to CDG.

Why didn't he take enough fuel to have a go at CDG then Orly then return to base ? ..........Don't know. Perhaps that much fuel wasn't an option, perhaps OPS had a play to part.

Like you I wasn't sitting behind the guy when he was making these decisions so am not well placed to criticise.

[captplaystation]

He can't "have a go" if the actual wx is below the minima for himself or his aircraft.
Time spent holding for an improvement once you pass a certain hour on a winter evening is often just time ( &fuel) that could be usefully employed going somewhere more suitable ( & legal) Cut your losses & get out of there is often the best solution (conversely not in the morning perhaps) which appears to be what was done. How many more pages can we dedicate to a total non-event.
BTW totally agree with previous comments regards P.A content, totally advocate the "mushroom treatment" ( keep em in the dark & feed them sh1t) or at any rate something that can't be regurgitated & misconstrued.

[airbusdiva]

I think these days with passengers and the press all too ready to sensationalize anything to do with aviation, we've got to keep our PAs to the absolute minimum and if in doubt say nothing at all. There's too many irresponsible people out there, ready to drop you in it despite your best intentions.


BTW, hats off to the flight deck for doing the right thing :ok:

[wacky]

"Ah, don't worry Jim, fortunately we have 50 replacament drivers available on standby,.....

Knowing Flybe they probably did. :bored:

[bubbers44]

Why would a new captain be embarassed because he was restricted like all others until he had 100 hrs or what ever on new equipment. You are either legal or not. If you have 25,000 hrs it doesn't matter. You still need to meet the new captain requirements in type. I had to deal with that situation once and it is no big deal. If you are illegal, go to alternate. It isn't your fault. Just say the airport is below our landing minimums and go to the alternate.

[dicksorchard]

Everyone is saying that the captain concerned has himself to blame for the media furore simply because he told the truth to his passengers !

so what are we advocating on pprune ?

That pilots should not inform their passengers on what exactly is going on at the time of an incident or so called non event !

The guy told the truth & has been slaughtered for it !
I for one wouldnt want a liar in the cockpit i don't know about you lot ?

As all of us know the media is so into sensationalising any aviation incident at the moment that if a hosty chipped a nail it would become a major event !

I admire the guy he obviously takes safety very seriously & is obviously very honest
Isnt that what being a proffesional pilot is all about ?

[JW411]

Interestingly enough the company that I worked for before I retired was (and still is) sh*t hot on CAT II qualifications. In fact, I was deeply involved in this programme right at the beginning of the operation since I came from an LVP background.

All (and I mean all) pilots whether captains or F/Os came out of the simulator with a CAT II qualification. As soon as base training was over and line training started, almost the first priority was to do three CAT II approaches in the real aeroplane. Until that was accomplished, the CAT II qualification had not been completed.

Needless to say, until the pilot had completed a CAT II qualification he/she was a bit of an embarrassment to crewing, rostering and operations since this placed a limit on where they could be sent or not sent.

The LVP qualification was renewed every six months in the simulator (some companies only do this every twelve months). This was achieved by conducting an LPC every time a crew came to the sim for a renewal rather than an LPC and an OPC every year. This meant that they were never out of currency.

Did this cost more money? Yes, it probably did but then we were in the business of guaranteeing that your package was delivered and on your desk by 1000 LT in the morning and that was important to us and the customer.

After all, who the hell cares if an aeroplane filled with SLF lands in France or Wales?

[68+iou1]

JW411

Sounds like a very professional company. Something all companies should aim for!

[captplaystation]

No they probably didn't. . . . because as has already been stated several times on the thread, the deterioration in the weather was unforecast (and their crystal ball was also U/S that day :} ) :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[mona lot]

"After all, who the hell cares if an aeroplane filled with SLF lands in France or Wales?"

err the paying passengers maybe?

[Airbus Girl]

To anyone who is on here who is a passenger:-

Aircraft and crews are all qualified to fly to Cat 1 limits. This is the standard, and what is required. This allows us to fly down to around 550m visibility (ie. not much) and 200 feet above the airfield, IF the airfield has the highest level of instrument approach (ILS), the aids on the ground are fully functional and the aircraft is fully functional (even minor technical problems can cause it not to be, due to the fact that most aircraft have to have back up systems, and back ups to back ups, unlike when driving your car in fog).
If the airfield only has a VOR or NDB approach then the limits are higher.

Airlines can have aircraft that are Cat 2 or Cat 3 able, and then crews that are trained and current to enable them to fly to 75m and zero feet cloud. We don't even know if Paris was Cat 3. It might have been 74m in which case you still couldn't have landed there.
Or the ILS might have been out of service, in which case aircraft and crews must fly to higher limits.

This is called normal operations.

To add to safety, crews do 3 LVP approaches in the simulator (along with around 8 hours of other training) every 6 months.

If the pilots aren't qualified or current to Cat 3b (75m visibility) then they fly to Cat 1 (550m visibility, or more, depending on the airport).

This doesn't meant they are any less qualified, any less skillful, or any better or worse than any other pilot. It just means they haven't got the currency or qualification to reduce the minima.

Its a bit like saying that it isn't safe to drive a car with an 1100cc engine because there might be a time you need really fast acceleration in order to overtake someone.

To the pilots on here:-

I think I might just lie on PAs from now on!!! I know we are encouraged to be truthful but when we tell the truth passengers just make up their own, more exciting, stories.

Pprune used to be so much better when only pilots knew of this site don't ya think? Real discussions could take place, that were useful.

I've twice diverted in the Canaries, once for technical/ operational reasons and once for weather. On both occasions when we could finally operate the return sector, the number of unbelievable stories the passengers had come up with as the reasons we didn't do xyz was incredible. The best ones were a) we were rubbish pilots because another plane had got in (yeah, earlier and under VERY suspect weather conditions)
and
b) we diverted to Tenerife because we were rubbish pilots and couldn't land on the shorter runway at Lanzarote (yeah, partly right, with some of our hydraulics out and with no way of getting spares to Lanzarote on a Friday (this was on a Thursday), we took the decision to go to TFS - perhaps an "ace" would have gone to ACE and shown his skills off. Or crashed. One or the other....). Perhaps we should have gone to ACE and waited a few days for an aircraft to bring engineers and spares?

I hasten to add that in both cases we informed the passengers of the true reasons.

Is it time to start a separate forum for REAL professional pilots???? Surely this could be moderated by allowing anyone in who has registered and been clarified in the private airline specific forums?

[flyingbug]

PPRuNe used to be so much better when only pilots knew of this site don't ya think? Real discussions could take place, that were useful.



Very true!!

[42psi]

PPRuNe used to be so much better when only pilots knew of this site don't ya think? Real discussions could take place, that were useful.




Might I suggest the problem might have started when the site required registering in order to view.

Perhaps plenty of folks read with interest before that but having had to register just to read then felt tempted to post.

:E

[captplaystation]

Bring on the deregisterment I say. Does that word actually exist ? :confused:

Maybe deregistration ? Extermination ? ah yeah , thats the fella :ok:

[Duck Rogers]

My, is it that time already? We've not had the pilots only thread drift since...................oooh, the last one.

Those wishing to continue the discussion are free to head over to Jet Blast and kick off there (though I'm not sure how the mods there will feel about it).

All those wishing to continue this topic should stay.

Duck

[FL370 Officeboy]

Of course Flybe does not have a whole bunch of Cat 11 qualified captains on airport standby. But I would wager that there were a couple of other Flybe flights departing Man at about the same time of the Cdg flight which had Cat 11 qualified crews, and were scheduled for about the same flight time. I bet that Flybe ops never considered switching crews.

What a ridiculous statement. Are you for real?? So, let's see. Flybe Ops must first of all psychically predict that fog was going to form over Paris (to hell with weather forecasts, let's base all future decisions on Mystic Meg's ramblings in The Sun). Then, according to you they must take a CAT2 crew away from a MAN-CDG and transport them to Cardiff. Oh that should only be around 4 hours...hardly a significant delay with no further knock-ons to the day's operations/crew hours eh? (As to who is now to crew this MAN-CDG we've taken the crew from..well let's bring the CWL-CDG crew to MAN! Genius!!). So, we've got two crews passing each other on the motorway...little wave to each other as they pass in the Birmingham area. The original Cardiff crew fly MAN-CDG and low and behold can't get in to Paris as it's fogged out. The original MAN crew MAY get into CDG (providing it's above cat2 minima of course, which we don't know it was). So, the MAN flight now has to divert and.....well, i can't be bothered going on any more. Have I hinted at the stupidity of your idea enough yet?

[68+iou1]

Wow!
These solutions are getting very complicated!
Why not do what professional outfits do?
Training everyone to Cat II/III standards?

[Chesty Morgan]

69-1

They are trained to CAT 2 standards, how many times has that been mentioned lately(?!), but they must gain experience on type before they are allowed to do CAT 2 approaches for real.

Whether that is a JAA/CAA or airline rule I don't know. But I can tell you it's primary reason is safety.

Now enough of your silly comments, thanks.

[68+iou1]

If that’s the case ....... I APOLIGISE!
I was led to believe otherwise on previous posts on this thread?
Not trying to stir the pot!
In my opinion, all professional operations in Europe should be CAT II/III. (where possible!)

[puddle-jumper2]

68+iou1,

Just out of interest are 100% of the pilots in your airline Cat II qualified 100% of the time ? Even if they change A/C type ?

[Finn47]

Another news item about this has just surfaced today:

Ballycastle man's 'shock' at pilot's flight turn - Ballymoney Today (http://www.ballymoneytimes.co.uk/news/Ballycastle-mans-shock-at-pilots.4819099.jp)

[stue]

In my opinion, all professional operations in Europe should be CAT II/III. (where possible!)

CAT II/III is a type of approach that is defined by set RVR and cloud base minimums, all of which have been stated previously. Are you seriously suggesting we all fly a CAT II/III approach if it is CAVOK through the window?:ugh:

What I think is more relevant, however, is the type of PA to the passengers and how much information you should give them in this type of situation?

[saosilvestre]

hello, I'm a Bae ATP CAptain and the airline where I'm flying is about to received Q200 and Q400 Next Generation. CAn any one tell me if fly Be or other airlines use to fly both as MFF? If yes with or without rules?

[excrab]

Airbus girls post is a good explanation, except that if a crew isn't cat 3b qualified they don't only have the option of cat 1 or greater minima.

Depending on aircraft limitations they could be trained for cat3a (50ft decision height and 200m RVR) or cat 2 (100ft decision height and 300m RVR).

Flybe dash 8 aircraft are cat 2 certified so that is what the crews are trained for. However this is a manual landing after disconnecting the autopilot at 80ft, and as such is a little harder than the task of monitoring an autoland. (before anyone asks, yes I have done both). Because of that there is the requirement for 100 hrs on type for captains before they can fly actual cat 2 landings, to enable them to get the feel for the aircraft before they have to wrestle it to the ground with possibly an 18 knot crosswind whilst potentially being able to see jack sh*t except for a few runway lights in the fog.

Bombardier did offer an option of manual cat 3 on the dash 8 with a head up display, but the figure bandied about was about 1 million dollars per aircraft, and despite what passengers may say on here, for an airline ordering 60 aircraft a saving of 60 million dollars will go a long way towards paying for a few diversions each year when cat 2 isn't good enough.

I would agree that the captain in question probably does deserve his red face, not as has been suggested for not being qualified, or for operating his aircraft in accordance with company SOPs and JAR/Eu Ops requirements, but as has been said, for giving the passengers to much information.

[sharksandwich]

Absolutely.
That is the sole reason this non-event made the news.
Passengers would accept being told the destination airport was "too foggy" to permit landing, and would be happy they were in the hands of a pilot who knew how to fly safely (which of coure they were).
But to tell them he was not "qualified" to land naturally leads to the question "then why not give us a pilot who is qualified?"
Simple psychology.

[Crossunder]

Wow. What a thread! :bored:

1. In hindsight, the CDR should probably not have used that rather unfortunate wording "not qualified" (if that's what he did?). Act like you work for MI5, and share info on a need-to-know basis only. Passengers only needed to know that the WX was below landing minimums that day.

2. I find it interesting that safety is not the main issue in this thread, but rather the lagality of the matter. Why didn't he just opt to land the aircraft? Because of the RULES - not because it would have been unsafe! :=
Passengers who needed to be at a meeting etc. would more readily have accepted the fact that landing the aircraft was illegal, period. "Not qualified" sounds safety related, and just made them upset.

3. I work for a low cost operator, but it would have been totally unthinkable to have some crews fly around in a CAT II/III aircraft without themselves being qualified/current to operate the equipment to it's maximum extent. That diversion probably cost the company more that cramming some LVP training into the crew's semiannual sim training...

[Stop Stop Stop]

...but it would have been totally unthinkable to have some crews fly around in a CAT II/III aircraft without themselves being qualified/current to operate the equipment to it's maximum extent. That diversion probably cost the company more that cramming some LVP training into the crew's semiannual sim training...

Just how many more times does this have to be re-iterated? :ugh:

Many companies require their pilots to have a certain number of hours or sectors or whatever before they are actually qualified to fly these CAT II approaches unsupervised. This is to ensure that they have enough experience on type to safely handle the aircraft when they disconnect the autopilot at 80ft, which is difficult to do in poor weather. It is nothing to do with the level of training- the pilot would have done his CAT II training as part of his TQ course- he merely did not have enough hours to meet the company Operations Manual requirements. Nothing to do with more training- nothing to do with experience- plenty to do with compliance with the operator's AOC.

Why didn't he just opt to land the aircraft? Because of the RULES - not because it would have been unsafe!

Of COURSE that's the reason! What do you think the lawyers would say when he pranged it? "Oh the rules don't matter because he was trying to get his passengers to their meetings!" This guy had plenty of experience (something you clearly don't) and would have breezed it, but he MUST and DID adhere to the company ops manual. Otherwise, why bother having one at all?

If you can't be bothered to read the rest of the replies, or add intelligent debate, then don't post. This question must have been answered about sixty times!

[John R]

We don't know exactly what he said in his PA, but it's safe to assume he didn't convey the complexities of CAT approaches and their restrictions. There's no way he would have been able to because most people wouldn't understand what he's on about.

In general it is worth telling passengers the truth, not least because you'll seriously piss off the intelligent folk if you try to fudge what's really going on. But then there's always those who can't wait to spin the story, giving journalists an excuse to write their fantastically accurate headlines. You can't win.

I first heard about this incident as a joke on Have I Got News For You. I thought there was probably more to do it than "can't land in fog", so I came here to find out what really happened, and this thread answered my question. There is merit in this site!

[BOAC]

Just out of interest are 100% of the pilots in your airline Cat II qualified 100% of the time ? - no, and they even manage to have 2 a/c at the same base, one with the Captain not qualified and the other................................. now THAT takes some planning!

[Finn47]

Now, here´s a REAL non-event which made the news, however!

"Jet lands safely" :hmm: as "breaking news" on Christmas eve...

Jet lands safely after emergency response - Chicago Breaking News (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/jet-lands-safely-after-emergency-response.html)

[Cloud1]

Is this still being discussed? How dull

Page 1 shows many people's agreement in that this was a non-event. Yet we are now on page 7 (8 with mine :)) and still there are some posting the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen

Whilst there are some posters with the facts, which is very refreshing to see, could we all agree to put this one to bed and move on??

[flown-it]

Seems to me there should be a professional pilots PA course. The slf rarely listen and if they do they want the basics. Hot or cold, windy or not, wet or dry. Simple every day language. Enroute? Never use the word turbulence ... a few bumps will do! As to a mechanical...Be creatively vague and don't use airplane-speak. This Captain dug his own grave with his choice of words.

[Dengue_Dude]

Captain did his job. If company rules put him in this position in the first place, then he did the right thing - endex.

Well done. If the rules (company quals) are wrong, change them.

[RenegadeMan]

Wow, what a long long thread!

A commercial airline captain holds a position of responsibility in the community and if making statements regarding the operation of his or her aircraft, must be mindful that almost everything will be scrutinised and subject to a thousand interpretations. This is the business; no different to being a doctor, lawyer, public official or politician except the public has a nervous energy around aviation that can turn what is the simplest of issues into a perceieved "big drama". A previous poster warned that we're in the silly season and journos are desperate to "Phil Space" 'cause they don't have any good stories.

All the discusion around the technicalities of CatII or III and crew capabilities is irrelevant to the main issue around what was communicated to the passengers. In regards to safe ops the Captain did the right thing; followed the rules. 10 out of 10 for good airmanship but 1 out of 10 for the very poor communication and "perception management" that turned this needlessly into a "big drama" which would have cost the business substantially.

(now we all need to go and give our family members more attention and spend less time on forums....they don't give out awards for "best posts and most intelligent use of on-line time"....:rolleyes:)

Rene

[ExSp33db1rd]

The slf rarely listen

Once gave the route to Bahrain when we were going to Teheran. Nobody questioned it.

NEVER correct a mistake, no one listens in the first place. Once as pax heard the F/O give the pax. briefing for an overnight flight over the Date Line, got the time wrong, came back and corrected it and got the day wrong, Capt. came on and apologised and got the destination city wrong ! By this time everybody was listening !

[lexoncd]

Think you may find the regular SLF heard it as they have heard many wrong announcements and simply ignored it.... In the same way that when announcements are made you will see that the frequesnt SLF know when they are being given a load of B**llocks when flights are delayed, cancelled or have a tech problem....

There are many SLF who have been flying for in excess of twenty years or more on a weekly basis if not more frequently. They have experienced aborted take off's, numerous diversions, In flight engine shut downs and more overshoots than they care to remember.

I think you would find the refreshing honesty and the knowledge of most SLF who have had diversions to respect the honest announcment knowing it to be the truth rather than a half harted attempt at a cover story.

Respect to the professionals doing their job.

[ExSp33db1rd]

lexoncd - totally agree, tell the truth, and so long as it isn't your fault (!) the SLF will go along with you. Sadly, Bull**** Baffles Brains - they think - and it isn't only the aviation industry that practice it !

I carried the Mg.Dir. of my last airline, and at the end of the journey thanked the pax. for flying with - my previous airline !!! Fortunately he had a sense of humour, and he was the Co. Rep. presenting the gold watches to the retirees a few years later ! ( not a British airline, you can be sure of that !! I'm sure you can guess who my first airline was from my PPRuNe name, I don't think they even know I've left, except that they have stopped paying me and are about to remove my rebate travel concessions, so I guess they do ! - sorry, shouldn't moan )