What would you do? - pilots risking safety

[DearJet]

Hi,

I'm just curious,what would you do...
I know two set of crew on two different reg. bizjet, who don't care about safety sometimes, and risking the lives of their passengers, and millions of dollars assets.
Last documented event(METAR and CFMU data), landing in CAT II weather with CAT I bizjet happened early this year.
Do we really need these kind of bastards in aviation?? Or is it allowed for some kind of pilots and prohibited for a `different` kind?
Waiting for your comments,ideas..
So,what would you do? Am I the bad guy if CAA and EASA will informed about it one day?

[Globally Challenged]

You need to be a little careful here.

We have landed in what the METARs would report as CATII but before we crossed the FAF, the tower reported RVRs of more than 1000 metres at each point on the runway and we broke cloud with sight of the ALS with 150 feet to go to DA.

So unless you have a recording of what the tower told these guys just before they became illegal then you have no solid grounds for your complaint.

[Sydy]

Have you tried a safety report?

[noneya]

What's your gain? Why do you really care what other people are doing unless you have something to gain?

Just wondering!!!

[His dudeness]

What GC says plus a non commercial operator is allowed to do look & see, no approach ban.

So were they commercial or not?

[silverknapper]

Exactly what country are you referring to dudeness when you say no approach ban for non commercial traffic?

[what next]

Or is it allowed for some kind of pilots and prohibited for a `different` kind?

With current regulation: Yes indeed.

Commercial operators have to follow regulation EU-OPS 1.405, private operators are always allowed to continue to their applicable minimum. METARS and CFMU data that you quote are irrelevant in both cases.

I do not consider myself a daredvil or dangerous pilot, but I must confess that I (Cat I only flying Cat I only aircraft) have flown approaches - and landed safely - in reported Cat II and Cat III conditions. In every case, enough approach lights were clearly visible at our Cat I minimum of 200ft to legally continue the approach. On private flights!

[TheRobe]

I've been through this...the FAA investigations, flight department scandals, the wrong people being fired, depositions, called as an expert witness.

One of the reasons I kind of got out of aviation is a prevailing apathy and incompetence in the FAA...they either don't care, or they are too stupid to look at a flight plan and understand that a Beechjet can't go 2000 NM full of fuel and people with out something being off.

Then when it's brought to the CEOs attention, he doesn't care, he's got his boy in the cockpit and if the plane goes down, so be it. There is some denial here, there is some fraud here, it's a number of things.

But being the guy that has hammered risk mitigation for some time is like screaming in a stadium where everyone has padded logbooks, airlines are culling for pay to fly, buddies, pals, kids.

So it really comes down to making waves. Can you handle the pressure of other other screw up pilots hating you for being a whistleblower. Chances are no one will listen or care, which is more of a statement on humanity at present then the aviation industry.

After a while I just said 'Not in my flight department'. If someone wanted the facts I gave it to them. I tried to lead by example, and even that doesn't work. As in the end, the boss's just do what they want, outside of the rules, that's how they made the bucks, so they don't want to hear how their nephew can't fly an approach, they just want HIM at the controls.

So be it. If the world has delved into apathy, I can atleast say I tried. Up to you. Waive the safety banner, say nothing, or cave like everyone else.

[FlyingStone]

Last documented event(METAR and CFMU data), landing in CAT II weather with CAT I bizjet happened early this year.

Last time I checked METAR was report of average conditions for the last 30 minutes (I stand to be corrected though), so there's no way you can judge whether the crew was legal to continue based on RVR from METAR. I've seen (and I bet I'm not the only one) weather being Cat II for the whole day except for a single 10 minutes where it went up to 550m allowing two aircraft to land safely - while other Cat I traffic didn't depart at all or went straight to alternates.

The only time RVR information is relevant is:
a) on line-up at the moment you commence takeoff
b) when passing 1000ft/OM/equivalent point on approach

Problem is that people drinking beer in a pub are always the smartest. They are the type of guys who always know the reason for accident even before CNN reports that there's been an accident, if the flight was being operated under AOC or was it private flight, flight crew licence status etc. - or in this case, they know what the RVR was at 1000ft or if crew had visual reference at minima or not. The problem (for them) is - nobody takes them seriously.

[Contacttower]

Exactly what country are you referring to dudeness when you say no approach ban for non commercial traffic?

As far as I'm aware the 'approach ban' (requirement to have reported RVR at or above minimums by 1000ft on the approach) applies to all aircraft, private or otherwise in the EU.

[His dudeness]

I thought its applied only in the UK for the time being. At least its the only EUR country in the Jepp / States Rules & Regs with a paragraph about the approach ban....

With EASA OPS that will change.

Thats what the Jepps says (for the UK):

Approach Ban
The requirements for the commencement and continuation of an approach (approach ban) applicable to all EU-OPS AOC operations is given in EU OPS 1.405. The UK CAA has obtained a derogation to allow all UK EU OPS AOC operations to apply the approach ban method outlined in this section.

An aircraft may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued below 1000ft above the aerodrome if the relevant RVR/Visibility for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

If, after passing 1000ft in accordance with above para, the reported RVR/Visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.

The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.

[SylvainCap10]

Hello,

I follow what is above mentionned. The EU-OPS 1.405 describes the commencement and continuation of approach for all commercial operations.

Although some bizjets are under public transport and are thus under EU-OPS regulation, lots of them are under private ops. That means they may continue to their applicable minimums. I might be wrong in this part but the UK CAA Approach ban are similar to what it is described in 1.405 (d).

Sylvain

[Contacttower]

Sorry His dudeness you are right (whatever your national regs say...) I forget sometimes that the all approach ban is a UK thing...

EU-OPS certainly has it though although as discussed that is not relevant to the topic here.

As I understand it EASA Part-NCC (Non comercial complex ops) should cover this point about the approach ban but unless I have missed something that has not been published yet?

*Edit to add just read through the EASA opinion on Part-NCC and yes it does include the 1000ft approach ban...I assume will be in the final legislation.