Unsafe Air NZ Landing

[Ollie Onion]

'Stressed' pilot made unsafe foggy landing | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/10202445/Stressed-pilot-made-unsafe-foggy-landing)

I can imagine that this debrief would have been interesting. Sounds like you could of considered him 'incapacitated' after the non-response to the previous two SOP calls. Good reminder that 'fit to fly' doesn't just include physical symptoms. I personally was given a bit of a grilling by management when I said I needed a one week mental health break after a few personal issues.

[Derfred]

Once again journalists confuse the issues.

A breach of regulations does not necessarily make the situation "unsafe".

[discus2]

What sort of disciplinary action are they facing if any ?

[Ollie Onion]

Defred,

You don't think proceeding 100' below the minima in IMC is 'unsafe'??

[lilflyboy262...2]

Unless I misread something Defred, I'm pretty sure descending below DH without visual reference is unsafe.

[TBM-Legend]

Why does everything in this day and age have to have a sub-plot? How about personal accountability instead of a bag of excuses??

[Gate_15L]

.... when I said I needed a one week mental health break after a few personal issues. Sometimes the true professionalism and personal accountability lies in knowing when to call time out/sick/fatigued and NOT performing the duty... for which you should be applauded....


pity the bean-counters don't see it that way.... :ugh:

[Derfred]

Did they land long? short? hard? off centreline?

No. Not an unsafe landing.

Breach of regulations, yes.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Unless I misread something Defred, I'm pretty sure descending below DH without visual reference is unsafe.

Depending on the circumstances it may well be considered safer than the alternative.

[framer]

I just read the report and I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say that it was safe. If you don't make the standard calls at 1000ft, or 100 above, or at minima, then something is not right.
I can imagine that being loaded up with stress from medical issues plus the aftershocks plus the check Captain that you've had a bad experience with, could potentially overload you, especially when you're 68 although the report said that age wasn't found to be a factor.

[gregwhitenz]

Framer where did you find the report? I would be interested to read it too

[clack100]

Check captain actually one of the most respected and well liked on the fleet. The errant captain is using him as an excuse.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Oh, the old "nothing bad happened, therefore it is safe" argument. You will go a long way in modern management circles my friend.

This entire industry of ours has been made safer, not only by analysing accidents, but close calls too.

If the pilot was not fit to fly, he or she should have call it in and had the day off. Sadly I can't imagine many airline managers seeing stress as a legitimate reason not to fly, despite the law saying it is.

[underfire]

Full report available at upper left of the screen

Investigation 11-007
Descent below instrument approach minima, Christchurch International Airport, 29 October 2011 (http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2011-007/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=[G]skins/taicAviation/skin_aviation)

[reynoldsno1]

Whatever the circumstances of this incident, we should be thankful that the operator has a robust enough safety culture to place all this in the public domain.

[ECB4]

Non compliance. Yes
Should have called sick. Yes
Unsafe?
Don't know the gentleman but would rather he was upfront than the guys in SanFrancisco on a a clear day....... enough said.

[framer]

And I'd rather live beside a thief than a murderer but that doesn't mean I can't have a normal neighbour.

[Aerozepplin]

Is it a concern that his history of not replying to standard calls took an incident of this nature to be addressed? I would rather know if my captain is incapacitated at 1000ft than 100ft below DA.

[Derfred]

Oh, the old "nothing bad happened, therefore it is safe" argument. You will go a long way in modern management circles my friend.

Ha! Now that made me laugh! :}

This entire industry of ours has been made safer, not only by analysing accidents, but close calls too.

Completely agree. And after a complete analysis of this incident, I'll wager the investigators will not use the word "unsafe" anywhere in the report.

Journalists, however, love the word - in conjures up all the public emotions at the expense of our industry, just to sell more newspapers.

Safety margins are reduced by events or environmental factors hundreds of times per day. That's why we start the day with wide safety margins. Just because a safety margin has been reduced by a particular event doesn't automatically make the flight "unsafe".

[Wally Mk2]

'Derf' yr quite right there everything in aviation is based on safety margins from the lowest IQ level for a pilot to the space shuttle type drivers that lurk in a cockpit:-)
Take NDB App's for Eg. We need to be within 5 De 's of inbound trk to start decent, Christ how many NDB's have been successfully completed way outside of 5 deg's? Zillions, daily for sure.
Pressures are on all of us whilst in the drivers seat, some handle it better than others hence we have these 'margins' in place.
SOP's, margins, excess performance (airframe/engine wise) are all there to protect us all, the only real grey area is the human brain an ever changing CPU, remove the variables there & we here would be all talking about the weather only!:-).


Wmk2

[Gate_15L]

In the words of the investgator's findings....

The captain compromised the safety of the flight by not initiating a missed approach when the aeroplane reached the decision height and the meteorological conditions were not suitable to land.

How far do we have to compromise safety before we call it "unsafe"? When we hit the ground in a heap?

[PENKO]

Is it safe to drive through a red light with your eyes closed?
Of course not!

So how can some suggest it is not unsafe to descend below minimums in IMC? If 100 feet was safe, then why keep the minimums at 200 feet?

Anyway, as others have stated, the check airman and the FO should have taken over much earlier if this guy was really not responding to standard calls.

[50 50]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a decision height the height at which the decision to continue the approach or conduct a missed approach must be made? Not a do not fly below height?
Had the captain made the decision at the decision height with a rate of decent of 600fpm (for an example, I don't fly the big steel) then he would have been below that height by the time he has commenced the missed approach, but also legal.
I'm assuming it was an ILS given the minima, as long as he is within tolerances and decides to conduct a missed approach at the decision height, then the wheels can touch down as he is powering up, and STILL be legal!

Or I may be completely wrong.

[Global Nomad]

Not sure this could be called an example of a good self reporting system.

The check captain correctly failed the student for breaking CAA regulations and the operator was obliged to report this breach to the regulator.

Air NZ is prone to nepotism, perhaps not as prevalent now but you only have to read the TAIC report to see it still alive and well in this case.

[belowMDA]

So I wonder what sort of vis that ATR crew had at minimums then?