Kenya Airways operating minima

[chalkhill-blue]

Can anyone help me understand an issue with a Kenya Airways flight departing from London Heathrow last November? I was a passenger on the flight which was cancelled with KQ claiming the weather conditions were below operating minima. However, other airlines seemed to be operating normally. For the record the RVR at the time was being given as 400m in fog. The flight ended up being delayed for 24 hours and I am trying to claim €600 compensation under the current EU regulations. KQ is refuting the claim, saying the circumstances were beyond their control. This is their reply:

"I appreciate that there were some other airlines which were operating in and out of London Heathrow. Each airline is approved by their Civil Aviation Authority to operate to minimum visibility requirements; this approval is also aircraft type specific.

When operating in conditions such as heavy fog, Kenya Airways is guided by the prevailing airport instruction on Low Visibility Procedures and approvals by the Kenyan Civil Aviation Authority. The visibility was so low, that the conditions were below our approved limits."

Surely this is wrong. Kenya Airways crews presumably operate to the same ICAO standards as those of other airlines. Obviously the Boeing 787 can be flown in Cat 3 conditions, so why can't a fully-rated flight crew take off with 400m vis? Or does the airline itself impose lower limits than it's national safety authority?

[kibz2005]

Do you know of any Kenyan operator that has been certified to conduct LVP by the KCAA? Remember, it's the airline's regulator that determines what kind of operations they are allowed to carry out...

[ROKVIATOR]

As you may know ( i think you dont ), the operator is the one who puts the operating minima so, each operator has their own operating minima (obviusly).

For other airplanes or, furthermore, crews it may be allowed to operate in those circunstances but not your case because of as i said, the crew or their manual. The weather it's not their fault, you may have some compensation such as the lodging that day, lunch, etc... But not what you claim.

Hope it helps you!

[cavortingcheetah]

The operator has its own operating minima which appears in the Ops Manual, a compilation that has been agreed upon by the Operator and its relevant CAA.
However, the minima that appears in the ops Manual is unlikely to be lower than any minima stipulated by the relevant CAA and nor will it be lower than any minima specified for a specific airfield by that relevant CAA.
Now consider this if will please.
There you were at Heathrow, all loaded up with passengers and fuel for Nairobi, ready to blast off into the unknown perils of the African sky. Let its suppose that on this specific day Heathrow had an RVR of 400mtrs but was forecast to have a visibility of less than 200mtrs for the period of an hour after your scheduled take off. So without special equipment over and above that of a Cat 1 ILS standard, you can’t return to Heathrow in the event of an engine failure after take off. Instead of being able to Ireland at Heathrow, you need an alternate for departure. Now, let us assume that Gatwick and Stansted are both enjoying a sunny day, so you could theoretically use either one of these as an alternate for departure after a take off from Heathrow. But perhaps KQ doesn’t want the engineering costs involved in landing a sick aircraft as far away from its maintenance base as LHR? Perhaps the weather minima for take off from LHR in KQ’s Ops Manual has to be such that the aircraft could return Heathrow? But if Heathrow were closed to all but Cat 111 operations and your aircraft is equipped with Cat 111 then what could be the problem? We’ll, in continued hypothetical vein and perhaps because of airline economies, suppose KQ hasn’t stumped up for the training and recertification of operating crew to Cat 111 operational standards? So, although Heathrow has a Cat 111 runway and the aircraft has auto land, the crew can’t operate back into Heathrow in the event of a safety requirement to do so. Operational considerations could quite easily prohibit the crew from departing from Heathrow when the aircraft cannot return to that airfield of departure. Thus the crew could have been operating entirely legally or reasonably, or even both ways, in delaying the take off.
Suppose too that while all this has been going on the crew duty clock has been ticking as well. They’re running out of time to complete the flight. Now you might be faced with a situation where the crew would knowingly be departing an airfield and flying into discretion or exceeding duty time. There’s no standby crew in London of course? Airline economics again perhaps?
Thus, although weather conditions might have dramatically improved and Heathrow was now wide open, the crew couldn’t legally depart the field.
That above load of not so theoretical waffle all sounds damningly complicated but it can be the reality in flying. Most things to do with aircraft are acts of God. It’s a miracle many of the crews out there get them to fly anyway. That’s why Airbus is so predicated on automatic flight. I suspect you’re lucky to be alive and should send €600 to the KQ widow’s and orphan’s pension fund at once.

[chalkhill-blue]

Cheetah many thanks for your reply, but your have missed my point which is this.
Why do KQ crews operate to higher minima than those of other airlines using the same equipment at the same airport? Is it because the Kenyan regulatory authority has set higher limits which its pilots are bound to observe? Is it because KQ pilots are not qualified/rated to there same standards as this from other countries? Or is it because although KQ pilots ARE qualified to the same level, the airline itself imposes higher minima? If the answer is the first of these three, then KQ's failure to operate the flight was outside the airline's control, and they should not have to pay compensation. If the answer is either of there latter two possibilities, then the matter was NOT outside its control. Passengers have the right to expect that a major international airline will train its pilots to the highest level possible, so that they can fully use the capabilities of an aircraft like the B787 when flying from a CAT3 airport. Incidentally the crew was not out of hours, and other UK airports had better weather.

And what do you mean by most things to do with aircraft are acts of God? Flying is safe today because the industry has brilliantly learned the lessons of the past, adding to the knowledge base, and constantly improving the hardware and those who use it. Those of us who fly should be proud to be involved with such an industry. The lives of pilots and their passengers do not depend on chance!

[chalkhill-blue]

[QUOTE=ROKVIATOR;9287016]As you may know ( i think you dont ), the operator is the one who puts the operating minima so, each operator has their own operating minima (obviusly).

Actually that's not quite true. The regulators set operating minima depending on a pilot's qualification. I can see what applies to me by looking at the approach plate. Airlines may impose higher minima on their crews, that's up to them. But they cannot set lower minima.

[cavortingcheetah]

Kenya Airways could simply argue that their safety standards are higher than anyone else's. I fear that from the compensation aspect, that's rather a trump card.
It used to be the case that many of the airline's pilots were trained in South Africa. That doesn't seem an entirely satisfactory training ground for European winter flight operations. So perhaps Kenya Airways errs on the side of caution in its Ops Manual? Who knows, that's all idle conjecture. I wish you luck in your claim success.

[ROKVIATOR]

[QUOTE=ROKVIATOR;9287016]As you may know ( i think you dont ), the operator is the one who puts the operating minima so, each operator has their own operating minima (obviusly).

Actually that's not quite true. The regulators set operating minima depending on a pilot's qualification. I can see what applies to me by looking at the approach plate. Airlines may impose higher minima on their crews, that's up to them. But they cannot set lower minima.

Thats why i said after that CREWS, thanks for reading the whole comment

[FlightDetent]

The regulators set operating minima depending on a pilot's qualification. I can see what applies to me by looking at the approach plate. Airlines may impose higher minima on their crews, that's up to them. The above is just not right enough. The AWO approval and priviledges are not too complicated, but not this simple either.

My wildest bet is that on the 787 they may have not been approved for LVTO yet (pending).

[chalkhill-blue]

My wildest bet is that on the 787 they may have not been approved for LVTO yet (pending).

It may be something like this...though they've been operating the 787 for some time now. It could also be something like a currency problem or hours-on-type limitation for that particular crew. Any KQ jockeys out there to enlighten us?

[chalkhill-blue]

[quote=chalkhill-blue;9287629]
Thats why i said after that CREWS, thanks for reading the whole comment

Sorry, no disrespect meant. I just don't understand what the second part of your post means. It reads as nonsense. I accept that English is not your first language.

[ROKVIATOR]

[quote=ROKVIATOR;9287683]

Sorry, no disrespect meant. I just don't understand what the second part of your post means. It reads as nonsense. I accept that English is not your first language.
Its not about being my first language or not its your lack of knowledge in that term what makes the difference. Thanks for your unrespectful comments, so useful :D

[SlatsINOP]

According to EU
"Weather conditions incompatible with the safe operation of the flight. These weather conditions may be forecast to arise at the the airport of departure,the airport of arrival or along the intended flight path of the aircraft."

So if KQ minimums 400m for example,then 300 is not considered safe right? Then in that case they are right not to compensate you.

Kenya Airways does about average 4-6 diversions due to weather per year during the winter season. Those diversions are only to three out of maybe 6-8 destinations that the 787 services.
LVP training and certification costs money. Is it worth the 4-6 diversions? A gamble? some may say so.

I think Kenya Airways looked at cost benefit analysis and did not see the need to have LVP training.

However, for about 4 months now, the syllabus for LVP is complete for the 787 and crews are being trained. The regulator needs all manuals, all crew trained before final certification can be approved. Be assured that next winter the story will be different. Kenya Airways is now LVP trained at 150m RVR/200m Viz.

[Trim Stab]

Chalk hill, can I ask why you chose to fly with KQ, rather than BA who operate the same route? If you chose KQ because it is a few pounds cheaper, you now know why...

BA is one of (if not the most) efficiently run airlines in the world, operating in a clean and transparent regulatory environment where corruption is virtually non-existent. KQ is at the other end of the scale, operating in a badly administered country where corruption, backhanders and nepotism are rampant, all of which drives up costs. Quite obviously, if KQ are able to price slightly below BA, they have to claw this back somewhere. In this case, you have seen that they don't think it economically worthwhile to give their pilots LVP training to operate to northern Europe. I expect they make a lot of other economies such as not having standby crews or aircraft to cover for sick aircrew or tech issues.

The real test of a good airline is not just its safety record, but also how well it is able to cope when things go wrong.

[chalkhill-blue]

SlatsINOP, many thanks for your informative reply which I have only just seen. Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, can you answer these questions:

1) Are the minima for KQ 787 crews WITHOUT LVP training laid down by the regulator (ie the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority), and do they differ from those of other ICAO countries? If so, what are these minima (600m RVR, 400m RVR?), and do you have a link to the regulation itself?

2) Are you saying that once crews have completed LVP training, their take-off minima is RVR 150m/200m viz?

[FlightDetent]

Very basic and most likely correct answer:
1) Yes, 400m.
2) 150 or 125m, depends on the training and approval. Google Appendix to OPS 1.430 (New) for in-depth knowledge.

[SlatsINOP]

Looks like "flightdetent is a Kenya Airways driver.;);)
Anyway, to answer your questions.

1) 400m VIZ/RVR for the other fleets that are not LVP trained.
2) 150m or 125m for 777/787

[de facto]

Slats,

Those figures are standard,nothing particular to Kenya airways.
If vis is 400m or below,LVO must be in force and pilots must be approved/qualified.