Eagle Gear up Emergency Landing in WB

[muttly's pigeon]

Geez next someone will write an article about how WB has bad feng shway and should have gone somewhere with a runway direction of 33/15

Prehaps the route guide could be ammended to list what cities have what surgeons on at what time but PLEASE...... I wont disagree that WN hospital would be better equipped than BHE but its not the ONLY factor involved and to say Blenheim was "the wrong call" ........

Full credit to the boys who put it down

Also liked the comments from one of the pax that was interviewed along the lines of "oh yea we were a little nervous but what could you do? No, nobody one was screaming - this isint the states"

[TinDriver]

This chap Guy Gardiner is a misinformed crettin. If the WB incident was similar to the Sioux City DC10 event, then well, yes, divert to a place where there is ample facilities to cope with the expected casulaties. Stick to taking patients temperatures with ur rectal thermometer Dr GG.

[pakeha-boy]

YEAH BOYZ....best not get upset over this one....there,s always a jurno(s) trying to make a name for themselves and selling science fiction to make a $$$$$......scare the ****e out of the public,thats what these jokers do...why ruin a good,accurate story with the facts

Intesting subject on the diversion though....would like to know links policy on that....
For us,to divert, the decision must be made between the dispather and the Captain ,and they must concur.......this does not in any way take away the Capts authority,which is final.....but based on all the factors,it must be discussed and agreeded upon......diverting without consultation will get you some time at your favourite beach ...unless you have no choice.....hence the example given in the previous thread.....

Sir pratt.....once again mate...great photos mate....makes this thread easy to comment....the pictures dont lie..PB

[Cloud Cutter]

What a load of ****e, how about doing the best you can to keep the risk of injury very low, rather than worrying unduely about the very unlikely event that it all goes horribly wrong.

Considering the layout of both airfields, it would be far safer to attempt any sort of abnormal landing at WB, than run the risk of sliding into one of the many obsticles, or ending up in the drink at WN. This doctor needs to stick to over-prescribing antibiotics, and leave the flying to the proffesionals.

[turbolager]

yes but Pakeha Boy the FAA and NZCAA have rather different opinions on qualification or total lack thereof for flight despatchers. I suspect you enjoy a higher level of service from ops control than the old country

[Cypher]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Regarding the article, "Diverting stricken plane wrong - doctors" by Ian Steward and Dan Hutchinson - The Press, I believe that the doctors involved have no basis nor understanding on any of the factors nor reasons for choosing to divert to Blenhiem instead of landing the aircraft in Wellington.

I am a pilot of a similar type of aircraft to the one involved, however I do not work for Air New Zealand nor Eagle Air.

Blenhiem was chosen in regards to several factors. The Air Traffic level at Blenhiem is much less than Wellington. Why risk putting further lives at risk with placing a aircraft in trouble into an already heavily congested area of airspace?
Wellington's runway is also bounded on both ends with the harbour. A undershoot or overshoot into the water would have a much bigger risk if the decision was taken to land at Wellignton. The outcome would have been unacceptable.

Blenhiem was the logical choice. Emergency helicopters and aircraft would have been on hand in Wellington to fly the injured to Wellington Hospital. This is less than a 30 minute flight.

Doctor Guy Gardiner has no experience in aeronautical decision making and this shows in his comments. He has no appreciation in the other factors involved in the landing of a damaged aircraft nor any appreication in the judgement used by the pilots in avoiding an accident and the use of his medical services in the first place.

Dr Gardiner's comments made my blood boil. A letter to the editor is in order I think.

He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions.

[27/09]

Cypher

Good idea on the letter.

One point do you mean emergency helicopters and aircraft would have been on hand in Wellington or do you mean Blenheim?

[Cypher]

I did mean Wellington, LifeFlight and Westpac have bases there and are on 24 hrs standby. If needed, they could have airlifted medical staff and supplies to Blenhiem on the way out.
They would have done a triage on the patients first if there was a big incident, sorting out the worst off to the best, treating accordingly. Then the aircraft could have flown them out to Wellington or Nelson as needed.
I also suspect that Base Woodbourne would also have good medical facilities, being a major RNZAF base..

[27/09]

Cypher,

Now I understand your reasoning. I might suggest your letter, if you send it, may need rewording, adding in your explanation from your second post.

I too wondered about the medical capabilities at Woodbourne.

[Kiwiconehead]

I also suspect that Base Woodbourne would also have good medical facilities, being a major RNZAF base..

Essentially the same facilities you would find at your local medical center - one or 2 GPs (medical officers) and some medics.

[lowerlobe]

Quote... "You rely on a lawyer for sound judgement when he/she advises you on legal matters.

You rely on an accountant for sound judgement when he/she advises you on financial matters.

You rely on a doctor for sound judgement when he/she advises you on medical matters.

You rely on an an pilot for sound judgement when he/she flies you.

The good doctor should stick with his area of expertise and not criticise the actions of a professional in an area he knows nothing about" ........


Are you guys not doing exactly what you are accusing the doctor of?

[haughtney1]

Are you guys not doing exactly what you are accusing the doctor of?

Eh?????

Lower Lobe....try reading the whole thread, and the story attached as a link

The Doctor is quite rightly getting both barrels on the basis that he questioned the decision to divert into Woodbourne...the article states that he feels it was the wrong decision.
What part of this is difficult to understand?

[lowerlobe]

haughtey1....

My point is that those posting here are upset at the thought of someone who is not a pilot telling or suggesting that the aircraft should of diverted to wellington instead of Blenheim.

Quote "He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

The important part of the quote is..."the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

His comments are made from a medical perspective and yours from a pilots perspective.

Are you telling us that pilots know more about medical procedures and capabilities at Blenheim medical facilities than the doctor does?

He was not telling you how to fly but made a comment on medical capabilities.

What part of talking about medical emergencies from a doctors point of view don't you understand.

Would it be the pilots at Blenheim trying to operate and save lives or the doctors at the hospital?

[Tarq57]

(from the stuff article) Gardiner said Blenheim was "the wrong call"

Quite possible this reported comment is missing context. Highly likely, even. (Would reporters do such a thing?)

However, the way it is reported certainly indicates the good doctor is placing himself in the executive-decision making seat, which he is only qualified to do from the medical perspective.

[lowerlobe]

Markjoy....Exactly so.

The press have never been known to embellish or put a slant on a story....

Having said that,from a pilots point of view would you divert to another field if requested by medical authorities because of a lack of facilities or would continue and land regardless?

[kiwiblue]

hmmm... a bit of a Devils Advocate eh lowerlobe???

I agree with the sentiments here with regards the Dr's broadside through the media. The simple fact is, in this case, the 'better medical facilities' in NZWN were not required, as should be the case in a properly managed event like a fairly straight-forward wheels-up landing. I don't see a problem there at all. The decision was taken presumably after consultation between the tech crew and their ops department, that in that circumstance NZWB was the best option. I agree, for what it's worth. Were there complicating factors like the wheels-up landing being necessitated by airframe damage, on-board emergency (other than the wheels-up) or major systemic failure (again, other than the wheels-up) I'm confident the people involved would again have made the correct decision, with pax safety as a primary consideration and the availability of medical resources as anticipated a priority.

A few factors perhaps in favour of NZWB:

• An 'easy' approach path in an area renowned for benign wx conditions -don't know what conditions were on the day though.
• Disruption due a disabled aircraft on the runway: minimal
• Ongoing operation at the airport: Available -Air2There and SoundsAir both reported in the media continuing into NZWB without disruption. That both operate C208 may have helped!
• Proximity to appropriate engineering facilities
• Proximity to facilities which enabled the pax to continue their disrupted travel: Again, Air2There and SoundsAir, along with other options.
• Proximity to anticipated necessary medical facilities: appropriate to the circumstances.

Now to the NZWN option which you seem to endorse:

• An airport renowned (with good reason) for turbulence and in-flight upsets on approach -again, I don't know the conditions on the day. You need look no further than YouTube to see what can happen.
• A single runway. The airport would have been closed until the aircraft was cleared at least, possibly longer if TAIC for example needed to conclude a scene examination.
• Major disruption to Domestic, International and feeder flights, inconveniencing potentially thousands of travellers.
• NZWN is a 'hub' airport on the main trunk. The entire national air transport network would have suffered at least some disruption as a consequence.

The good Dr in question has taken it upon himself to fire a broadside at the professionalism of the flight-crew and others solely to make political capital for himself. To see that as anything more or less is giving the guy far more credit than he's due. As others have said, he should stick to what he knows.

I agree Cypher, a letter to the Editor is well indicated -but please, check your syntax and spelling before posting it -otherwise we all look like d!ckheads!!! Professionalism, appreciation and exorbitant might help your case. Keep in mind that professionalism extends beyond your actions in the cockpit too...

[kiwiblue]

Originally Posted by lowerlobe

Having said that,from a pilots point of view would you divert to another field if requested by medical authorities because of a lack of facilities or would continue and land regardless?

Far too simplistic lowerlobe. Given the option, I'm sure every one of us would put our aircraft wherever medical facilities are best in an emergency -were that the only deciding factor. Unfortunately that is almost never the case; often we will never have the option of making a decision where that factor even comes into consideration. We simply have to accept the circumstance we find ourself in and manage the events to the best of our ability. In other than extraordinary circumstances, I can't imagine the medical profession even having input into the disposition of an aircraft involved in a declared emergency.

[Speeds high]

Surely the airfiled was selected so that Medical facililites would not be required. Sheesh.

[flyby_kiwi]

Lobe, as the previous posters have said the doctor in the article refers to the diversion being the wrong call. Had the wording been along the lines of "In his opinion" things may be different.

As one poster stated has the said doctor seen how close suburbia is to the fencline at WN or what lies of the end of either threshold???? One could also argue that putting down in WN would block the runway for the lifeflight metro preventing it getting in/out on any other op.
Flyby has spent too many sectors debating with T/C's the merits of diversions to A over B to end the list here.
Myself and im sure all the other boys/girls in this game for a living give WB the thumbs up

In anycase im sure what was quoted was at the least out of context and more likley a summary of what the jurno had interpreted.

[phillipas]

Interesting discussion, and the pilots seems to be not too impressed with the Doc's opinion.

To quote from the article:

Originally Posted by stuff.co.nz

Eagle Air, the company that operated the plane, said Blenheim was chosen as it was less busy than Wellington.

All other things being equal, fair enough. That said, had the other Wellington traffic divereted to, er, Blenheim (and other places) things wouldn't have been so busy in WLG.

Originally Posted by stuff.co.nz

Eagle Air general manager Doug Roberts defended the decision yesterday, saying the pilot had made his choice because there were Eagle engineers on the ground at Blenheim who could advise him on fixing the problem.
Wellington's airspace was "congested" and quieter Blenheim gave an uninterrupted opportunity to work on the problem.

Again - fair enough, all other things being equal.

And then we get:

Originally Posted by stuff.co.nz

The risk with a wheels-up landing was at the lower end of the scale and "medical facilities were lower down in the priorities", he said.

As it says, an admission that medical facilities in the event of it all going pear-shaped was less of a priority than having appropriate MX facilities in the vicinity.

As SLF I would hope that you guys up front, when selecting a site for an emergancy landing, would generally place the vicinity of doctors to fix me up somewhat higher on the list than engineers to fix the plane up.

Clearly there are other issues to consider (I can accept the weather at WLG, the issue of Wellington Harbour, houses nearby, etc) but these are not the issue the airlne is pushing (and there is always the 'how accurate is the journalism' angle to think about). I'm NOT categorically stating that the decision to land in Blenheim was the wrong one, but it's concerning as to what is being identified as the priorities.