flyBe GPWS incident (rumour)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know that the Flybe EGPWS incident is not linked to the orbiting on final issue. There are 2 threads running in one. The moderators like this situation and that is why they haven't split them.
Chesty Morgan
Take note of Telstar and the latest report of orbiting on final approach. How many more reports do you want or are you a more superior pilot that does his own thing and no matter what you read you refuse to learn?. You are why CRM was invented.
Saving fuel and time is no excuse to start orbiting on final approach. Do it on a line check and see what happens.
With regards to the flybe incident leaving the flight deck for 20 mins seems a bit long considering the present security situation. It was common place pre 9-11 but not today. I do know one F/O who takes a little longer than normal because he has a problem with constipation but even he would be 15 mins maximum.
Chesty Morgan
Take note of Telstar and the latest report of orbiting on final approach. How many more reports do you want or are you a more superior pilot that does his own thing and no matter what you read you refuse to learn?. You are why CRM was invented.
Saving fuel and time is no excuse to start orbiting on final approach. Do it on a line check and see what happens.
With regards to the flybe incident leaving the flight deck for 20 mins seems a bit long considering the present security situation. It was common place pre 9-11 but not today. I do know one F/O who takes a little longer than normal because he has a problem with constipation but even he would be 15 mins maximum.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Joe le Taxi.
I wasn't referring to individual cases, just expressing my concern that some forumites call proffessional pilots idiots for choosing to visually manouvre their aircraft. In the case of being IMC then "visually" manouvreing (self positioning) below MSA certainly isn't appropriate.
I just hate to see legislation real or imagined precluding proffessional using their proffessional judgement.
I wasn't referring to individual cases, just expressing my concern that some forumites call proffessional pilots idiots for choosing to visually manouvre their aircraft. In the case of being IMC then "visually" manouvreing (self positioning) below MSA certainly isn't appropriate.
I just hate to see legislation real or imagined precluding proffessional using their proffessional judgement.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JCB 1,
My personal opinion is that I would rather delay the passengers boarding for 15 mins rather than getting away on time and then sitting in the cabin for 30 mins eating my meal.
I think if you ask the passengers what they would rather see most would vote for the latter, I know I would.
As for the CAA looking into turn-around times and making sure we get time to eat - I couldn't agree more.
My personal opinion is that I would rather delay the passengers boarding for 15 mins rather than getting away on time and then sitting in the cabin for 30 mins eating my meal.
I think if you ask the passengers what they would rather see most would vote for the latter, I know I would.
As for the CAA looking into turn-around times and making sure we get time to eat - I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
If said FO can't cope, then said FO should be sacked!
Yes, I agree, and from what I’ve heard this is beginning to happen at OPC/LPC
What do you mean by this Snigs, are you suggesting that OPC/LPC's being used to sack people according to a pre-determined plan in your company? Struth! we managed to lose this sort of system years ago. Heaven help the rashers if any of them arrive. Can't seem any staying if this is how it works.
If said FO can't cope, then said FO should be sacked!
Yes, I agree, and from what I’ve heard this is beginning to happen at OPC/LPC
What do you mean by this Snigs, are you suggesting that OPC/LPC's being used to sack people according to a pre-determined plan in your company? Struth! we managed to lose this sort of system years ago. Heaven help the rashers if any of them arrive. Can't seem any staying if this is how it works.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Telstar, thanks for the link. It's interesting to note where they started their orbit - On very short final, pretty much over the threshold AND in full landing config. At that point I would be following the standard missed approach. Allowing the aircraft to descend in the orbit, over banking, flying the orbit in the landing config, ignoring PNF's altitude warnings - Not good for a commercial pilot of any experience let alone a Captain with 8000hrs on type! Had they started the orbit further away and therefore at a greater height, not allowed the aircraft to descend and flown the effing aeroplane that report wouldn't exist.
Hudson
No.
Laughable dear chap. Having never flown with me and having never met me that comment is arrogant in the extreme. Do you have proof?
Funny you should say that. In fact many line checks ago I did. I was congratulated by a then very senior LTC for my actions! I think he mentioned "Good situational awareness, adaptability, good CRM etc.." Shall I go on?
Regarding the reports you love so much. How many reports of orbiting on final are there when it has worked perfectly?
Joe Le Taxi
Just a point of interest. Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are; Under Radar Control, Procedural OR visual.
Hudson
or are you a more superior pilot that does his own thing and no matter what you read
You are why CRM was invented.
Do it on a line check and see what happens
Regarding the reports you love so much. How many reports of orbiting on final are there when it has worked perfectly?
Joe Le Taxi
Just a point of interest. Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are; Under Radar Control, Procedural OR visual.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South London
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was going to stay out of this but ...
Its disgraceful the way people are airing the dirting washing in public about this sensitive topic. Let's wait til the AAIB report is realeased and the facts, details and independent professional opinion can comment on the incident.
L/D ... at no time had anyone else mentioned the sex of either pilot involved. You have now narrowed the F/O down from 180 possibles to about 10 possibles - you may as well have just given the 2 peoples names! Shame on you!
Its disgraceful the way people are airing the dirting washing in public about this sensitive topic. Let's wait til the AAIB report is realeased and the facts, details and independent professional opinion can comment on the incident.
L/D ... at no time had anyone else mentioned the sex of either pilot involved. You have now narrowed the F/O down from 180 possibles to about 10 possibles - you may as well have just given the 2 peoples names! Shame on you!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have to wait for the AAIB? I was planning to wait for the report in the Sun.
As for the meal break issue, for those who have been asking, Flybe do usually build an additional 15 minutes into a turnaround during the day when crew meals are provided, but where the duty day involves sectors over 90 mins (I think), then meals are expected to be taken in flight. Many of the trips into central or southern France on the Q400 fall into that category.
It's far from ideal, especially for the cabin crew on the Q400, and it does mean that effectively the a/c is single pilot and single CC operation for the 30 minutes that 2 seperate breaks would require. The reality is that the CC very rarely ever have a break (and on a full flight to somewhere like PGF, they often don't get the chance even if they wanted to), and the flight deck eat together in the cruise with their workload split as required.
I have to say I have never heard of any FD taking a meal break in the cabin, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be happy to agree to that situation on a short haul flight. That said, I'm equally sure many people would never do any of the dumb things that I have done in my career. There but for the grace of God and all that jazz.......
As for the meal break issue, for those who have been asking, Flybe do usually build an additional 15 minutes into a turnaround during the day when crew meals are provided, but where the duty day involves sectors over 90 mins (I think), then meals are expected to be taken in flight. Many of the trips into central or southern France on the Q400 fall into that category.
It's far from ideal, especially for the cabin crew on the Q400, and it does mean that effectively the a/c is single pilot and single CC operation for the 30 minutes that 2 seperate breaks would require. The reality is that the CC very rarely ever have a break (and on a full flight to somewhere like PGF, they often don't get the chance even if they wanted to), and the flight deck eat together in the cruise with their workload split as required.
I have to say I have never heard of any FD taking a meal break in the cabin, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be happy to agree to that situation on a short haul flight. That said, I'm equally sure many people would never do any of the dumb things that I have done in my career. There but for the grace of God and all that jazz.......
Gender Faculty Specialist
Hudson. Nope!!!! They're the rules and that's why we have windows. I suppose there's something wrong with looking outside to avoid things?
Sink Rate wrote:
Seems I'm not the only one who reads the Ops manual.
Descending below MDA/H or DH is different. Perhaps you are confused.
Sink Rate wrote:
...descent below MSA including manouvring below MSA is perfectly fine when visual (if you want a full description of what that means by day and night then I'll hapily oblige).
Descending below MDA/H or DH is different. Perhaps you are confused.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Hudson. In that case perhaps you should stop commenting on other airlines procedures/Ops manuals.
I think you used to work for Flybe, you seem to have a personal problem with anything and anyone associated with them, so maybe you should have read the Flybe Ops manual when you had the chance.
Would you like to address any of the other points in my post #98? Or have we moved on from orbiting to looking outside?
V2+. Maybe he keeps his eyes closed
I think you used to work for Flybe, you seem to have a personal problem with anything and anyone associated with them, so maybe you should have read the Flybe Ops manual when you had the chance.
Would you like to address any of the other points in my post #98? Or have we moved on from orbiting to looking outside?
V2+. Maybe he keeps his eyes closed
Sorry but I have never seen rules that state I can decend below MSA just because I am visual. Under VFR yes, IFR the rules are crystal clear.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough already ..
AlphaCharlie - Please don't reduce this into a sexist debate, if you actually re-read the thread the Captain has quite clearly (on numerous occasions) been identified as being of male orrientation.
Why should it matter if the FO was male or female? - at the end of the day we are all pilots, we are all human (well most of us!) and we certainly have all make mistakes along the way.
I can only imagine that this incident was distressing enough for both of the pilots concerned, without subjecting them to this character assasination.
Why should it matter if the FO was male or female? - at the end of the day we are all pilots, we are all human (well most of us!) and we certainly have all make mistakes along the way.
I can only imagine that this incident was distressing enough for both of the pilots concerned, without subjecting them to this character assasination.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry student in debt, that's not exactly true either!
They're the rules for remaining VFR, which isn't the same. Sory, I haven't time right now to expand upon that - am late for a train (the only civilised way to travel!).
They're the rules for remaining VFR, which isn't the same. Sory, I haven't time right now to expand upon that - am late for a train (the only civilised way to travel!).
Sorry Sinkrate, it is true and it has nothing to do with VFR. Since I have got the time I've reproduced Rule 29 here
Minimum height
29 Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument
Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level
and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
29 Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument
Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level
and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty Morgan
You wrote
Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are visual.
I think you are taking that statement out of context ie. for the purposes of landing, visual approach etc. but I thought that was obvious.
What you are implying is that you will descend just because you are visual with the ground regardless of altitude or phase of flight.
Like I said the rules are crystal. They are there for YOUR safety.
You wrote
Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are visual.
I think you are taking that statement out of context ie. for the purposes of landing, visual approach etc. but I thought that was obvious.
What you are implying is that you will descend just because you are visual with the ground regardless of altitude or phase of flight.
Like I said the rules are crystal. They are there for YOUR safety.