Air Pacific Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Vito dei Normanni
Age: 52
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Swamp Heron, you must not recognise my handle bro! "WALU"it's a Fijian fish or Spanish Mackerel in valagi speak.. Why shouldn't I make comment on issues in Fiji? Is it because I'm in Scotland? 
What qualifications would you like to see? Passport, photo, license, birth certificate? Are you certain your not talking to a fourth generation Fiji born with all his family still in Fiji, working and living there? well you are!
What qualifications would you like to see? Passport, photo, license, birth certificate? Are you certain your not talking to a fourth generation Fiji born with all his family still in Fiji, working and living there? well you are!
Yeah tell ATC and the whole world too
that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.
Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.
Ds
I suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.
that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.
Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.
Ds
I suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, here's a view from an ATC and airport ops person.
Let's consider an aircraft in flight. In an ideal world what should happen is that the threat is passed to someone in authority - who, I guess, will depend on how the threat is identified. This info is then passed to the aircraft operator who conducts a threat assessment using as much information as is available and involving any other agency that may be able to offer something to the assessment. Having decided the degree of confidence in the threat (i.e. is it a real threat or a hoax...or something in between) the aircraft operator takes actions already set out in its SOPs (and not just in the aircraft). Communications with others involved are done using discrete channels, such as telephones if available and everyone who has a part to play will be advised of the situation and the actions that they have to take.
On the ground, much the same process is followed but there will often be procedures in place to deplane pax and move the offending aircraft away from infrastructure and other aircraft before it is searched. Again, ideally, you'll hear little direct reference to the situation on open comms channels but if it is necessary to pass info, it will get passed.
On the topic of threat assessment, there are many sources of info that can be used to help assist the assessment. For example, many airport telephone switchboards (if you can ever get through and talk to a real person!) are prepared with a list of questions to ask someone who makes a threat - these are selected to help judge whether the threat and other information that is available are consistent.
How much of this sort of thing is in place at any particular airport or ATC facility will vary of course - for many reasons.
Let's consider an aircraft in flight. In an ideal world what should happen is that the threat is passed to someone in authority - who, I guess, will depend on how the threat is identified. This info is then passed to the aircraft operator who conducts a threat assessment using as much information as is available and involving any other agency that may be able to offer something to the assessment. Having decided the degree of confidence in the threat (i.e. is it a real threat or a hoax...or something in between) the aircraft operator takes actions already set out in its SOPs (and not just in the aircraft). Communications with others involved are done using discrete channels, such as telephones if available and everyone who has a part to play will be advised of the situation and the actions that they have to take.
On the ground, much the same process is followed but there will often be procedures in place to deplane pax and move the offending aircraft away from infrastructure and other aircraft before it is searched. Again, ideally, you'll hear little direct reference to the situation on open comms channels but if it is necessary to pass info, it will get passed.
On the topic of threat assessment, there are many sources of info that can be used to help assist the assessment. For example, many airport telephone switchboards (if you can ever get through and talk to a real person!) are prepared with a list of questions to ask someone who makes a threat - these are selected to help judge whether the threat and other information that is available are consistent.
How much of this sort of thing is in place at any particular airport or ATC facility will vary of course - for many reasons.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A Pacific 'island'
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To squeal or to squelch?
Several points about this incident - and "Spitoon" has addressed much of it.
As we all know, threats of this nature come in all shapes and sizes.
But from the benefit of my now fixed-base lounge chair equipped with 20/20 hindsight, it seems (to me) that the appropriate response for a valid threat would have been for the captain to ensure that Ops had been notified (quite likely Ops had first told him/her of the 'problem' anyway) and that the appropriate authorities (ATC, Fire vehicles, etc) were in the loop. (A phone call from Ops to the tower would've done that.) Then skipper's mission is to get the thing back on the ground and to plan/liaise what happens after landing.
If memory serves, Nadi airport is not well-equipped to disembark large quantities of pax via airstairs, so – short of going directly into the 'escape slide' exercise out on the tarmac somewhere – the only way to quickly disembark would've been through the parking bridges. Presumably other aircraft would NOT be in the vicinity of the jetway, but from MY chair, the available options make it a judgement call. Lots of other factors to consider as well: wx, darkness, etc.
As for telling the passengers about the situation? That's definitely a judgement call. Depends on your comfort level with yourself and how well you think you can express something over the p.a. that is a) truthful, b) comforting - but not going to create chaos, and c) will aid in getting the aircraft empty as quickly as possible after landing. Everyone will have differing opinions on that one.
Lastly, and quite off the original topic (but since Swamp Heron brought it up), although Fiji has had its political problems, Nadi airport was always MY first choice of a diversion airport when I operated the "twin-too-far" in that area.
Ni sa moce
As we all know, threats of this nature come in all shapes and sizes.
But from the benefit of my now fixed-base lounge chair equipped with 20/20 hindsight, it seems (to me) that the appropriate response for a valid threat would have been for the captain to ensure that Ops had been notified (quite likely Ops had first told him/her of the 'problem' anyway) and that the appropriate authorities (ATC, Fire vehicles, etc) were in the loop. (A phone call from Ops to the tower would've done that.) Then skipper's mission is to get the thing back on the ground and to plan/liaise what happens after landing.
If memory serves, Nadi airport is not well-equipped to disembark large quantities of pax via airstairs, so – short of going directly into the 'escape slide' exercise out on the tarmac somewhere – the only way to quickly disembark would've been through the parking bridges. Presumably other aircraft would NOT be in the vicinity of the jetway, but from MY chair, the available options make it a judgement call. Lots of other factors to consider as well: wx, darkness, etc.
As for telling the passengers about the situation? That's definitely a judgement call. Depends on your comfort level with yourself and how well you think you can express something over the p.a. that is a) truthful, b) comforting - but not going to create chaos, and c) will aid in getting the aircraft empty as quickly as possible after landing. Everyone will have differing opinions on that one.
Lastly, and quite off the original topic (but since Swamp Heron brought it up), although Fiji has had its political problems, Nadi airport was always MY first choice of a diversion airport when I operated the "twin-too-far" in that area.
Ni sa moce
NOGBAD: you really are a dope aren't you.
Why would you BROADCAST over VHF or HF to the WHOLE DAMN world you think there is a bomb on board?
The company WILL liase with ATC as required, probably before they even tell us.
And what benefit is there in scaring the living **** outta 400 people needlessly?
They can be told the real reason for the return AFTER landing.
I hope I never fly with your company.
What an idiot.
GROW UP SONNY JIM.
now where's Dean Martin when you need him?
In short. YOU FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY SOP's FOR THIS EXACT THING.
Why would you BROADCAST over VHF or HF to the WHOLE DAMN world you think there is a bomb on board?
The company WILL liase with ATC as required, probably before they even tell us.
And what benefit is there in scaring the living **** outta 400 people needlessly?
They can be told the real reason for the return AFTER landing.
I hope I never fly with your company.
What an idiot.
GROW UP SONNY JIM.
now where's Dean Martin when you need him?
In short. YOU FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY SOP's FOR THIS EXACT THING.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YQL
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a passenger, I'd definitely want to know there was a situation going on, but only in a general sense. Something like, we have an inflight emergency, we're planning to land at ..., prepare for emergency exit if necessary, we'll let you know if the situation changes kind of thing. Of course, after the pilots have the situation well under control.
I would anticipate that all references to potential explosives on the plane would definitely increase the risk of panic on the plane, so it would likely be difficult to present this information in any sort of comforting way. In any event, that information wouldn't have given pax anything they could do that would change the situation - other than praying. I'd be more than happy to know about the potential explosives after we were safely on the ground.
From there the situation is in the hands of the pilots, and their best judgement to bring the aircraft safely home. The comments that direct communication with ATC by the pilots could have potential negative implications seem reasonable for many scenarios. It also seems reasonable that Air Pacific would look at their SOP's regarding the company communicating directly with ATC on a secure line to minimize the risks from open air radio communication in a similar future situation. {Assuming their SOP's don't cover this already.} This would allow them (ATC/Company/Pilots) to make an informed decision regarding bringing the aircraft into the gate or leaving it in a more safe/secure location elsewhere at the airport.
I would anticipate that all references to potential explosives on the plane would definitely increase the risk of panic on the plane, so it would likely be difficult to present this information in any sort of comforting way. In any event, that information wouldn't have given pax anything they could do that would change the situation - other than praying. I'd be more than happy to know about the potential explosives after we were safely on the ground.
From there the situation is in the hands of the pilots, and their best judgement to bring the aircraft safely home. The comments that direct communication with ATC by the pilots could have potential negative implications seem reasonable for many scenarios. It also seems reasonable that Air Pacific would look at their SOP's regarding the company communicating directly with ATC on a secure line to minimize the risks from open air radio communication in a similar future situation. {Assuming their SOP's don't cover this already.} This would allow them (ATC/Company/Pilots) to make an informed decision regarding bringing the aircraft into the gate or leaving it in a more safe/secure location elsewhere at the airport.
Wrong wrong and wrong AGAIN
We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible.
What are you going to do anyway? riot perhaps? hold the cabin crew hostage until we do something you want?
Get a life buddy.
WE WILL MAKE THE CHOICES BASED ON THE FACTS WE ARE GIVEN, YOU ARE ALONG FOR THE RIDE I'M AFRAID TO SAY.
IT's CALLED TRUST, FAIR ENOUGH?
We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible.
What are you going to do anyway? riot perhaps? hold the cabin crew hostage until we do something you want?
Get a life buddy.
WE WILL MAKE THE CHOICES BASED ON THE FACTS WE ARE GIVEN, YOU ARE ALONG FOR THE RIDE I'M AFRAID TO SAY.
IT's CALLED TRUST, FAIR ENOUGH?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this post 9/11 era we've seen shoe bombs, biological attacks through the mail, explosives in toothpaste, impregnable f/d doors, and god knows what else. For one reason or another and not with any deliberate intent on my part I seem to have been involved in the development of a number of the onboard security projects we've all seen to guard against those threats. The experience included working with security and governmental agencies I never even knew existed beforehand. It was quite an eye opener.
My sense of things from the above discussions is that there's a lot of confusion out there about how to handle threats. I guess that also implies there's a lack of information in your QRH's about how to handle threats, or if there is, the procedures and guidance vary widely between carriers. It shouldn't!
I'd suggest you get your security, flt ops, in flight and airports people to get together and speak with some of those government security and health folks re todays threats and the strategies to deal with them. At the very least you need coordinated procedures in flight and some definitive guidance in your manuals for your crews.
My sense of things from the above discussions is that there's a lot of confusion out there about how to handle threats. I guess that also implies there's a lack of information in your QRH's about how to handle threats, or if there is, the procedures and guidance vary widely between carriers. It shouldn't!
I'd suggest you get your security, flt ops, in flight and airports people to get together and speak with some of those government security and health folks re todays threats and the strategies to deal with them. At the very least you need coordinated procedures in flight and some definitive guidance in your manuals for your crews.
Correct
p.s. If you see something you think we should know then by all means SPEAK UP.
And please keep your seatbelt fastened at all times and don't walk around when the signs are on.
Now we are all on the same page
p.s. If you see something you think we should know then by all means SPEAK UP.
And please keep your seatbelt fastened at all times and don't walk around when the signs are on.
Now we are all on the same page
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an expert by any stretch, like I said my experiences were quite the eye opener, and I'm not comfortable divulging particulars on an open forum.
I will say that if a positive threat identification has been made then your company security folks should already have an explosive ordinance disposal expert available for you to communicate with. There might even be one on board so a PA for an 'EOD' expert might be appropriate. If you're SOL on both counts or an F/A discovers an unattended brown bag/suitcase or some powder where there shouldn't be any, then you've got some risk analysis to do. That's why you need the coordinated crew procedures and preplanned strategies in place beforehand. At the very least you should be aware of the least risk bomb location (LRBL) on your aircraft because unlikely as it seems, you might want to move it (the bomb). You might also give some consideration to aircraft systems and the flight profile and how they can be used to lessen the threat. There are some strategies there. This is especially true if it's a biological threat. Here again you need some well thought out QRH procedures in place beforehand. It's not difficult once you know the threats that are out there.
To address a question argued on this forum - at the gate, on the ramp, or in flight - you need to advise ATC. Again, I won't go into particulars but there are contingencies and concerns that they have and that you'll need to be aware of or avail youself of. In our risk analysis and consultations there was no question about doing so.
I will say that if a positive threat identification has been made then your company security folks should already have an explosive ordinance disposal expert available for you to communicate with. There might even be one on board so a PA for an 'EOD' expert might be appropriate. If you're SOL on both counts or an F/A discovers an unattended brown bag/suitcase or some powder where there shouldn't be any, then you've got some risk analysis to do. That's why you need the coordinated crew procedures and preplanned strategies in place beforehand. At the very least you should be aware of the least risk bomb location (LRBL) on your aircraft because unlikely as it seems, you might want to move it (the bomb). You might also give some consideration to aircraft systems and the flight profile and how they can be used to lessen the threat. There are some strategies there. This is especially true if it's a biological threat. Here again you need some well thought out QRH procedures in place beforehand. It's not difficult once you know the threats that are out there.
To address a question argued on this forum - at the gate, on the ramp, or in flight - you need to advise ATC. Again, I won't go into particulars but there are contingencies and concerns that they have and that you'll need to be aware of or avail youself of. In our risk analysis and consultations there was no question about doing so.
Last edited by nnc0; 23rd Apr 2008 at 13:51.
Can't say you are wrong in THOSE circumstances.
But they were different on the Air Pacific jet.
SO DIFFERENT RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE CREW.
**** it's not rocket science folks.
But they were different on the Air Pacific jet.
SO DIFFERENT RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE CREW.
**** it's not rocket science folks.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does no Airline have "Rainbow" Exercises any more?There should be a Company SOP for exactly this occurence!As someone previously stated in this thread,when my old Company practised this,we would inform ATC on landing,if nothing else had happened,and hopefully be informed of where to park the A/C,e.g.Northside at Stansted,and await the Team on the Ground.
Thanks, but do you get the point or not?
FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY PROVIDED SOP's IN THE QRH and get on with it.
That's if you have 1/ a company and 2/ sop's in the QRH
Which if you operate a Boeing, you most certainly WILL HAVE.
It's not hard mate.
FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY PROVIDED SOP's IN THE QRH and get on with it.
That's if you have 1/ a company and 2/ sop's in the QRH
Which if you operate a Boeing, you most certainly WILL HAVE.
It's not hard mate.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call by the captain, he got the cab and its pax on the ground and off the aircract as soon as possible.
Just perhaps he had enough experience to know what would have happend if he had "explained" to the local ATC.
Judgement call.
Just perhaps he had enough experience to know what would have happend if he had "explained" to the local ATC.
Judgement call.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nomad
Age: 43
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not sure I would tell ATC fiji either.
Hi CI300.
Apart from AP, one just have to look at the Air New Zealand and Virgin Blue pax load into Nadi in order to work out how much trust this operators/paxs have on both the govt of the day and airport authorities to do what is expected of them. Politics aside, ATC and airport personals are proffessionals and are expected to perform as such. As for what happend to the Air Pac flight, your guess is only as good as mine...just speculations...we weren't there.
The infrastructure in Nadi is still much better than some of the places I've operated into......Nadi is still one of the best alternate choices for most operators flying in this part of the Pacific.....just ask some of our fellow pilots. Its not first class but its not as bad as what you may have unintentionally potrayed.
Regards,
P.
Apart from AP, one just have to look at the Air New Zealand and Virgin Blue pax load into Nadi in order to work out how much trust this operators/paxs have on both the govt of the day and airport authorities to do what is expected of them. Politics aside, ATC and airport personals are proffessionals and are expected to perform as such. As for what happend to the Air Pac flight, your guess is only as good as mine...just speculations...we weren't there.
The infrastructure in Nadi is still much better than some of the places I've operated into......Nadi is still one of the best alternate choices for most operators flying in this part of the Pacific.....just ask some of our fellow pilots. Its not first class but its not as bad as what you may have unintentionally potrayed.
Regards,
P.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: auckland, new zealand
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMs
You've clearly been around a bit, and "got your knees brown"
You make a big call, though,when you declare "We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible"
You may do that, but any number of captains do not treat their punters as dickheads: rather, they tell them the truth (I don't mean baffling them with bull****, but certainly going a bit beyond "we have a minor technical problem")
You've clearly been around a bit, and "got your knees brown"
You make a big call, though,when you declare "We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible"
You may do that, but any number of captains do not treat their punters as dickheads: rather, they tell them the truth (I don't mean baffling them with bull****, but certainly going a bit beyond "we have a minor technical problem")
I follow the proceedures laid down in the Boeing 777 QRH by Cathay Pacific Airway ltd. AS per our AOC.
It even has PA's to use and say.
I don't have to MAKE stuff up.
cheery pop, read your 777 QRH too
It even has PA's to use and say.
I don't have to MAKE stuff up.
cheery pop, read your 777 QRH too
