BA hero wants to quit

[Arrowhead]

So he's been grounded pending the crash investigation - this is standard procedure for many airlines

So he's lost his flying pay while he's not flying - this is standard for any pilot (and many instructors)

His desire to leave BA may be BS. But it sounds he is not being defended by the airline, and that he feels he should not be on lower pay while grounded.

My sypathies go out to the crew who are stuck in a world where the lawyers are keeping them (and BA) gagged pending the end of the investigation/legal debates, meanwhile the press have freedom to speculate (in some cases totally recklessly). Your turn will come later boys - if BA doesnt want to spend money keeping its pilots' reputation brightly polished, then lets hope BALPA can. Otherwise, the pilots should keep a record of every piece of BS that makes the press and get some damn good lawyers once this is finished.

Glad to hear that the crew appear to be getting more than their basic "on ground" pay.

[G--SPOT]

They have not been on the ground since the accident. In fact I am flying to the same place as the SFO involved tonight, and i know for a fact that he has been flying again for the last couple of months.

The Capt has been back flying but not sure what he's doing now.

[amos2]

After 144 posts nobody seems to know whether the skipper is back flying or not!? Surely someone knows! Is he or isn't he?

[Sallyann1234]

After 144 posts nobody seems to know whether the skipper is back flying or not!? Surely someone knows! Is he or isn't he?

That's a private matter between him and his employer.
Why should YOU be told?

[brakedwell]

Well said Sallyann. The Anoraks should stick to Plane Spotting.

[Pontiuspilot]

Very well put Sally. It also begs the question as to how Mr M. Mouse knows

for a fact that the flaps were moved from their landing position after the problem occurred.

I suppose this includes the period after landing, when things may have been moved due to impact or investigation, however how he can know for a fact is, I suggest, a mystery.

Ref the article, some might wonder why, if the said article was a "puff job" (whatever that is) why the Captain has not demanded an apology from the paper, or sued them, or at least written a letter of disclaimer.
More and more interesting.

[amos2]

I think you need some help with the English language, brakedwell!

[M.Mouse]

Pontiuspilot, leaving aside your obvious sarcasm it is really irrelevant whether anybody chooses to believe anything I say.

If anybody is really interested then trawl through my posts relating to BAW38 once the AAIB publish and see if anything I have said is factually incorrect.

[Knumb Knuts]

Jack Knife

Irrespective of the reason for this accident, and irrespective of his flying status, this guy should be on full pay. I'll bet my Knumb Knuts that the hi-flyers running that show whose backsides are bolted to the ground don't lose a penny in their over-inflated pakages IF they are held out of their useless duty for any reason.
What was it I heard? That joker Willy ******, who runs that outfit said he takes responsibility for the T5 fiasco, then fired the two managers who had over twenty years in the company. I'll bet they got a handy little package - now living in Surrey mansions.

[brakedwell]

I think you need some help with the English language, brakedwell!

OK amos2 - then correct me.

[Starbear]

Flaps

M. Mouse:

It is a fact that the flaps were moved from their landing position to a lower setting. If you choose not to believe it then wait for the AAIB report.

I assume and hope this was not directed at me as my query was absolutely genuine and I certainly had no inclination to disbelieve the statement. This topic/thread is so large that like many I dip into and out of it and it simply struck me that whilst this flap movement was being openly discussed I could not recall actually reading anything to say it had actually happened. I am perfectly prepared to accept your word and can quite easily believe that you are in a position to know. But you have also set my mind at rest in confirming that I hadn't read any official reference to it.

Separately, I notice with much dismay the daily Telegraph (UK used to be repected daily newspaper) makes the statement that "fuel freezing caused the crash". Nowhere in the latest Special bulletin from the AAIB to which they refer, do the investigators make this assumption or claim. They simply say that their continued focus is along these lines (pardon pun) mainly in the abscence of any other hard faults.

It is very disappointing that papers like the torygraph and many others get away with outrageous statements as fact by the little get out of placing the fact in quotation marks. Are their journalists really incapable of reading and digesting even such a short bulletin and then reporting accurately. Suppose it's more dramatic than "Investigators still have no answer to crash"

[Storminnorm]

"Puff job"

Pontiouspilot. A " puff job " means Huffing and Puffing surely?
Not that it is particularly important.

[Willie Wash]

BA Hero

Looks like Cpt Burkhill is still a Hero, nothing in the report point his way. BA don't deserve such a fine Pilot. I hope VS does step in and snap him up.And if you lot think for one second the frontpage was a 'puff' job then you are in cloud cuckoo or so far up the BA PR machines back[assage that you can't see the sun!It is widely known that Cpt Burkhill feels betrayed by an airline he nearly lost his life working for, the 'third' person viewpoint of the article simply avoids BA's internal policy of allowing staff to speak to the media. The BA GAGGING clause...... probably illegal anyway and it has never been enforced.Despite all the speculations, whether he did whether he didn't, one thing is certain, most staff currently feel betrayed by BA. When the profit share doesn't arrive this week and the redundancies begin in the near future, all those BA PR lot will be the first out the door. A deafening silence will befall PPRUNE as their contracts are severed!

[bugg smasher]

Although it has been expressed on this thread several times, I think some things bear repeating here.

Given the very last-minute nature of the emergency, I think Capt Burkhill and his first officer acted as all of us would have done in a similar situation, there but for the Grace of God go I and all of my miserable ilk.

Recent aviation history is replete with examples of pilots suddenly faced with situations that they not only did not train for, but could never have; scenarios of unforeseen, technically-induced, digitally generated chaos that somehow slipped through the minutiae of the engineering and design processes employed by the aircraft and engine manufacturers. (Perhaps a few less pub visits lads, a little more concentration if you please.)

That every passenger and crew member walked away from this accident with body and soul still conjoined should be sufficient judgment of this crew, to suggest otherwise is an expression of the meanest churlishness. In my mind they are, in fact, heroes. All of them, the entire cabin and cockpit crew that day. I suspect anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of this business would agree.

On a more personal note, Capt Burkhill, you rock brother, you can fly my wife and kids anytime, anywhere. If the BA Office of General and Very Annoying Minions is giving you problems, we could use a guy like you here in New York City!

bugg

[Willie Wash]

Smash those buggs

What a great post, best i've seen on the subject. Nice one Bugg Smasher, shame to all those critical know alls!

[CityofFlight]

Way to go Bugg!

[Spaz Modic]

Management terrorism

Well, pilot contributors to these forums seem to forget - maybe they never knew, most of them being young, that after management became glued to seats instead of strapping them on, they have exhibited an intense contempt for pilots.
Management appears to think airlines hinge on its financial expertise, when that is but a part of the big picture.
The focal points of the big picture are the two seat immediately behind the windscreen of any passenger carrying (these days) jet.
Unfortunately, pilots being what they are often forget they are vital to the financial wellbeing of the big picture.
In the case of the Captain and First Officer of the BA B777 in the grass, until the investigation is complete these guys should be on full pay - you can bet your goolies any manager and union guys would be.

[interpreter]

Saying as little as possible

If the captain is currently "invisible" and keeping "mumm" then that is the best thing he can do. He can simply build up a record of all the scurrilous comments etc and in this litigious day and age wait for a chance in the future to sue. I feel for him not just because it is taking so long but also because it was not as if a problem arose at 30,000 but when you are just 600 feet above the ground you hardly have time to think and simply react as best you can. How many of us have said " C****t that was close - why the hell did I do that" or "why the hell did I not do that"

Leave the guy in peace. I just hope he is receiving full pay because if he is not and at the end of the day he is completely exonerated of any major or minor misdemeanour it is going to cost Willy a packet.

[sanjosebaz]

Starbear...it simply struck me that whilst this flap movement was being openly discussed I could not recall actually reading anything to say it had actually happened.

I'm pretty sure that the initial AAIB report (January) did mention Flaps20. Subsequent bulletins seem to have 'forgotten' this evidence.

[BOAC]

I have looked at that report, sjb, and there is only a mention of Flap30, and Danny decided on this in one of the early posts.............

Originally Posted by Danny

Quote:
The AAIB is explicit in saying that flap 30 was selected. No mention is made of decreasing the flap selection.
Which is why each time someone claims or states (mistakenly or presumptuously) that flap 20 was selected, I move the post to the WAG's thread.