Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ask crewing
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bar none
Of course Flybe does not have a whole bunch of Cat 11 qualified captains on airport standby. But I would wager that there were a couple of other Flybe flights departing Man at about the same time of the Cdg flight which had Cat 11 qualified crews, and were scheduled for about the same flight time. I bet that Flybe ops never considered switching crews.
Gender Faculty Specialist
69-1
They are trained to CAT 2 standards, how many times has that been mentioned lately(?!), but they must gain experience on type before they are allowed to do CAT 2 approaches for real.
Whether that is a JAA/CAA or airline rule I don't know. But I can tell you it's primary reason is safety.
Now enough of your silly comments, thanks.
They are trained to CAT 2 standards, how many times has that been mentioned lately(?!), but they must gain experience on type before they are allowed to do CAT 2 approaches for real.
Whether that is a JAA/CAA or airline rule I don't know. But I can tell you it's primary reason is safety.
Now enough of your silly comments, thanks.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Next to Bloggs
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that’s the case ....... I APOLIGISE!
I was led to believe otherwise on previous posts on this thread?
Not trying to stir the pot!
In my opinion, all professional operations in Europe should be CAT II/III. (where possible!)
I was led to believe otherwise on previous posts on this thread?
Not trying to stir the pot!
In my opinion, all professional operations in Europe should be CAT II/III. (where possible!)
Another news item about this has just surfaced today:
Ballycastle man's 'shock' at pilot's flight turn - Ballymoney Today
Ballycastle man's 'shock' at pilot's flight turn - Ballymoney Today
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Someplace where the water smells
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, all professional operations in Europe should be CAT II/III. (where possible!)
What I think is more relevant, however, is the type of PA to the passengers and how much information you should give them in this type of situation?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AZORES
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q200 and Q400
hello, I'm a Bae ATP CAptain and the airline where I'm flying is about to received Q200 and Q400 Next Generation. CAn any one tell me if fly Be or other airlines use to fly both as MFF? If yes with or without rules?
Airbus girls post is a good explanation, except that if a crew isn't cat 3b qualified they don't only have the option of cat 1 or greater minima.
Depending on aircraft limitations they could be trained for cat3a (50ft decision height and 200m RVR) or cat 2 (100ft decision height and 300m RVR).
Flybe dash 8 aircraft are cat 2 certified so that is what the crews are trained for. However this is a manual landing after disconnecting the autopilot at 80ft, and as such is a little harder than the task of monitoring an autoland. (before anyone asks, yes I have done both). Because of that there is the requirement for 100 hrs on type for captains before they can fly actual cat 2 landings, to enable them to get the feel for the aircraft before they have to wrestle it to the ground with possibly an 18 knot crosswind whilst potentially being able to see jack sh*t except for a few runway lights in the fog.
Bombardier did offer an option of manual cat 3 on the dash 8 with a head up display, but the figure bandied about was about 1 million dollars per aircraft, and despite what passengers may say on here, for an airline ordering 60 aircraft a saving of 60 million dollars will go a long way towards paying for a few diversions each year when cat 2 isn't good enough.
I would agree that the captain in question probably does deserve his red face, not as has been suggested for not being qualified, or for operating his aircraft in accordance with company SOPs and JAR/Eu Ops requirements, but as has been said, for giving the passengers to much information.
Depending on aircraft limitations they could be trained for cat3a (50ft decision height and 200m RVR) or cat 2 (100ft decision height and 300m RVR).
Flybe dash 8 aircraft are cat 2 certified so that is what the crews are trained for. However this is a manual landing after disconnecting the autopilot at 80ft, and as such is a little harder than the task of monitoring an autoland. (before anyone asks, yes I have done both). Because of that there is the requirement for 100 hrs on type for captains before they can fly actual cat 2 landings, to enable them to get the feel for the aircraft before they have to wrestle it to the ground with possibly an 18 knot crosswind whilst potentially being able to see jack sh*t except for a few runway lights in the fog.
Bombardier did offer an option of manual cat 3 on the dash 8 with a head up display, but the figure bandied about was about 1 million dollars per aircraft, and despite what passengers may say on here, for an airline ordering 60 aircraft a saving of 60 million dollars will go a long way towards paying for a few diversions each year when cat 2 isn't good enough.
I would agree that the captain in question probably does deserve his red face, not as has been suggested for not being qualified, or for operating his aircraft in accordance with company SOPs and JAR/Eu Ops requirements, but as has been said, for giving the passengers to much information.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEI would agree that the captain in question probably does deserve his red face, not as has been suggested for not being qualified, or for operating his aircraft in accordance with company SOPs and JAR/Eu Ops requirements, but as has been said, for giving the passengers to much information.][/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
That is the sole reason this non-event made the news.
Passengers would accept being told the destination airport was "too foggy" to permit landing, and would be happy they were in the hands of a pilot who knew how to fly safely (which of coure they were).
But to tell them he was not "qualified" to land naturally leads to the question "then why not give us a pilot who is qualified?"
Simple psychology.
Absolutely.
That is the sole reason this non-event made the news.
Passengers would accept being told the destination airport was "too foggy" to permit landing, and would be happy they were in the hands of a pilot who knew how to fly safely (which of coure they were).
But to tell them he was not "qualified" to land naturally leads to the question "then why not give us a pilot who is qualified?"
Simple psychology.
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. What a thread! 
1. In hindsight, the CDR should probably not have used that rather unfortunate wording "not qualified" (if that's what he did?). Act like you work for MI5, and share info on a need-to-know basis only. Passengers only needed to know that the WX was below landing minimums that day.
2. I find it interesting that safety is not the main issue in this thread, but rather the lagality of the matter. Why didn't he just opt to land the aircraft? Because of the RULES - not because it would have been unsafe!
Passengers who needed to be at a meeting etc. would more readily have accepted the fact that landing the aircraft was illegal, period. "Not qualified" sounds safety related, and just made them upset.
3. I work for a low cost operator, but it would have been totally unthinkable to have some crews fly around in a CAT II/III aircraft without themselves being qualified/current to operate the equipment to it's maximum extent. That diversion probably cost the company more that cramming some LVP training into the crew's semiannual sim training...
1. In hindsight, the CDR should probably not have used that rather unfortunate wording "not qualified" (if that's what he did?). Act like you work for MI5, and share info on a need-to-know basis only. Passengers only needed to know that the WX was below landing minimums that day.
2. I find it interesting that safety is not the main issue in this thread, but rather the lagality of the matter. Why didn't he just opt to land the aircraft? Because of the RULES - not because it would have been unsafe!
Passengers who needed to be at a meeting etc. would more readily have accepted the fact that landing the aircraft was illegal, period. "Not qualified" sounds safety related, and just made them upset.
3. I work for a low cost operator, but it would have been totally unthinkable to have some crews fly around in a CAT II/III aircraft without themselves being qualified/current to operate the equipment to it's maximum extent. That diversion probably cost the company more that cramming some LVP training into the crew's semiannual sim training...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but it would have been totally unthinkable to have some crews fly around in a CAT II/III aircraft without themselves being qualified/current to operate the equipment to it's maximum extent. That diversion probably cost the company more that cramming some LVP training into the crew's semiannual sim training...
Many companies require their pilots to have a certain number of hours or sectors or whatever before they are actually qualified to fly these CAT II approaches unsupervised. This is to ensure that they have enough experience on type to safely handle the aircraft when they disconnect the autopilot at 80ft, which is difficult to do in poor weather. It is nothing to do with the level of training- the pilot would have done his CAT II training as part of his TQ course- he merely did not have enough hours to meet the company Operations Manual requirements. Nothing to do with more training- nothing to do with experience- plenty to do with compliance with the operator's AOC.
Why didn't he just opt to land the aircraft? Because of the RULES - not because it would have been unsafe!
If you can't be bothered to read the rest of the replies, or add intelligent debate, then don't post. This question must have been answered about sixty times!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We don't know exactly what he said in his PA, but it's safe to assume he didn't convey the complexities of CAT approaches and their restrictions. There's no way he would have been able to because most people wouldn't understand what he's on about.
In general it is worth telling passengers the truth, not least because you'll seriously piss off the intelligent folk if you try to fudge what's really going on. But then there's always those who can't wait to spin the story, giving journalists an excuse to write their fantastically accurate headlines. You can't win.
I first heard about this incident as a joke on Have I Got News For You. I thought there was probably more to do it than "can't land in fog", so I came here to find out what really happened, and this thread answered my question. There is merit in this site!
In general it is worth telling passengers the truth, not least because you'll seriously piss off the intelligent folk if you try to fudge what's really going on. But then there's always those who can't wait to spin the story, giving journalists an excuse to write their fantastically accurate headlines. You can't win.
I first heard about this incident as a joke on Have I Got News For You. I thought there was probably more to do it than "can't land in fog", so I came here to find out what really happened, and this thread answered my question. There is merit in this site!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj2
Just out of interest are 100% of the pilots in your airline Cat II qualified 100% of the time ?
Now, here´s a REAL non-event which made the news, however!
"Jet lands safely"
as "breaking news" on Christmas eve...
Jet lands safely after emergency response - Chicago Breaking News
"Jet lands safely"
as "breaking news" on Christmas eve...Jet lands safely after emergency response - Chicago Breaking News
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this still being discussed? How dull
Page 1 shows many people's agreement in that this was a non-event. Yet we are now on page 7 (8 with mine
) and still there are some posting the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen
Whilst there are some posters with the facts, which is very refreshing to see, could we all agree to put this one to bed and move on??
Page 1 shows many people's agreement in that this was a non-event. Yet we are now on page 7 (8 with mine
) and still there are some posting the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen Whilst there are some posters with the facts, which is very refreshing to see, could we all agree to put this one to bed and move on??
Seems to me there should be a professional pilots PA course. The slf rarely listen and if they do they want the basics. Hot or cold, windy or not, wet or dry. Simple every day language. Enroute? Never use the word turbulence ... a few bumps will do! As to a mechanical...Be creatively vague and don't use airplane-speak. This Captain dug his own grave with his choice of words.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain did his job. If company rules put him in this position in the first place, then he did the right thing - endex.
Well done. If the rules (company quals) are wrong, change them.
Well done. If the rules (company quals) are wrong, change them.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much time on our hands....
Wow, what a long long thread!
A commercial airline captain holds a position of responsibility in the community and if making statements regarding the operation of his or her aircraft, must be mindful that almost everything will be scrutinised and subject to a thousand interpretations. This is the business; no different to being a doctor, lawyer, public official or politician except the public has a nervous energy around aviation that can turn what is the simplest of issues into a perceieved "big drama". A previous poster warned that we're in the silly season and journos are desperate to "Phil Space" 'cause they don't have any good stories.
All the discusion around the technicalities of CatII or III and crew capabilities is irrelevant to the main issue around what was communicated to the passengers. In regards to safe ops the Captain did the right thing; followed the rules. 10 out of 10 for good airmanship but 1 out of 10 for the very poor communication and "perception management" that turned this needlessly into a "big drama" which would have cost the business substantially.
(now we all need to go and give our family members more attention and spend less time on forums....they don't give out awards for "best posts and most intelligent use of on-line time"....
)
Rene
A commercial airline captain holds a position of responsibility in the community and if making statements regarding the operation of his or her aircraft, must be mindful that almost everything will be scrutinised and subject to a thousand interpretations. This is the business; no different to being a doctor, lawyer, public official or politician except the public has a nervous energy around aviation that can turn what is the simplest of issues into a perceieved "big drama". A previous poster warned that we're in the silly season and journos are desperate to "Phil Space" 'cause they don't have any good stories.
All the discusion around the technicalities of CatII or III and crew capabilities is irrelevant to the main issue around what was communicated to the passengers. In regards to safe ops the Captain did the right thing; followed the rules. 10 out of 10 for good airmanship but 1 out of 10 for the very poor communication and "perception management" that turned this needlessly into a "big drama" which would have cost the business substantially.
(now we all need to go and give our family members more attention and spend less time on forums....they don't give out awards for "best posts and most intelligent use of on-line time"....
)Rene
The slf rarely listen
NEVER correct a mistake, no one listens in the first place. Once as pax heard the F/O give the pax. briefing for an overnight flight over the Date Line, got the time wrong, came back and corrected it and got the day wrong, Capt. came on and apologised and got the destination city wrong ! By this time everybody was listening !
