Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!
From the BBC website
Rules stopped pilot's fog landing
A pilot with 30 years experience told passengers on a flight to Paris that he was returning to the UK because he was not qualified to land in foggy weather.
Flybe flight BE1431 from Cardiff was approaching Charles De Gaulle airport on Tuesday when the captain made the announcement over the tannoy.
A spokeswoman for Flybe said there had been dense fog at the airport in Paris.
She said the company stood by the pilot's decision and said passenger safety had not been compromised.
The Flybe pilot concerned has 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types, said the Flybe spokeswoman.
"He has relatively recently transferred his 'type-rating' from a Bombardier Q300 to a Bombardier Q400 and has not yet completed the requisite low-visibility training to complete a landing in conditions such as the dense fog experienced in Paris Charles de Gaulle," she said.
I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman
"The captain therefore quite correctly turned the aircraft around and returned to Cardiff; a decision which the company stands by 100%.
"Aviation is the most highly regulated form of public transport in the United Kingdom. As a result, technical situations like these arise where a pilot with 30 years experience correctly abides by regulatory rules.
"At no point was passenger safety compromised."
Flybe added that when the pilot took off from Cardiff, the weather at Paris Charles De Gaulle was clear.
The Civil Aviation Authority described the incident as "quite unusual but probably not unheard of".
"I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land," said a spokesman.
"There are different classifications of aircraft and when an aircraft is updated, pilots who have flown an older version have to completely retrain.
"There can be significant differences in terms of how an aircraft is operated.
"Different climactic conditions like fog require a certain level of skill and he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."
Rules stopped pilot's fog landing
A pilot with 30 years experience told passengers on a flight to Paris that he was returning to the UK because he was not qualified to land in foggy weather.
Flybe flight BE1431 from Cardiff was approaching Charles De Gaulle airport on Tuesday when the captain made the announcement over the tannoy.
A spokeswoman for Flybe said there had been dense fog at the airport in Paris.
She said the company stood by the pilot's decision and said passenger safety had not been compromised.
The Flybe pilot concerned has 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types, said the Flybe spokeswoman.
"He has relatively recently transferred his 'type-rating' from a Bombardier Q300 to a Bombardier Q400 and has not yet completed the requisite low-visibility training to complete a landing in conditions such as the dense fog experienced in Paris Charles de Gaulle," she said.
I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman
"The captain therefore quite correctly turned the aircraft around and returned to Cardiff; a decision which the company stands by 100%.
"Aviation is the most highly regulated form of public transport in the United Kingdom. As a result, technical situations like these arise where a pilot with 30 years experience correctly abides by regulatory rules.
"At no point was passenger safety compromised."
Flybe added that when the pilot took off from Cardiff, the weather at Paris Charles De Gaulle was clear.
The Civil Aviation Authority described the incident as "quite unusual but probably not unheard of".
"I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land," said a spokesman.
"There are different classifications of aircraft and when an aircraft is updated, pilots who have flown an older version have to completely retrain.
"There can be significant differences in terms of how an aircraft is operated.
"Different climactic conditions like fog require a certain level of skill and he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not unusual, I flew the Q400 for Flybe for a few years, and the way my OPC/LPC's fell meant I was CAT2 qualified throughout Summer, but not Winter as they only re-validated every 12 months.
Some may say stupid, but I'm sure there was method in their madness!!
It may of changed now???
Some may say stupid, but I'm sure there was method in their madness!!
It may of changed now???
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!
If there's one lesson to learn, it's to avoid giving pax too much information, as you'll be splashed all over the news. "Ladies and Gentlemen, we regret the weather in Paris has deteriorated. It is unsuitable for landing and unfortunately we will be diverting." End of story.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Phil, I'm not sure why you named this thread as you did.
It sounds like the weather deteriorated to below the Captains limits. Captain diverts, everyone lives - job well done.
I see no reason for "red faced" - ness!
Weather goes below my limits. I divert, everyone lives - job well done. Nothing to be embarrased about really.
He probably recieved the same level of training as every other Q400 pilot. He may NOT have recieved specific Low Vis. training, or completed the required number of hours or sectors, whichever they use these days, on type to allow him to legally operate to lower minima.
And a diversion is a diversion no matter where you go.
It sounds like the weather deteriorated to below the Captains limits. Captain diverts, everyone lives - job well done.
I see no reason for "red faced" - ness!
Weather goes below my limits. I divert, everyone lives - job well done. Nothing to be embarrased about really.
he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."
And a diversion is a diversion no matter where you go.
Rules stopped pilot's fog landing
Rule 1: When possible divert to where your car is parked
There is also the possibility the conditions would still be out of limits for a Cat II approach as the reduction in minimas isn't huge
Cat II training is increasingly time consuming in the Sim and requires on the line training, so even at the best of times can take several months to get signed off on initially. Can't say I've had to use one in anger as of yet
Guest
Posts: n/a
No big deal at all and no need for any embarassment
BUT, if I had been a pax, on the way to an important meeting, I would have been furious and probably considered suing Flybe to recover the cost of the airfare and a day's lost fees.
In my opinion, the small claims court would not look too kindly at and airline despatching a captain not qualified to land in low vis in winter.
And madness for an airline to treat pax this way in a hard market.
But no criticism of the captain for following the book.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tosh 
and if the weather dropped below CAT2 limits I suppose you would sue the manufacturer for not upgrading it's capability to CAT3
I suppose you sue the rail company every time there are the wrong sort of leaves on the line ,or BMW ( actually no, probably Jaguar ) if your car breaks down on the way to YOUR IMPORTANT MEETING.
Try living in the USA, plenty solicitors just waiting eagerly for your business
BTW it did say the fog was not forecast, I imagine if it had been forecast a replacement standby Capt would have been called in & used, or do you think airlines gleefully enjoy having their programmes disrupted just for the pleasure of interrupting YOUR important plans. Mind you . . . . there is a certain attraction there
and if the weather dropped below CAT2 limits I suppose you would sue the manufacturer for not upgrading it's capability to CAT3 I suppose you sue the rail company every time there are the wrong sort of leaves on the line ,or BMW ( actually no, probably Jaguar ) if your car breaks down on the way to YOUR IMPORTANT MEETING.
Try living in the USA, plenty solicitors just waiting eagerly for your business
BTW it did say the fog was not forecast, I imagine if it had been forecast a replacement standby Capt would have been called in & used, or do you think airlines gleefully enjoy having their programmes disrupted just for the pleasure of interrupting YOUR important plans. Mind you . . . . there is a certain attraction there
Guest
Posts: n/a
So you would be suing them for what?
The amount would be any expenses incurred and also lost fees.
Furthermore, the small claims division takes a fairly broad view of the law, so I believe that this would be a reasonable argument.
I have (infrequently) taken similar cases to the court and won.
Interestingly the 'other side' took a similar attitude to the last two posts and found that the administrator did not appreciate such bravado.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see you try to claim expenses in court for "an act of God". The crew chose a safe and from what I read sensible course of action.
I am Cat 3a - so if it goes below 200metres I divert also (assuming lighting etc is correct then it may be a higher rvr)
I am Cat 3a - so if it goes below 200metres I divert also (assuming lighting etc is correct then it may be a higher rvr)
Guest
Posts: n/a
You lot just don't get this, do you?
I am not criticising the captain, who had no choice and did the right thing.
If an aircraft encounters conditions beyond its capabilities or those of its crew, then obviously it must divert.
But, in my opinion, if a capable aircraft cannot land due to being despatched with a crew who are less capable, then company despatching that aircraft are going to have a hard time convincing a small claims court that they acted reasonably.
One has paid an airline to provide an airline flight and that implies the crew will be up to doing the job, for low visibility is hardly unknown in winter.
I am not criticising the captain, who had no choice and did the right thing.
If an aircraft encounters conditions beyond its capabilities or those of its crew, then obviously it must divert.
But, in my opinion, if a capable aircraft cannot land due to being despatched with a crew who are less capable, then company despatching that aircraft are going to have a hard time convincing a small claims court that they acted reasonably.
One has paid an airline to provide an airline flight and that implies the crew will be up to doing the job, for low visibility is hardly unknown in winter.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Forkandles, if there are NO other possibilities then you have to land. Preferably before you run out of petrol
I should imagine a dead stick CAT2 wouldn't be very relaxing.
Simply put I'd land regardless because I have no other option.
But I must stress that I would have exercised every other alternative before I make that decision.
I should imagine a dead stick CAT2 wouldn't be very relaxing. Simply put I'd land regardless because I have no other option.
But I must stress that I would have exercised every other alternative before I make that decision.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GENTLEMEN
The FlyBe crews are not idiots
They look at all the cenarios and asset it from Departure Airfield/Destination airfield
Please lets drop this ridiculous forum they Guy did his job and he did it 100 percent to the book
By the way I am not the Pilot concerned and I dont want to know who it was but he acted correctly and in accordance with company regulations
Thats it gents lets put this one to bed
The FlyBe crews are not idiots
They look at all the cenarios and asset it from Departure Airfield/Destination airfield
Please lets drop this ridiculous forum they Guy did his job and he did it 100 percent to the book
By the way I am not the Pilot concerned and I dont want to know who it was but he acted correctly and in accordance with company regulations
Thats it gents lets put this one to bed
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: london
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF I am a little suprised. I have always assumed that pilots flying hundreds of passengers would be trained and capable of flying/landing in all circumstances. Its a bit like ,say, travelling on a coach and the driver pulling over and saying "I can't drive in fog". A pilot doesn't have the option to pull over. Reading previous posts this event doesn't perturb the insiders and experts....but to a pax like me it does a bit. I realise that this seems to be a case of the paperwork catching up the pilot but it doesn't look good for the company either.
I'm off to the Far East next week, I hope my pilot will be cleared for all possibities.
I'm off to the Far East next week, I hope my pilot will be cleared for all possibities.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ireland
Age: 41
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slightly off topic i know but im just curious and cant seem to find an answer anywhere, can any flybe pilots tell me why they raise the speedbrake when cleared to enter the runway and drop it when given takeoff clearance must be company sops, just something ive noticed when queueing behind the jerseys waiting for departure havent seen any other operator use this policy??