Flybe BQ400 captain's red face!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the destination alternates were out of limits as well, (Orly, Lille, Brussels) so why sit in the hold burning fuel that you may need to get back?
guys,sorry for my ignorance,but I have a question:
why would an airline prefer to return to cardiff rather than land somewhere else close to paris,drop the pax there,pick up the others (transferred by coach from the original airport) and then fly back ?
wouldn`t that make more sense?moneywise as well?
If I were on board I`d prefer to land somewhere close to paris and get there late rather than not getting there at all...or am I totally wrong?
why would an airline prefer to return to cardiff rather than land somewhere else close to paris,drop the pax there,pick up the others (transferred by coach from the original airport) and then fly back ?
wouldn`t that make more sense?moneywise as well?
If I were on board I`d prefer to land somewhere close to paris and get there late rather than not getting there at all...or am I totally wrong?
Aircraft returns to its base pretty much as expected (in fact early). Aircraft can then depart on next flight as scheduled, with rostered crew. No costs of going to an unfamiliar airport, having to dig out handling agents, getting delayed, messing up the rest of the day's schedules for that aircraft. No costs of coaching pax on to Paris, which they always moan about anyway. Passengers mostly live near origin/have their cars there so can be sent home without incurring additional costs, or can be put on next departure.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am loathe to add more to a total non-event, but there is a world of difference between what a pilot is currently certified to be able to do by the relevant CAA and what a pilot is actually able to do.
I'm sure with 30 years experience the pilot in question has been CAT II qualified many times over and will have made numerous approaches in CAT II conditions over the years. It is just his/her bad luck that on the day in question their licence did not have the necessary legal CAT II validation.
For those wondering what if there was an emergency and they had to land in the fog, simple - they would have landed in the fog. Just because the paperwork may not be correct, does not mean a pilot suddenly loses the ability to fly.
I'm sure with 30 years experience the pilot in question has been CAT II qualified many times over and will have made numerous approaches in CAT II conditions over the years. It is just his/her bad luck that on the day in question their licence did not have the necessary legal CAT II validation.
For those wondering what if there was an emergency and they had to land in the fog, simple - they would have landed in the fog. Just because the paperwork may not be correct, does not mean a pilot suddenly loses the ability to fly.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure it's at all fair to criticise the announcement. When travelling SLF I get pretty fed up of the 'for operational reasons' brand of announcement. Better to know the reason, and in my experience the news is taken much better if it's felt that the operators are just being honest.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky news are saying the the skipper was cat 5 qualified when he needed to be cat 2 qualified... I wish I was cat 5, damn I thought I had reached the top of the low vis ops tree when I became Cat3b qualified....better get studying!! Anyone any idea where I can find the required information as I cant find it anywhere???
Will try and put the link on here but I am technophobe so cant promise anything!!!
'I'm Not Allowed To Land In Fog' - Yahoo! News UK
cheers and Merry Christmas all
jj
Will try and put the link on here but I am technophobe so cant promise anything!!!
'I'm Not Allowed To Land In Fog' - Yahoo! News UK
cheers and Merry Christmas all
jj
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It probably says more about what is wrong with this world when a simple decision to divert makes National news. The captain was absolutely correct in making a commercial decision for his company. I would have done exactly the same.
Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News? "Mr. Joe Bloggs, 28, who missed his grandmother's funeral stated that there was mild panic at the announcement that the plane would be diverted because of the fog and that he would be seeking damages in the High Court to have his grandmother re-interred on another occasion when he could be sure to attend!" Hypothetical maybe, but you get the drift!
I personally would not have even thought about calling the BBC- I would want to make sure I was on the next flight.
Perhaps the way this world is going that all pilots should not do PA's in case there is something said that is either misconstrued or said wrongly at a high workload time. Perhaps we should have pre-recorded PA's that just say..."owing to poor weather the aircraft is diverting. More information will be given on landing."
Perhaps that would satisfy the lawyers and litigators?
Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News? "Mr. Joe Bloggs, 28, who missed his grandmother's funeral stated that there was mild panic at the announcement that the plane would be diverted because of the fog and that he would be seeking damages in the High Court to have his grandmother re-interred on another occasion when he could be sure to attend!" Hypothetical maybe, but you get the drift!
I personally would not have even thought about calling the BBC- I would want to make sure I was on the next flight.
Perhaps the way this world is going that all pilots should not do PA's in case there is something said that is either misconstrued or said wrongly at a high workload time. Perhaps we should have pre-recorded PA's that just say..."owing to poor weather the aircraft is diverting. More information will be given on landing."
Perhaps that would satisfy the lawyers and litigators?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
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
No pilot is cleared to land in
all possibities
You would be surprised how often you might be flying with a "well known carrier" and into well known airports and the aircraft is carrying a defect, or the airfield is simply not equipped, for weather below CAT1 (~200' / 550m) (or even higher - NPA). The pilot issue here is less common, but not unheard of...
Non event, but as above, maybe we need to employ spin doctors before we make PAs
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SA
Age: 49
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a look at the first couple of posts, then lost interest. I don't know about you, but every company I have ever worked for, the skipper needed a set amount of hours in type before you were allowed to do an actual Cat II. Irrespective of legallity. Well done to the Captain! 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some less knowledgable than others asking questions who are just being flamed. For the benefit of those not in the know an airline pilot qualifies with a full Instrument Rating for the aircraft type. That allows him to fly the aircraft on instruments down to minimums.
However in recent times (last 20 years or so) the aircraft have become capable of landing automatically at airfields with the required facilities. However the licencing of pilots has not changed. Therefore pilots become 'fully qualified' without having the extra training necessary to make autolands.
Contrary to popular belief autolands make the pilots job harder, not easier, in that the pilot needs to know all of the failure scenarios on the approach for a low visibilty approach. The low visibilty procedures are therefore taught in the simulator when the pilot has already been flying the line for a while. Both pilots must be LVP qualified for an approach to be flown using LVP's.
However in recent times (last 20 years or so) the aircraft have become capable of landing automatically at airfields with the required facilities. However the licencing of pilots has not changed. Therefore pilots become 'fully qualified' without having the extra training necessary to make autolands.
Contrary to popular belief autolands make the pilots job harder, not easier, in that the pilot needs to know all of the failure scenarios on the approach for a low visibilty approach. The low visibilty procedures are therefore taught in the simulator when the pilot has already been flying the line for a while. Both pilots must be LVP qualified for an approach to be flown using LVP's.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WingoWango - Can I presume that 80' is the minimum use height of the autopilot?
Nigel on draft - Nice post - we must all not forget the effect degredation of the approach/runway lighting has on the minimum rvr requirements - I have nearly been caught twice.
Phantom drriver - I dont get it?
Nigel on draft - Nice post - we must all not forget the effect degredation of the approach/runway lighting has on the minimum rvr requirements - I have nearly been caught twice.
Phantom drriver - I dont get it?
Question
How much part does the forecast (as opposed to actual) weather obtained before departure play in the decision to fly? On a long haul I can understand that the forecast can change. But in a short haul case like this it's probably fairly accurate. I also accept that it could well have said that the RVR was improving (or expected to improve) which would (in my view) have justified the departure. But if the forecast had been for weather that the crew were not equipped to handle is it legal and/or sensible to depart?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Castle
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hartington
The rules are quite simple - The commander must satisfy himself etc etc.....
Faily accurate is correct - say plus or minus 50feet or 50m visability.This represents 50% of the permitted cloudbase which is (100 feet) or 16% of the permitted visability (300m) for a CAT 2 approach.
At the planning stage, the weather needs to be forecast to be sufficient from an hour before to an hour after the estimated time of arrival. This must be the case for at least two airports and the requisite fuel must be carried to reach the furthest of the two (including sufficient reserves). One of the two airports may be the destination but not necessarily so. It may also be the departure airfield permitting a return to base. It is permissable to set off for your destination with the weather forecast to be below (and remain below) minima provided sufficient fuel is carried to reach the furthest of the two alternates, where the weather is deemed satisfactory. There is another whole set of rules which dictate (at the planning stage) what is and what is not satisfactory depending on the approach aids available at the alternate. This means that you can set off for a destintion in the knowledge that you might need to hold for a while in the hope of an improvement (which may or not be forecast) before diverting to an alternate with weather above minima/sufficient for landing.
It must also be noted that the requirements for planning (in the crewroom) are one thing but the rules can be changed once airborne. This because a forecast is a forecast and the weather is the weather!
The bottom line is that the crew get paid for making the decisions on a day like this. They likely have wives/husbands and kids at home too. The crew want to get their passengers to their destination but only if it is safe to do so. Days like this often cause disruption but that is life in this industry - it is better than dying.
You must trust the crew to make the right decisions on the day 'weather' or not you like the outcome because it will always be safety first.
The rules are quite simple - The commander must satisfy himself etc etc.....
Faily accurate is correct - say plus or minus 50feet or 50m visability.This represents 50% of the permitted cloudbase which is (100 feet) or 16% of the permitted visability (300m) for a CAT 2 approach.
At the planning stage, the weather needs to be forecast to be sufficient from an hour before to an hour after the estimated time of arrival. This must be the case for at least two airports and the requisite fuel must be carried to reach the furthest of the two (including sufficient reserves). One of the two airports may be the destination but not necessarily so. It may also be the departure airfield permitting a return to base. It is permissable to set off for your destination with the weather forecast to be below (and remain below) minima provided sufficient fuel is carried to reach the furthest of the two alternates, where the weather is deemed satisfactory. There is another whole set of rules which dictate (at the planning stage) what is and what is not satisfactory depending on the approach aids available at the alternate. This means that you can set off for a destintion in the knowledge that you might need to hold for a while in the hope of an improvement (which may or not be forecast) before diverting to an alternate with weather above minima/sufficient for landing.
It must also be noted that the requirements for planning (in the crewroom) are one thing but the rules can be changed once airborne. This because a forecast is a forecast and the weather is the weather!
The bottom line is that the crew get paid for making the decisions on a day like this. They likely have wives/husbands and kids at home too. The crew want to get their passengers to their destination but only if it is safe to do so. Days like this often cause disruption but that is life in this industry - it is better than dying.
You must trust the crew to make the right decisions on the day 'weather' or not you like the outcome because it will always be safety first.
Last edited by Grizzle; 18th Dec 2008 at 19:25.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News?
We had a similar situation a few years back at a well known Airline when the ERJ135/145's first came into the fleet. The SAAB 340's were in and out all day, but the ERJ's couldn't go as they were so new, and the crews had not completed the required number of sectors to operate in the conditions. Try explianing that to the angry pax who's route had been upgraded from the "old propeller plane" to the "shiney new jet plane".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WingoWango
My expertise is on 737, A320 and A330 so I am not familiar with the BQ400. However the general procedure is the same with any aircraft for the LVP's for that particular aircraft.
Clearly in the case of the BQ400 if the autopilot is only authorised for use down to 80ft then that is the minimum for the BQ400. Of course 80ft is substantially lower than the normal ILS minima of 200ft and therefore to legally achieve an 80ft minimum low visibility procedures would have to be used.
Clearly in the case of the BQ400 if the autopilot is only authorised for use down to 80ft then that is the minimum for the BQ400. Of course 80ft is substantially lower than the normal ILS minima of 200ft and therefore to legally achieve an 80ft minimum low visibility procedures would have to be used.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near EGCC
Age: 41
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the posters original post, there should be no red faces. The Captain acted as per usual in CAT II conditions if both crew aren't qualified, then thats it,it's a no go.
It's open and shut, normal ops, the only embarrassment he has, is people, who know not of what they speak, coming in here and creating it.
WB
It's open and shut, normal ops, the only embarrassment he has, is people, who know not of what they speak, coming in here and creating it.
WB
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly in the case of the BQ400 if the autopilot is only authorised for use down to 80ft then that is the minimum for the BQ400.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that when something like this happens, all the passengers come out of the woodwork and contact the BBC or SKY News?
Psychophysiological entity
I was waiting for a flight to get me from HOU to LGW. I'd guessed that the aircraft change was going to make me late.
A couple of hundred people listened expectantly as the Tannoy came live.
"We're sorry for the delay...etc., but at this time we're looking for a replacement crew that know how to fly the plane."
I fell about, mostly because of the faces of my fellow travelers.
A couple of hundred people listened expectantly as the Tannoy came live.
"We're sorry for the delay...etc., but at this time we're looking for a replacement crew that know how to fly the plane."
I fell about, mostly because of the faces of my fellow travelers.