Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: lost my way
Age: 43
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Manx2 exert that level of operational control over the airlines that it uses?
The morning of the incident, the aircraft operated a mail flight on an ad-hoc basis. There are also other instances of Manx2 metro's operating ad-hoc to cover for airlines tech aircraft.
Who deals with the ad-hoc chartering? I.e. do FlightlineBCN charter out the aircraft for ad-hoc work, or do Manx2. Not really crucial to the Cork tragedy, but just more to do with the level of operational control Manx2 do or do not have with their aircraft providers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
l`ve just read the interim report and feel physically sick.
Yes, it was a banker at the bookies that one from the outset.
Why did it come about ?
ln my not so humble opinion O`Really and the Head Waiter reduced the standing of pilots to that of beggars immediately after 9/11.
£50 to lodge a c.v. with Ryanair at that time don`t forget.
The experience levels of the crew will be a shocker, not as much as the pay - if any - if told.
Who hasn`t listened to crap weather reports steadily maintaining the "come hither" beckoning finger with two annuses beginning to grip the seats ?
Plainly they should not have been there.
Commercial pressure doesn`t exist, we know this having been told regularly.
The pair of them flew raw data for three approaches before they lost it so, for me, it was management failure.
God rest all six.
Yes, it was a banker at the bookies that one from the outset.
Why did it come about ?
ln my not so humble opinion O`Really and the Head Waiter reduced the standing of pilots to that of beggars immediately after 9/11.
£50 to lodge a c.v. with Ryanair at that time don`t forget.
The experience levels of the crew will be a shocker, not as much as the pay - if any - if told.
Who hasn`t listened to crap weather reports steadily maintaining the "come hither" beckoning finger with two annuses beginning to grip the seats ?
Plainly they should not have been there.
Commercial pressure doesn`t exist, we know this having been told regularly.
The pair of them flew raw data for three approaches before they lost it so, for me, it was management failure.
God rest all six.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a sad, sad story in an age where all us professionals strive to, and must, maintain the highest safety standards in the face of commercial pressure. I just want to make a general point.. the fact is that ATC are not the "minima police".. that is not their responsibility and never can be. That responsibility is the Captain's. In a lifetime of professional aviation spanning almost forty years I have never found ATC in the UK, military or civil, to be lacking in any respect. We need to eliminate this type of operation obviously.. I have every sympathy for Captains and First Officers who find themselves in the predicament that these poor souls were in.. but the final arbiter is the Captain and that's what we Captains are paid to be.
Last edited by Smudger; 17th Mar 2011 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC and Minima
In response to the query above and bearing in mind this is from a UK ATC perspective therefore it is more than likely not as promulgated in Ireland but it may be of interest...
...ATC are not involved /responsible for determining,passing or enforcing mandatory aerodrome minima and shall not question the authority of a pilot to attempt an approach...(my underlining,the rest directly from our Manual)
...an absolute minima is calculated for any instrument approach other than CAT 2/3 ILS,this is a theoretical value which is passed only when weather limits are below specified values the purpose being a final safety check to ensure a pilot has not made a gross error in his/her calculations.
...ATC are not involved /responsible for determining,passing or enforcing mandatory aerodrome minima and shall not question the authority of a pilot to attempt an approach...(my underlining,the rest directly from our Manual)
...an absolute minima is calculated for any instrument approach other than CAT 2/3 ILS,this is a theoretical value which is passed only when weather limits are below specified values the purpose being a final safety check to ensure a pilot has not made a gross error in his/her calculations.
overun and Smudger, I concur completely.
But in a football game if you lose 30 goals to nil, would you blame it all on the goalkeeper?
Any accident is a product of the "system" (however dysfunctional that may be).
I see a convergence of many factors in commercial aviation at the moment and this accident seems to be a product of same.
But in a football game if you lose 30 goals to nil, would you blame it all on the goalkeeper?
Any accident is a product of the "system" (however dysfunctional that may be).
I see a convergence of many factors in commercial aviation at the moment and this accident seems to be a product of same.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly yes I agree.. but the point I am trying to make is that it is up to me (the Captain on the day) to decide if this trip is achievable and safe.. and if I decide that it is.. how can I do it in the most profitable way for my company? If I decide that it is NOT achievable due to the weather... then I don't go.. I say NO.. I have done it on a couple of occasions in the past, and I still have a job ! And I am still alive....
Me too Smudger and i have always said I'd rather be out of a job having made the right decisions - aviation is quite a tightly knit community and news, whether good or bad, travels fast.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear mate... doesn't detract from the fact that this was a tragic but totally avoidable crash.. (given the evidence on here).... don't want to see another one like this ever again
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No overun.. that's the whole point.. the buck stops at the bloke in the left hand seat.. ME.. it's up to ME to balance the commercial pressure from my company to get the job done against the safety issues required to do that.... it's a no-brainer... if it ain't safe it don't happen.. don't forget my licence is on the line at all times... my licence is my life ... it's obvious
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look guys. These pilots knew what they had to do.
They knew that they had to wait for their 550m.
They knew that they needed to hold until they got it.
They knew that there was an alternate airfield and that it was wide open.
They knew they had the fuel for their alternate.
They knew that starting an approach without their minimums was illegal.
Yet, still they flew NO LESS THAN THREE aproaches.
For fun? I think not.
Commercial pressures are one thing (that we all acknowledge) but a stronger urge drove these pilots.
I hope it is soon revealed.
They knew that they had to wait for their 550m.
They knew that they needed to hold until they got it.
They knew that there was an alternate airfield and that it was wide open.
They knew they had the fuel for their alternate.
They knew that starting an approach without their minimums was illegal.
Yet, still they flew NO LESS THAN THREE aproaches.
For fun? I think not.
Commercial pressures are one thing (that we all acknowledge) but a stronger urge drove these pilots.
I hope it is soon revealed.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only urge that should prevail Is that of the safety of you, your crew and the passengers, anything else is trivial.
Why they carried out an approach and willingly, deliberately and negligently bust minima will remain a mystery. I appreciate why the co-pilot might be persuaded to carry out this course of action due to lack of experience and maybe had a perception that this is the normal way of operating. However the Captain then should have a greater responsibility not to take the FO into such a situation.
Most pilots make mistakes at some stage however the blatent disregarding of safety related rules has no place in aviation.
Poor command decisions led to those deaths and it infuriates me. However I have the luxury of working for an employer who will wholeheartedly support me if I make a safety related decision that costs the company money.
Keep it safe
FPS
Why they carried out an approach and willingly, deliberately and negligently bust minima will remain a mystery. I appreciate why the co-pilot might be persuaded to carry out this course of action due to lack of experience and maybe had a perception that this is the normal way of operating. However the Captain then should have a greater responsibility not to take the FO into such a situation.
Most pilots make mistakes at some stage however the blatent disregarding of safety related rules has no place in aviation.
Poor command decisions led to those deaths and it infuriates me. However I have the luxury of working for an employer who will wholeheartedly support me if I make a safety related decision that costs the company money.
Keep it safe
FPS
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Limousin, France
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems clear that few, if any, people think it is appropriate for ATC to make a Captain's decisions for him/her. However a system whereby ATC 'note' for future investigation/explanation any gross abuse of the rules such as seems to have occurred here surely ought to be in place?
Suppose this plane had managed to make it in on its 3rd approach, would any action have been taken? Or would these pilots have been left to do the same thing the next time they ran into bad weather?
Suppose this plane had managed to make it in on its 3rd approach, would any action have been taken? Or would these pilots have been left to do the same thing the next time they ran into bad weather?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere on the ND
Age: 84
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time you flew raw data in command with pax on board ?
the 550m you speak of is that touch down, mid point, or stop end ?
Now, once we've all finished castigating the captain for doing what he did, and he shall rightly take his share of the blame, let us ask as pertinently why a presumably sane crew made such appalling decisions. It doesn't happen in isolation so I hope the investigation fully investigates the companies and commercial pressures involved. I'm not holding my breath though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
overrun.
wtf are you on about?
I've about 10,000 hours on regional ops, including Cork.
You say that you 'feel embarrassed' as a 'professional pilot'.
Maybe it's about time you had a wee lie down.
(As for your q. re raw data, with pax on board, how does 'earlier this evening' sound?)
wtf are you on about?
I've about 10,000 hours on regional ops, including Cork.
You say that you 'feel embarrassed' as a 'professional pilot'.
Maybe it's about time you had a wee lie down.
(As for your q. re raw data, with pax on board, how does 'earlier this evening' sound?)
In response to earlier comments.
There was a time when UK ATC was required to log details of all approaches and departures once the RVR fell below a certain figure....may have been 1100m (?) along with details of the actual RVR during said movements. This data was forwarded on a daily basis to the UK CAA Flt. Ops dept who, I understand, compared movements with permitted company minima. I believe that breaches of minima were detected and dealt with via this system.
I don't think this happens any longer. Probably not permitted under data protection legislation. Perhaps a current ATC person could comment.
There was a time when UK ATC was required to log details of all approaches and departures once the RVR fell below a certain figure....may have been 1100m (?) along with details of the actual RVR during said movements. This data was forwarded on a daily basis to the UK CAA Flt. Ops dept who, I understand, compared movements with permitted company minima. I believe that breaches of minima were detected and dealt with via this system.
I don't think this happens any longer. Probably not permitted under data protection legislation. Perhaps a current ATC person could comment.
de minimus non curat lex
Once the final accident report has been published, I wonder whether IOM/UK lawyers will consider whether the concept of a "controlling mind" was at work here? 
It is a pity that there is no natural successor, on pprune, to the Flying Lawyer to explore this possibility.
It is a pity that there is no natural successor, on pprune, to the Flying Lawyer to explore this possibility.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gapster, smudger, Helen 49 etc. Lots of talk of minimum police etc, and how ATC should not be the arbiters of when to make approaches etc. Now, granted I am only looking here at CAP 413 and not the ANO etc, but Chapter 4, page 44 of the current edition (19) has exactly the scenario in question (sorry about lack of formatting):
In the UK, there is an approach ban which states that a pilot may not continue an
instrument approach beyond the outer marker or equivalent position, if the reported
RVR, or at aerodromes where RVR measurements are not taken or available, the
visibility, is below the minimum specified for that approach. Essentially, this means
that a pilot may not descend below 1,000 feet above the aerodrome when these
conditions exist. This RVR/visibility is known as an 'absolute minimum'.
7.3.9 Should a pilot indicate that he or she intends to commence an instrument approach
when the reported RVR/visibility is less than the notified 'absolute minimum' value,
the controller should inform the pilot using the following RTF phraseology:
7.3.10 If the pilot states that he still intends to continue the approach below 1000 ft above
aerodrome level, the controller shall inform the pilot.
7.3.11 This shall be followed at the appropriate times by the following transmissions.
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27, 650
600 600 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27,
touchdown not available, mid point
650, stop end 550 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, you are advised that the
current RVR/visibility is (number)
metres which is below the absolute
minimum for a (name) approach to
runway (number). What are your
intentions?
BIGJET 347, if you continue the
approach and descend below 1000
feet above aerodrome level, it is
believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I
shall be required to report the facts.
Acknowledge
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you making a (name)
approach to runway 30
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you landing, surface
wind 280 degrees 16 knots
I assume this does not apply in Ireland but, as I stated before, it might well have had some bearing on the final outcome i.e. I assume these guys thought they could get away with making wildly illegal approaches; if it was clear that they would not, I think it more likely they would have diverted or not set off in the first place.
In the UK, there is an approach ban which states that a pilot may not continue an
instrument approach beyond the outer marker or equivalent position, if the reported
RVR, or at aerodromes where RVR measurements are not taken or available, the
visibility, is below the minimum specified for that approach. Essentially, this means
that a pilot may not descend below 1,000 feet above the aerodrome when these
conditions exist. This RVR/visibility is known as an 'absolute minimum'.
7.3.9 Should a pilot indicate that he or she intends to commence an instrument approach
when the reported RVR/visibility is less than the notified 'absolute minimum' value,
the controller should inform the pilot using the following RTF phraseology:
7.3.10 If the pilot states that he still intends to continue the approach below 1000 ft above
aerodrome level, the controller shall inform the pilot.
7.3.11 This shall be followed at the appropriate times by the following transmissions.
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27, 650
600 600 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27,
touchdown not available, mid point
650, stop end 550 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, you are advised that the
current RVR/visibility is (number)
metres which is below the absolute
minimum for a (name) approach to
runway (number). What are your
intentions?
BIGJET 347, if you continue the
approach and descend below 1000
feet above aerodrome level, it is
believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I
shall be required to report the facts.
Acknowledge
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you making a (name)
approach to runway 30
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you landing, surface
wind 280 degrees 16 knots
I assume this does not apply in Ireland but, as I stated before, it might well have had some bearing on the final outcome i.e. I assume these guys thought they could get away with making wildly illegal approaches; if it was clear that they would not, I think it more likely they would have diverted or not set off in the first place.