Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@rabcnesbitt
Let me be the devil's advocate:
- crew was properly licensed
- crew composition was legal
- PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight, e.g. amount of fuel, commencement of approach, number of approaches etc. etc....
Let me be the devil's advocate:
- crew was properly licensed
- crew composition was legal
- PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight, e.g. amount of fuel, commencement of approach, number of approaches etc. etc....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabc I'm sorry I must have missed something in the thread. Where exactly does it give the fuel load/upload/flight planning details and communications between Flight Ops and the Captain? If the Captain deemed it fit to go in the forecast conditions it would have been his decision as to the fuel load and diversion suitability. Of course he would have had reference to Flight Ops available for advice but as to Flight Ops alone making the decision?
Was the aircraft and crew Cat II capable and qualified? I still have no idea, has it been confirmed?
Was the aircraft and crew Cat II capable and qualified? I still have no idea, has it been confirmed?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabcnesbitt
Are you serious?
You need to remind yourself of the role, duty and responsibilities of the pilot-in-command. it is not for an operations department or anybody else to substitute for these requirements.
Whatever the cause of this accident, qualified people will go to great pains to establish the cause, and produce recommendations as a result. That will take some time, and unfortunately will do nothing to stop the "pant wetting" excitement that some people are displaying on this thread.
Are you serious?
You need to remind yourself of the role, duty and responsibilities of the pilot-in-command. it is not for an operations department or anybody else to substitute for these requirements.
Whatever the cause of this accident, qualified people will go to great pains to establish the cause, and produce recommendations as a result. That will take some time, and unfortunately will do nothing to stop the "pant wetting" excitement that some people are displaying on this thread.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rabcnesbitt Cause
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the Flight Operations department must take major responsibility for this accident. They knew what the weather was at ORK before departure. Given that they could have (taking into account the crews in-experience) delayed the flight until the weather was improving or as they also knew there were only 12 souls on board put more fuel on to give the captain a chance of diverting to well outside the area. By the looks of things they chose to take none of these choices but to take the bean counters way.
Granted in order to make a profit it is prudent to do things a certain way but when you know it is going to be difficult you don't tie your crew's hand behind their backs. This is going to cost a lot more than a delay of a couple of hours or the cost of a couple of hours fuel.
So lets not be too quick to blame the pilots perhaps flight ops and the management need to be re-educated. Flight ops gave the go ahead for the flight knowing the crew's experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the Flight Operations department must take major responsibility for this accident. They knew what the weather was at ORK before departure. Given that they could have (taking into account the crews in-experience) delayed the flight until the weather was improving or as they also knew there were only 12 souls on board put more fuel on to give the captain a chance of diverting to well outside the area. By the looks of things they chose to take none of these choices but to take the bean counters way.
Granted in order to make a profit it is prudent to do things a certain way but when you know it is going to be difficult you don't tie your crew's hand behind their backs. This is going to cost a lot more than a delay of a couple of hours or the cost of a couple of hours fuel.
So lets not be too quick to blame the pilots perhaps flight ops and the management need to be re-educated. Flight ops gave the go ahead for the flight knowing the crew's experience
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain does not have PIC until he has signed for the aircraft.
Who was the brain-box that paired a rookie captain with a rookie first officer? Given that circumstance and the weather it should have sent alarm bells ringing everywhere. The duty of a safe flight IMHO does not rest solely with the captain, the person who rostered the crew together must also shoulder responsibility.
Flight ops do have a responsibility for safe flight at least when I did it that's how I worked, I had this strange desire to see all my passengers and crews walk away from every landing. Then again I wouldn't allow such a pairing in the first place. The reasoning is also quite simple if nothing goes wrong there is no extra paperwork and no remorse. But then again I was never a soulless bean counter. Where is the SMS (Safety Management Systems) within the EU airline to allow this to happen or have they never heard of it. It should be part of their ops manuals. 'Risk assessment in all areas including flight operations'. Perhaps somebody needs to have a read.
You have to look at the quality of your systems. Your SOPs are there to stop this sort of thing happening not to encourage it. The Captain is the guy who carries the can for any mistakes made by the team that supports him.
Who was the brain-box that paired a rookie captain with a rookie first officer? Given that circumstance and the weather it should have sent alarm bells ringing everywhere. The duty of a safe flight IMHO does not rest solely with the captain, the person who rostered the crew together must also shoulder responsibility.
Flight ops do have a responsibility for safe flight at least when I did it that's how I worked, I had this strange desire to see all my passengers and crews walk away from every landing. Then again I wouldn't allow such a pairing in the first place. The reasoning is also quite simple if nothing goes wrong there is no extra paperwork and no remorse. But then again I was never a soulless bean counter. Where is the SMS (Safety Management Systems) within the EU airline to allow this to happen or have they never heard of it. It should be part of their ops manuals. 'Risk assessment in all areas including flight operations'. Perhaps somebody needs to have a read.
You have to look at the quality of your systems. Your SOPs are there to stop this sort of thing happening not to encourage it. The Captain is the guy who carries the can for any mistakes made by the team that supports him.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kerry, Ireland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for the ATPLs with Passenger Airline experience:
This aircraft was 15 minutes flying time away from EIWF - Waterford and EIKY - Kerry. Kerry had blue skys and as far as I know so had WF. EICK is notorious for early morning fog which will burn off soon after the sun rises and did so 30 minutes after the accident. The aircraft after two MAs then went into a holding pattern for 20 minutes (I presume in the hope that the fog would burn off) but this option was limiting their remaining options. My question is would it have been allowed (and if not why not?) that the aircraft divert to say EIKY (which has Jet A1 & Avgas supplies) refuel and fly back to EICK with the PAX when the fog had burned off? (as opposed to off loading them and forcing them to travel by road back to EICK)
This aircraft was 15 minutes flying time away from EIWF - Waterford and EIKY - Kerry. Kerry had blue skys and as far as I know so had WF. EICK is notorious for early morning fog which will burn off soon after the sun rises and did so 30 minutes after the accident. The aircraft after two MAs then went into a holding pattern for 20 minutes (I presume in the hope that the fog would burn off) but this option was limiting their remaining options. My question is would it have been allowed (and if not why not?) that the aircraft divert to say EIKY (which has Jet A1 & Avgas supplies) refuel and fly back to EICK with the PAX when the fog had burned off? (as opposed to off loading them and forcing them to travel by road back to EICK)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabc the Captain accepts the computer flight plan with its computed fuel load and adjusts it as to HIS requirements. He has control of the flight then.
Are you by any chance talking about US dispatching which is somewhat different to EU i.e. joint dispatch authority in US/Canada?
Are you by any chance talking about US dispatching which is somewhat different to EU i.e. joint dispatch authority in US/Canada?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gillespie Field... Yes u can do that... just all depends on what the company want you to do
On another note if he was a new captain then i believe his Minima would be increased aswell for a period of time.. unsure if this is just for CAT II tho
On another note if he was a new captain then i believe his Minima would be increased aswell for a period of time.. unsure if this is just for CAT II tho
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense states: putting two Inexperienced crew together on an aircraft doing a Public Transport flight into crap weather, give them an extra edge a couple of hundred kgs of extra fuel might have made all the difference. It would have allowed an extra 30 minutes in the hold and that extra 30 minutes was all that was needed. I dare say the Captain wouldn't have said anything about it. Airline flying is a team effort and there is no 'I' in team.
Captain takes his computerised sheet but the engineer forgot to tighten a nut properly is it the captain at fault? The Captain expects and rightly so that the support staff are doing their jobs properly and advise him accordingly before he takes control of the aircraft. Captains are not gods just human and sometimes the make mistakes the idea of a team effort is sufficient checks and balances to try to minimise those chances of mistakes happening. Why does EU-OPS require SMS?
There but for the grace of God go I. Worth remembering.
Captain takes his computerised sheet but the engineer forgot to tighten a nut properly is it the captain at fault? The Captain expects and rightly so that the support staff are doing their jobs properly and advise him accordingly before he takes control of the aircraft. Captains are not gods just human and sometimes the make mistakes the idea of a team effort is sufficient checks and balances to try to minimise those chances of mistakes happening. Why does EU-OPS require SMS?
There but for the grace of God go I. Worth remembering.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gillespie field:That would assume local knowledge which neither pilot neccessarily had. However I would be interested in seeing the 0500 TAF for EICK that morning. Presumably it would have forecast a time for the fog to lift which would have influenced their decision to depart and how long to hold. If it had failed to disappear at the forecast time that would have left them holding.
They could have diverted but the fog was expected to lift and it duly did shortly after the accident.
This will no doubt be addressed in the final report.
They could have diverted but the fog was expected to lift and it duly did shortly after the accident.
This will no doubt be addressed in the final report.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it doesn't depend on what the "company want you to do." Operational requests and preferences are just that. As the Pilot-in-command, the decision ultimately rests with you. As Rabcnesbitt correctly states in the last (but one) of his posts, the whole operational structure has a collective responsibility for the safe conduct of each and every flight. They all have their own legislated obligations and responsibilities, but once the flight commences, until it ends, absolute responsibility rests with the commander, who not only "can" but must make whatever decisions are necessary for the safe conduct of that flight, no matter what is operationally preferable.
Commanders should be promoted to the position, only after they have demonstrated the necessary experience, aptitude, maturity, common sense and knowledge for the role. As with any new appointment, inexperience needs to be tempered with limitation adjustments and appropriate mentoring. The role, and the responsibilities are however the same whether the commander has 1 hour in that position, or 20,000 hours.
I say this without any implied reference to this accident, but simply to correct some of the misconceptions being displayed by some people contributing here, who don't seem to understand the role.
Commanders should be promoted to the position, only after they have demonstrated the necessary experience, aptitude, maturity, common sense and knowledge for the role. As with any new appointment, inexperience needs to be tempered with limitation adjustments and appropriate mentoring. The role, and the responsibilities are however the same whether the commander has 1 hour in that position, or 20,000 hours.
I say this without any implied reference to this accident, but simply to correct some of the misconceptions being displayed by some people contributing here, who don't seem to understand the role.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your post Bealzebub, I understand the Captains responsibilities and requirements. There are still asked but unanswered questions.
Has the experience level for each pilot (total, on type and experience in role) been defined and confirmed so that any speculation is confirmed or denied?
Was the aircraft Cat II capable and were the crew Cat II qualified?
Without definite and confirmed answers then as usual the Rumour network is just that.
I would think that the Investigation Team will be the only people with any solid information so it's wait for the report for the facts.
Has the experience level for each pilot (total, on type and experience in role) been defined and confirmed so that any speculation is confirmed or denied?
Was the aircraft Cat II capable and were the crew Cat II qualified?
Without definite and confirmed answers then as usual the Rumour network is just that.
I would think that the Investigation Team will be the only people with any solid information so it's wait for the report for the facts.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your anti Manx2 stance, whilst informative at the start is getting really boring, and also ignorant now rab.
Some may argue differently. The Captain is in charge of the safe conduct of that flight long before he gets on board and signs off the loadsheet. Indeed all the way through the weather, fuel planning, ascertaining that everyone is fit to fly as far as he can etc etc he has the ability to stop the process. If, and its a big if as we all know nothing has been decided yet, fuel was an issue then the captain is the one who accepted the fuel load on the plog.
This line of thought on this forum stil looks speculative to me. has it been confirmed? If so it is surprising. Flightline's Part A will surely have regulations on crew composition and experience levels. If they have been disregarded then indeed this is serious. But again surely this would be caught as a last ine of defence by the crew. Maybe we should all wait on official confirmation before this is debated further.
You seem to have very strong prejudice against Manx2. You may have good reason for this, or not. But ultimately you can't blame them for everything.
Captain does not have PIC until he has signed for the aircraft.
Who was the brain-box that paired a rookie captain with a rookie first officer? Given that circumstance and the weather it should have sent alarm bells ringing everywhere. The duty of a safe flight IMHO does not rest solely with the captain, the person who rostered the crew together must also shoulder responsibility.
You seem to have very strong prejudice against Manx2. You may have good reason for this, or not. But ultimately you can't blame them for everything.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pairing rookies:
I recall when the airbus 320 appeared at our airline. No one had flown it. So everyone was a rookie on it. There were penalties for visibility on approaches and that was pretty much it. Mind you, our pilots were experienced, just not on the type.
I recall when the airbus 320 appeared at our airline. No one had flown it. So everyone was a rookie on it. There were penalties for visibility on approaches and that was pretty much it. Mind you, our pilots were experienced, just not on the type.
Fatigue
Does anyone know when the crew started their duty?
Somewhere amongst the posts it is mentioned that the aircraft had operated a postal flight during the night. If the same crew had been operating then, they would have been exceedingly tired, regardless of whatever pre-flight rest they achieved, at the time of the accident.
Having flown through the night for several years I and my colleagues were only too aware of the degradation in our performance at the end of a long duty.
Somewhere amongst the posts it is mentioned that the aircraft had operated a postal flight during the night. If the same crew had been operating then, they would have been exceedingly tired, regardless of whatever pre-flight rest they achieved, at the time of the accident.
Having flown through the night for several years I and my colleagues were only too aware of the degradation in our performance at the end of a long duty.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub. It actually does depend on "what the company want you to do".
Again, not commenting on this case directly.
Provided safety is not compromised the company may require you to:
Hold as long as possible for expected imrovement before diverting with reserve plus alternate.
Go now to a suitable airport (not necessarily the planned one) to wait on the ground for said improvement and then:
a) go back and finish the job.
b) deplane the pax and return to base empty.
c) deplane the pax and wait for the return pax to be bussed over.
Or even simply return to base with the outbound pax.
The decision is a purely commercial one, and may vary day to day. It is their trainset after all, and in 20 years I've never been pushed by any ops department to make an unsafe decision. An unpopular decision with pax or crew, maybe.
I'm not saying it wouldn't ever happen, but within europe "skating on thin ice" would be the expression that springs to mind.
Still I have learned, at least through this thread that the "2 approach rule" is a company requirement, and not an ANO/EU ops thing, and can vary in it's precise wording. Would any ops inspectors, or management pilots who have dealt with drafting part A, care to comment?
Again, not commenting on this case directly.
Provided safety is not compromised the company may require you to:
Hold as long as possible for expected imrovement before diverting with reserve plus alternate.
Go now to a suitable airport (not necessarily the planned one) to wait on the ground for said improvement and then:
a) go back and finish the job.
b) deplane the pax and return to base empty.
c) deplane the pax and wait for the return pax to be bussed over.
Or even simply return to base with the outbound pax.
The decision is a purely commercial one, and may vary day to day. It is their trainset after all, and in 20 years I've never been pushed by any ops department to make an unsafe decision. An unpopular decision with pax or crew, maybe.
I'm not saying it wouldn't ever happen, but within europe "skating on thin ice" would be the expression that springs to mind.
Still I have learned, at least through this thread that the "2 approach rule" is a company requirement, and not an ANO/EU ops thing, and can vary in it's precise wording. Would any ops inspectors, or management pilots who have dealt with drafting part A, care to comment?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some clarifications hopefully:
a) the aircraft landed on the right hand side of the centreline, so perhaps the theory of correcting from the left of the centreline isn't compelling; though I don't know;
b) from there the aircraft inverted and ended up on the left hand side of the runway.
The reasons are to be established. Some of the possibilities ventilated here are interesting theories, but I've come to realise no more than that.
a) the aircraft landed on the right hand side of the centreline, so perhaps the theory of correcting from the left of the centreline isn't compelling; though I don't know;
b) from there the aircraft inverted and ended up on the left hand side of the runway.
The reasons are to be established. Some of the possibilities ventilated here are interesting theories, but I've come to realise no more than that.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft was CAT I only, stop speculating about CAT II, it is only a CAT I aircraft!!!!! The investigators have said it appears to have been functioning normally pre crash so also lets stop speculating about failures. These guys are professionals, do it as a job, saw the aircraft up close and got to see all the little scrapes, dings etc and have stated that there appears to be no indication of malfunction. Until the final report comes out lets trust these guys who saw it up close and do it for a living.
