Diversion - Did Manchester Shrink in the Rain?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here it is in a nutshell.
We all know the crew did something stupid, because they poked off from a perfectly good airfield where they KNEW they could land.
But they did not do this stupid thing for a stupid reason.
They did this stupid thing, because their stupid company made them.
If it wasn't for the stupid company, they would have done the sensible thing, and landed.
But if they'd done the sensible thing, and landed, then the stupid company would have kicked their asses.
Sound about right?
We all know the crew did something stupid, because they poked off from a perfectly good airfield where they KNEW they could land.
But they did not do this stupid thing for a stupid reason.
They did this stupid thing, because their stupid company made them.
If it wasn't for the stupid company, they would have done the sensible thing, and landed.
But if they'd done the sensible thing, and landed, then the stupid company would have kicked their asses.
Sound about right?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the company is going to demote me or fire me, or put something on my record for continuing to land in a situation like this, assuming it is safe to do, I will go around no matter what the morons on this thread say about airmanship. Continuing to land and using the excuse that some idiot with a stupid name like Glofish on a forum thought it would be a good idea isn't going to work with management in a punishment culture airline.
That being said, I wonder what the policy is for the company when the only safe alternate is a runway significantly shorter than the one the software says I can't land on. I'll still go to it to preserve my pay as long as it is safe but this is a quite possible scenario.
That being said, I wonder what the policy is for the company when the only safe alternate is a runway significantly shorter than the one the software says I can't land on. I'll still go to it to preserve my pay as long as it is safe but this is a quite possible scenario.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another JammedBrain with reading comprehension problems ...
I never said they should have continued. Going around is required, as helen so eloquently stated and i agree. Then you hold and assess and realise that there must be a glitch in HAL, switch him off, use the alternate procedure and go and land successfully. Two other attempts with a stubborn HAL resemble more to a desperate wish the glitch would go away, than an attempt with a reasonable chance of not getting his warning again.
By the way, in the same week another whale had a similar warning and its jockey did exactly what i described. Successful landing, no consequences.
And funnily enough the company issued a notam to only attempt 2 approaches at the same airport.
(Might have to do with the FZ accident, but applies to HAL as well now)
I never said they should have continued. Going around is required, as helen so eloquently stated and i agree. Then you hold and assess and realise that there must be a glitch in HAL, switch him off, use the alternate procedure and go and land successfully. Two other attempts with a stubborn HAL resemble more to a desperate wish the glitch would go away, than an attempt with a reasonable chance of not getting his warning again.
By the way, in the same week another whale had a similar warning and its jockey did exactly what i described. Successful landing, no consequences.
And funnily enough the company issued a notam to only attempt 2 approaches at the same airport.
(Might have to do with the FZ accident, but applies to HAL as well now)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In house report is published but will not be posted here.
Suffice to say the crew were in contact with the company and acted in accordance with company advice and procedures.
It's up to the company to change the procedure, not the crew.
End of!
Suffice to say the crew were in contact with the company and acted in accordance with company advice and procedures.
It's up to the company to change the procedure, not the crew.
End of!
