Qantas Declares Emergency
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mustafagander,
Sounds like similar reasoning to that used by the VS A340 guys - offered Manston but knew more about LHR (before fuel state concerns made the decision for them anyway). No engine fires on that one until after they got down, though!!
Sounds like similar reasoning to that used by the VS A340 guys - offered Manston but knew more about LHR (before fuel state concerns made the decision for them anyway). No engine fires on that one until after they got down, though!!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, don't think I made myself too clear. Of course we all do our upmost to get the aircraft on the ground as quickly as possible in those circumstances.
But...what if the worst was to happen ? Don't you think there will be lots of questions asked of the ATCO as to the consideration given to people on the ground ?
Now I will take that responsibility, but should I have to ? Why is there no guidance laid down by SRG, NATS or BAA management to back up the 'ATCO in the dock' ?
As an aside I've watched a video of a simulated engine fire on a twin jet departing Heathrow. The fire is not extinguished. When the Aircraft is vectored back for westerlies, the First Officer asks the Captain
' are you happy to fly a burning aircraft over London ?' , the Captain responds 'if ATC is happy to, then so am I.'
The Captain thinks it's up to ATC, many of my collegues believe that responsibility rests solely with the Captain.
So who takes responsibility. ?
I will, but I'd rather management did.
But...what if the worst was to happen ? Don't you think there will be lots of questions asked of the ATCO as to the consideration given to people on the ground ?
Now I will take that responsibility, but should I have to ? Why is there no guidance laid down by SRG, NATS or BAA management to back up the 'ATCO in the dock' ?
As an aside I've watched a video of a simulated engine fire on a twin jet departing Heathrow. The fire is not extinguished. When the Aircraft is vectored back for westerlies, the First Officer asks the Captain
' are you happy to fly a burning aircraft over London ?' , the Captain responds 'if ATC is happy to, then so am I.'
The Captain thinks it's up to ATC, many of my collegues believe that responsibility rests solely with the Captain.
So who takes responsibility. ?
I will, but I'd rather management did.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 47
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot in Command means just that. Responsible both for a job well done and a job done poorly. Lets not erode what little command authority remains with Captains by suggesting that managment ought be either blamed or commended for decisions that are made by the crew under their emergency authority.
And while we're on the subject, suggesting that a pilot ought to "avoid civilian areas" in anything but the most dire circumstances (the Alaska Air MD-80 crash occurs to me as an example of a Captain using his authority to save the lives of innocent persons on the ground in an untenable situation) seems pretty ludicrous to me.
And while we're on the subject, suggesting that a pilot ought to "avoid civilian areas" in anything but the most dire circumstances (the Alaska Air MD-80 crash occurs to me as an example of a Captain using his authority to save the lives of innocent persons on the ground in an untenable situation) seems pretty ludicrous to me.
