Metric eyes
 

Just a tiny, humble, pedantic correction, with respect, from an infrequent flying SLF:-

Perfect hindsight should perhaps be referred to as '6/6'; it's metric now, and the Imperial 20 ft has been replaced by French 6 metres.

Just check with your Opthalmic Optician on your next check-up.

Hudson Bay

Well said or written for that matter. Because it has been tried before or it is always working doesn't mean it is safe. Too many pilots have this attitude today, just because they (just) made it into a cockpit because of lower standarts doesn't mean you should throw away SOP's or common sence. And that is it, only to be polite.:E

Studentindebt

I never said circling was a dangerous manoeuvre, I stated that orbiting on final should never happen on a commercial flight with pax on board. By the wording on some of the previous posts I understood that the aircraft was orbiting to loose altitude.

As for circling in IMC, I wouldn't of thought this was the case. There are minimum met requirements to begin a procedure that must be adhered to. As Mike says carrying out a procedure such as this in IMC would make it extremely dangerous. I would of thought it would be impossible. The aircraft sounds like it entered IMC during the procedure. If this was the case there are clear and precise procedures for the go around.

I didn't think there was a circling procedure at PGF anyway. I think you will find it is an indirect approach. A different procedure all together.

The Bristol incident can be found here. Please take time to read it. It highlights some of the potential problems of "doing your own thing". This incident was not the first of it's kind and it won't be the last. Just don't let it happen to you.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...6n__g_strh.cfm

SUD 747

i note what you write , if you look at the example Hudson has quoted, the Commander was 57 , had 15,000hrs and 7500 on type !

Just proves it can happen to anyone.

Having said that . you are correct in what you write , there are people in the cockpit today who have purchased their place there and whose ability to do the job is second to their ability (or their parents) to pay.

A lamentable state of affairs.

Indeed i believe the carrier on this incident is one of those that allows First Officers to pay to fly , if only the public knew .

It has been a while since I last visited, and I agree with you. Not much has changed.

No it wasn't an orbit.
AS USUAL you are talking CR@P

flying bug

You critize, but you don't even give an explanation. Pease have the courage of explaning why it wasn't an orbit, insead of hiding behind a pseudo.:E

Thanks, I read through that but I think you have quoted the wrong report as there is no mention of the aircraft impacting the ground in line with your previous comment
Let me know when you find the right one.
Perhaps if you read the whole topic, in particular Snigs' and flybe.coms' alleged accounts of the incident in question, you might see why it wasn't an orbit :ugh:

flybe.com

Point taken, there may have been embelishments, how do I know?

I expect that the fdm parameters will contain enough information for the AAIB investigation to at least plot the profiles of the approaches. As we know, there is no way of knowing the actual met conditions, just the METAR at the time.

So how is an orbit per definition out of order?? I saw a KLM 737 do it the other day in ams with no problems. Yes I know the highest pole in holland is 1300 feet and nowhere near the airport, but still the statement that you should be sacked for making an orbit is incorrect. It depends on where you are. If its VMC over flat terrain and with ATC approval..... big deal :E

fortuna76

Just because you see somebody else do something does it make it right? It is a big deal if it is a non SOP procedure. There is no Airline in the world that would approve such a manoeuvre. Do it on your own in your own airplane if you want to fly like a cowboy.

Malcarr, don't be modest, we all have something to contribute.
Ah, but not in one of the major flying nations of the world, ie the USA, which still uses 20:20. Besides, hindsight is always "20:20" because it is a turn of phrase, not an SI measurement.
Well, seeing as we're being pedantic, it's ophthalmic, not opthalmic. Have a good look at his sign when you visit yours on your next check up.
Welcome to pprune.

Not all stuff ups can be sheeted back to the company training department. More often than not the pilot has displayed poor airmanship. It is all too easy for arm-chair detectives to shift the blame for some accidents and close calls on to the trainers. This conveniently disregards the fact that some pilots regardless of experience, will make rash decisions in the air but rarely when under observation in the simulator.

The Manual of Political Correctness demands reference to Swiss cheeses and all the lined up hole therein, but understandably there is a limit to what trainers can do to prevent suspect individuals getting through the system.

When companies recruit f/o’s straight out of schools with 200hrs, airmanship I guess is a work in progress. Good luck to those who get in, but there are other air taxi or FI’s out there who may have more to bring to the table. I know too much of one thing is bad, just hoping for a bit of a mixed bag with regard to recruitment.

Orbits
 

There is nothing wrong with making an aeroplane fly in a circle, after all they are not designed to just fly in a straight line. I've done lots. Straight into Southampton from the north you're regularly kept high because of airspace restrictions. You either get a radar vectored orbit, or you do one yourself, to lose height. Going into Dublin, runway 28, over the sea we were asked to make an orbit, for spacing, as we were visual we did. And yes, in Amsterdam several times.

Granted there is no instrument procedure for one, not that I know of anyway. So assuming you are visual or under radar control, above the MSA, or if not, certain you will maintain ground separation then what is the problem?

Its been several years since I have flown into PGF but for those not familiar there is high terrain coming in from the NW. Followed by a procedural let down via the VOR to the ILS or if I remember right a DME ARC procedure to the ILS for the Northerly runway which I have to say that on a few occasions "ATC” pushed as the preferred arrival; coupled usually on a late hand over from Bordeaux at FL 080 with 15/20 nm's to run to the VOR. They were never happy when I insisted on taking it via the overhead via a let down in the hold on the VOR procedure to the ILS. Again English isn't the first language and sometimes things are genuinely lost in translation.
The departure was quite busy as well as the northerly runway again was the preferred runway even with a tail wind. The local weather in the main was fine with CB's late afternoon during late spring/summer but low cloud was always prevalent DEC/JAN with strong winds from the NE which was usually accompanied with moderate turbulence which might throw some light to not getting the height off during the let down and out of position and low on the final approach. Hope this helps from my experience as I say no judgment being made here, just a little topographical from my time there.

Some of this discussion vaguely reminds me of the Air Ferry DC-4, which crashed into a mountain near PGF 40 years ago this year, which some of the oldies here may recall. Sorry for slight thread drift.

Mike Jenvey.. Hudson Bay..
If you are circling IMC you may well be perfectly legal and not in danger. Perhaps you are confusing being in IMC with flying in cloud?
Pedant mode off.
TP

Tyro

Using the term IMC was for the uninitiated. The term is generally used as a description for flying without visual reference, however the correct description is for conditions less than the requirements for Visual meteorological conditions.

Tyro
If you are IMC then you are either in cloud or not sufficiently clear of it to satisfy the requirements of VMC. If you are IFR you may or may not be in cloud. You can be
IFR in IMC
IFR in VMC
VFR in VMC
but not VFR in IMC
I think!
You are correct in that "If you are circling IMC you may well be perfectly legal and not in danger" .
Thumper ;)