Mandatory to have 2 pairs of glasses available by law, could be interesting to watch a pilot carrying an extra limb when he goes to work :-)

http://www.disabledmotorcyclerider.c.../handtobar.gif

Just for info this is more than likely something like what he uses. This one is for motorbikes.

The way I read it the bit that failed was the clamp onto the Yoke. The friction clamp lever sprung open. This one because it is semi perm can be bolted to the steering bar.

From an engineering point of view the design in use more than likely had several thousand landings on it with no issues. The event occurred design revisited and in under 10 mins the risk negated with use of a tapered retaining pin through a lug hole.

I think there are 2 engineers in the UK who can sign off mods for disabled pilots but both of them are light aircraft. There was a third but he died a few years back.

Just ask your passengers BEFORE the flight what they think about....

I WON'T fly in this case... It is not serious.
If you like to fly - do it in air club with private plane.

But having passengers behind..... sorry, no.

You have to think about passengers safety, not about your own ambitions.

OPEN QUESTION TO FLYBE AIRLINES
 

Quote from the BBC:

Flybe said the senior captain was one of its "most experienced and trusted pilots", and the safety of passengers and crew had not been compromised in any way.

Question:

If this incident did NOT compromise safety then could you enlighten us as to what in your opinion DOES?

OPEN QUESTION TO FLYBE AIRLINES
 

The RAF proved years ago that a pilot can be totally legless and still be a stuff-shirted arrogant glory-seeker. Should give the chap a hand for only one bounce.

I'm afraid that is what airlines and ANSPs always say when there has been an incident.

Two hands might be better.

From the BBC story. It sounds like the clamp stayed on the yoke.

It seems that many posters on this thread believe that their "opinions" trump those of the CAA, AAIB and Flybe's. Both the CAA and Flybe had ample time to consider any risks before this individual's licence was granted/renewed. Following this incident I'm sure that both the CAA and Flybe have reassessed the risks and concluded that they are manageable.


Sadly none of these details will affect the feeding frenzy that some appear to have whipped themselves into, IMHO , and they should just be left to get on with it. :(

The removal and refitting of any mechanical component in the flying control system normally requires a duplicate inspection and signing off by a licensed engineer. Just saying....

Just to balance things, I'd like to see the training and medical records of those who believe this guy shouldn't fly, with or without passengers. That will sure give us a laugh. For anybody capable if coming up with unhinged opinions like this is bound to have an interesting past - one which should preclude them from flying with or without passengers. Fact free, zero analysis arguments based purely upon prejudice have no value here or anywhere else. They should be consigned to Room 101.

I go back to what I wrote before which is that there are many pilots flying commercially with medical conditions.
Flying is one of the few professions where a strict medical is required and at any time a pilot can be told that his career/livelihood is over.
hence it is right and proper to try and accommodate these people where it is deemed that it is safe to do so.
With 2 crew its not such a bad situation as with a single pilot and many fly with conditions where they are using drugs or combination of drugs for various conditions.
Yes there are lessons to be learnt from this incident which is unlikely to happen again and may require a special briefing and clarification of roles in the event of such an occurrence and maybe being more aware a possible go around should this happen again.
As for saying the pilot is not fit to fly? total rubbish and a dangerous route to take regarding where such discrimination could lead to other pilots who do not quite hit the Mark in other medical areas

I agree with you but... this industry is joke itself :

airlines offer P2F, contracts are off-shore or you're an independant worker, and now pilots have artificial arms.

And you expect professionalism and some serious things ? :}


Long time ago I gave up to expect anything from this industry. :ugh:

I take my paycheck and just laugh (hollowly) at what I can see.

MOOSP

Yes A330AV8R they do. And if your handle implies you fly commercially then I am astounded that you do not know this.

I refer you back to post 4 of this thread, where the poster kindly gave us all the link to the CAA web site that explains the legislation.

Far smarter medical and engineering minds than seem to appear on this thread have assessed that certain kinds of disability in civil aviation need to be addressed and solved in various ways.The legislation and the CAA medical staff are way more capable than the journalists of the popular press and the frippery of this thread to ensure that the safety of disabled pilots does not compromise any aspect of both civil and private aviation. These legislators continue to provide the levels of safety that is expected under the EASA.

My handle implies THAT exactly .

I have touched all corners of the planet operationally and I have " NEVER " yes " NEVER " seen anyone barring a few really " over weight " individuals who carry personal O2 tanks to breath at night , but that is a different story ........ operating a short or long haul flight .

Case in point a friend of mine Former BA had an unusual heart rhythm and because of this he simply couldn't get a Class 1 medical until he got one outside of the " EASA " system . For the uninitiated this is not a developed condition but is something that your born with .

I have to say that I learn something new every day but this one about the CAA / EASA is a first !

That being said as long as the person is sitting on the left or right then some competent :E person put them there and disabled or not as long as they are SAFE operators , that's good enough for me ! :ok:

This pilots been with this company in its many guises for over 16 years and has flown with this 'disability' for over 20. First time this has ever happened. He is a first rate pilot....highly regarded by his peers and others who have flown with him. Those who know what they're talking about have no issues here, so maybe the ignorant can just keep quiet!

I am seriously embarrassed by the attitude of so called professionals on this site! I have not visited in a while but it's clear to me it attracts pond life!!

For the record the pilot mentioned I have actually flown with! Yes in the real world! A total pro and a TRE I may add! He has completed thousands of commercial flights and trained hundreds of pilots who now fly safely worldwide! I would trust him to fly my family any time! Unlike most so called pilots on here and pay to fly type airline career types!!

It may shock you to learn he is not the only pilot Flybe employ with a limb missing! It may also surprise you to learn Flybe are not the only airline in the world that employs people with disabilities!

At the end of the day overcoming a disability to excell in Your dream career should be applauded not criticised by morons!

This man has done more for civil aviation than most in the industry!

Yet the fact is that a number of passengers were placed at increased risk, due to an un-briefed failure mode, resulting in the aircraft suffering a heavy landing with no-one in control of the thrust levers.

That is not acceptable and I am sure steps have already been taken to mitigate the risk, but it did happen and I don't think there is room for macho comments about 'the ignorant', as those conducting the flight were proven to be ignorant of the risk and the response plan, to the degree that it was not briefed.

And how many times has this happened and never been reported by pilots with all four limbs, this only came to light because the person in question had the balls to report it in the first place.

Well, in this case the risk assessment was proven wrong, and no matter how nice this pilot is, he could have killed people had this developed into an accident.

So no different to every other pilot on the planet then.

It was so dangerous that the aircraft was found to be UNDAMAGED!

It bounced! :mad:! Every bounced landing is a potential death threat now?

A friend of mine touched down, lowered the nose gear gently to the runway and said "Captain, your aircraft." He then slumped forward on the yoke having had a heart attack. ( He survived ).

Lose a limb? Lose a heart and consciousness? What's the difference?

That's why we have two pilots in the cockpit, right?

Move along, nothing to see here.

@ TTR I'd venture to suggest that the latency/lag-time, call it what you will, exceeded the time from lost grip to landing.

A total red-herring, it didn't and probably wouldn't have made a jot of difference.A minor hiccup and he was being overly cautious in reporting the heavy landing.....sheesh,you see a lot hairier stuff on yootoob :8

Whether the passengers were exposed to "increased risk" (however we choose to define that) is a moot point and the OP will have observed from subsequent posts that opinion varies widely about that.

But the other two parts of his/her assertion are harder to dispute: yes, it was a heavy landing (per the AAIB) and yes, the potential failure of the prosthetic wasn't briefed (hence the commander's undertaking to do so in future).

Agreed, but before we do so, file under "lessons learned".

Fair enough.......potential failure of a metal arm......not much hope for those of us with bones?

For the people who have had a go at my post, may I just remind you that I was not bigging this event up (in fact, in my earlier post, I expressed concern that it was reported as 'loss of control' and the effect this may have on the captain involved and other disabled pilots.)

I am on the side of the captain. He landed the aircraft safely.

However, Sharkslayer posted

(My emboldening.)

The fact is that the event was not briefed, the thrust levers were not under control and the aircraft suffered a heavy landing as a result.

I don't think that telling the ignorant to be quiet is a reasonable approach, when the aircraft was operated in a manner it was not mean to and an incident resulted.

I agree that the captain took a judgement call to get the safest outcome by using years of experience and there probably was not enough time to organize a safe go around, but I cannot see how the risk to the pax was not increased by the incident (even if only slightly), bearing in mind that CRM broke down or more possibly there was no time for it to be used.

There is a saying that people in glass houses are best advised to refrain from throwing stones, that is my only point.

DaveReid(UK) sums it up nicely with his 'lessons learned' comment and I am sure they have been.

I am not a professional, as you would know if you read my post earlier on the thread, where I was very clear about it. I have made several hundred landings, so have some insight into the challenges posed by a combination of difficult weather and unexpected events.

I have no criticism of the captain, I think he took a good call under difficult circumstances and ensured the safety of his pax, as well as being responsible enough to file the report. My earlier post expressed concern that the press would stir up the matter and it would affect him and other disabled colleagues.

The 'facts' I quoted were that the event was not briefed, the power levers were unguarded and there was a heavy landing. I also expressed an opinion that the risk to pax was raised, even though it may have been only slightly, others may disagree. These points are no criticism of the captain, who was placed in a difficult and unforeseen situation, being ignorant of the risk.

I think you need to wind in your neck and refrain from calling others ignorant, when the CAA, airline etc didn't see the risk and plan for it.

No doubt that is no longer the case.

By the way, when one needs to resort to insults, it is usually a sign of an inability to articulate a perspective effectively.

It's not a valid point.
Because, of course we can lose control by natural problems (heart attack etc)

BUT is it a reason to ADD problems or to add unkowns X or Y in the equation ? (by accepting artificial prothesis )

the difference between these 2 is:
1) we don't have choice, we are human being
2) it is just about rules and medical conditions. We do have the choice to avoid...

CRM, while it does concern itself with the practical application of Human Factors, is actually a rather wider concept.

Very professional of the captain to file an ASR . He sounds like a pro and a great guy to continue operational flying with a disability. However... it is not unreasonable to discuss the incident and it is certainly not professional nor appropriate to call anyone ' an arsehole' for proffering a different view.I don't see anyone here calling for him to stop flying.

Doesn't matter how nice a guy he is the fact is that the aircraft was out of control in a critical phase of flight.

Some people seem to think that's ok because the pilot is a nice dude.

What's the difference? If you really can't work out what the difference is I hope I never find myself reliant on your judgement, irrespective of the number of limbs it's attached to...

I remember now why I stopped bothering with this forum!

As I said before no issues with the guy flying my family! I would argue he is actually a better and safer pilot for his disability! Having had to prove himself and overcome uneducated bigots in the industry!

I find it incredible to find myself saying, thank goodness the CAA is an enlightened regulator. Some on this forum could actually learn something from them!

Every single flight ever operated comes with risk! Risk management is what we are paid to do! Who are you going to say is increasing the risks to flight safety next? The 60plus pilot who is long in the tooth and should call it a day? The young pilot who is more gung-ho, but lacks the experience/attitude to risks?

Or shall we single people out that are ethnic minorities or homosexuals?

The CAA IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY HAVE ISSUED A MEDICAL TO SAY HE IS FIT TO FLY!!!!

MORE THAN ONE airline employs disabled pilots!

Let's be honest more fatalities are associated with mental health issues or fatigue than the failure of an artificial limb!!!

Spandex, it's not ok because he is a nice guy! It's ok because he is a professional with integrity! You could learn a lot from the man!

Anyone know how common, if other countries, issue class 1 medicals to commercial airline pilots with prosthetic arms ?

Sure, there's a lesson to be learnt from this - isn't there always? - but behind the headline is an inspirational story of a guy who clearly wasn't going to let the "mere" loss of an arm get in the way of his chosen career.

Ok so I'm "just" an SLF, but I'd fly with him tomorrow.

So you've made several hundred landings TTR!

What an expert you must be. Here's me getting all confused about what the first P in Pprune stands for.

Now I remember why I stopped looking at this site. Too many wannabes!

Cya.

He also paved the way for many others, and continues to mentor and assist disabled pilots.

He is not the only one though, ever heard of the British disabled flying association? A fabulous charity that all on this site should try to support. Either with cash or your time in a light aircraft, or visits to your company. It's nice to put a little back into the industry that has been your career.

I really cannot imagine a situation where the copilot couldn't have taken over , or assisted with throttles, or even the captain make a go around.


Sorry, doesn't make sense, no matter what part of the approach/landing an instantaneous and successful change of control assuming competence in both chairs/pilots.

If they changed the rules to age 65 if the other pilot is below 60 in case the older pilot can't perform his duties because of physical incapacitation why not let a pilot with an artificial limb be allowed to fly with a pilot without disabilities?