glendalegoon
In principal of course you're correct - trimmed aeroplane, smooth day, power on, speed trend on the rise, aircraft pitches up in response to speed change, hand back on yoke, happy pilot.
Reality (in my opinion given I fly the airframe concerned) rough day, 10 feet off the ground, speed slightly decreasing in the latter stages of the flare (no doubt approach flown initially at a sensible margin above vRef, because in that aeroplane you'd be a brave man not to) so aircraft trim probably in practice slightly nose down at this stage, probably with a boot of rudder in to straighten things out and quite a hefty wing down bank angle to maintain centreline.
Suffice to say that in my opinion (and it's only my opinion) your suggested course of action would be somewhat brave. Inevitably these things are split second decisions but had it been me and had I had the ability to pause time and consider my options, in a Q400 in those conditions at that stage of the landing I would not have tried your plan.
I should also add that my experience in jets or larger turboprops is essentially zero, maybe it'd do better in other aircraft but the Dash wouldn't help you out much with your approach.

mary meagher - I am sure you mean well with your contribution, but it is unfortunately typical of some of the contributions here from non-aviators. You do not understand how aviation safety works - it does not matter if someone got hurt or something got damaged. It is all about risk to future operations and an incident has occurred which has to be considered carefully in the light of future risk. Next, you cannot say with certainty that the interface between arms and legs will be sorted and that the pilot and FlyBe will make sure of that. How do you know? The way we know is that the regulator in charge (UK CAA) investigates and makes absolutely certain that mitigation strategies are in place to ensure this does not happen again. It is absolutely not down to the pilot and airline to reassure everyone that all is well - what else are they going to say other than that? Regarding your comments on aircraft cockpit design, without having flown an Airbus professionally, you cannot know or understand what happened in the AF accident. It is far more complex than someone having a sidestick. It is off-topic, but as one who has flown an Airbus for many years, I think it has many overwhelming safety advantages over conventional aircraft, but good training is critical to ensure the pilot fully understands how it works.

Bealzebub - Fine and eloquent as your post is, I do not agree with your analysis. First of all, the pilot concerned was not somehow doing his company a favour by reporting the incident. He had an obligation to report any safety incident by ASR - like any professional pilot he did so. Not to have reported the incident would have opened himself up to disciplinary action.

Secondly, much is being made by a few people over alleged inappropriate comments purported to have been made by non-aviation professionals. There are no doubt a few of the usual trolls and berks on here, but my reading of this thread is that a significant number of the contributors are professional pilots who do not believe a Class 1 medical should have been given to the pilot concerned. These are people of significant experience in the airline industry who see the issues here for what they are, and are looking for rational discussion.

Thirdly there are a group of contributors demanding that the mods close this thread down. They need to frankly get out there and see what a big deal this is in the wider world - it is massive. As I write this, CNN is on in the background and the details of this incident are being broadcast round the world. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, this is a big deal to the outside world - telling everyone to wind their neck in is not really the answer. We have to understand that it is the unusual and bizarre which gains publicity - that is the way life is. 'Dog bites man' will never be a headline in The Sun, but 'Man bites dog' will be because it is unusual and bizarre. A professional pilot with a prosthetic arm is unusual and bizarre to the overwhelming majority of people - you may offended by that, but it is nonetheless the way it is and the situation has to be addressed. This one incident has massive traction outside the professional aviation community, and the one thing not to do is pretend it is not happening.

Now onto the issue in question. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting the pilot concerned is incompetent or anything else other than a highly professional aviator. That, nonetheless, does not mean that his medical situation should be ignored. The airline industry is first and foremost one that relies on confidence. It is vital for the maintenance of confidence in an airline that the travelling public believe the people flying their aircraft are fit and proper people to do so. Offensive as this is to some of our more vocal contributors, many people do not want to be flown by a pilot with one arm, particularly so given that as a direct result of his disability a temporary loss of control of the aircraft occurred near the ground. I think most people are staggered that it is possible to be a pilot of a commercial aircraft with only one arm. It would appear we are one of a handful of countries that permit such disabilities, and regrettably the risk taken appears not to have worked out as well as everyone had hoped.

People like Matey are understandably defensive of those with medical issues, due to his own experience. We all know of great people who have lost licences on medical grounds (mainly heart related) and we feel a sense of unfairness and loss both to the individual and the industry. What we have to balance that against is the minimising of risk to our aircraft and passengers, but we must err on the conservative side for the greater good. No one wants to see the demise of a pilot's career, particularly a really high-quality one. There is, however, a bigger picture here - namely the maintenance of public confidence. We accept that the CAA granted a medical in good faith, but is entirely reasonable to review that in the light of the event in question. That does not mean he is a dead cert for a medical suspension, but it does mean the evidence has to be overwhelming that the incident which took place was a one-off and is guaranteed not to happen again. Whatever final decision is arrived at here can never be based on the feelings of the pilot or his employer - it has to be based on the greater good to the travelling public and the industry as a whole.

Anyone have a link to the CAA extract that discusses prosthetics certification? I'm on my phone and can only find the vision chapter. I found a summary of it elsewhere and it suggests that the prosthetic arm is "inspected" to the same standards as the aircraft only if the pilot has two prosthetic arms. If the pilot only has one prosthetic arm the pilot demonstrates that he can fly the plane without it should it fail.

I'd like to read the actual document if I can find it. I'm hoping it says engineered instead of inspected.

I have flown several hundred hours on light singles and twins, so whilst not a line pilot, I believe that I have enough understanding of the story to post a sensible comment.

My concern is that the AAIB report states 'control was lost.'

An arbitrary and strong statement (although perhaps a verbatim report from the capt.)

Two things trouble me about this.

1 - pretty much every pilot has encountered low level windsheasr where the aircraft was momentarily out of control, but was recovered and a safe landing followed

2 - if 'control was lost', literally, I would expect either a crash or an immediate 'go-round' command, with the capt controlling the yoke and the first officer applying TOGA power. I remember getting a strong gust well past the threshold and I didn't feel in control of the landing, the response to throw it away and seek safety back in the air was automatic and compelling.

The capt in this incident is a far more experienced and probably a better handler of the controls than me and if he felt it was safer to land (which proved to be a good call), it concerns me it was reported as 'control was lost', which gives the press a field day and is not helpful to the airlines - business have been bankrupted by less ('how can we sell earrings for less than a prawn sandwich', for instance.)

The subsequent backlash, driven by public opinion, may see this pilot lose his medical and may erect tougher barriers to other pilots who have disabilities that should not prevent them from following their chosen profession.

I think the phrasing of the opening sentence is, with hindsight, not the smartest thing I've ever read and may be proven to be somewhat of an exaggeration when the full report is issues, by which time the damage will already have been done.

Do you really think that would make a jot of difference, other than cost and inconvenience?
I have never seen any person in public with a failure of a prosthetic.....over 30yearsago, i knew a guy with a"swinging knee leg As the foot was lifted, the knee unlocked , allowing a"kick" forward to take a stride...upon putting weight on the limb, the knee was supposed to lock. It very occasionally failed to do so, resulting in a tumble. He continued to wear this early prototype and adjusted his stride-length so a failure would just result in a stumble. The only clue you would have, was a slight "creak" as he walked.

When aircraft have zero parts failure, i'll believe in the certification regime. Meanwhile, rest assured that prosthetics are built for day-in, day out, 100% reliability used by unskilled,non-professionals..They don't need full traceability to be fit for purpose........I suggest you study the failure-rate of Permit aircraft components, V- C of A.

The gent in question I never had the pleasure of flying with in my time at Flybe, but by all accounts he was a more than competent operator. In the end in this incident he also proved his competency.

I fly with guys now who I personally believe are less than competent handlers with two arms let alone one so where is the sanction there? Unfortunately in this industry you just have to meet a minimum standard so they get away with it.

Unfortunately people love to jump on a bandwagon and, even though the situation was recovered satisfactorily, they want their pound of flesh if someone inhabits a space outside of their personal comfort zone.

AAIB Safety Action:

"The commander commented that ... he would brief his co-pilots about the possibility of a similar event; and that they should be ready to take control at any time."

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...CJ%2008-14.pdf

Thoughts ?

It is important to remember that this 'debate' should not be about the pilot concerned but about the policy in granting aviation medicals in the UK.

But this is the very problem with current policy, not limited to aviation. The reaction to a situation is very often knee jerk with very little consideration of actual risk. Case in point, jumpseat visits being banned after 9/11.

Now I do not remember hearing of Mohammed Atta and his merry band receiving personal invitations to the flightdeck from the captains concerned. They busted their way in. So how is the knee jerk reaction in policy in any way relevant?

To bring it back to the point and to medical cases an acquaintance of mine who was flying the 747 at VS lost his medical after he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Thankfully he has made a full recovery now but the medical is never coming back. There is literally nothing wrong with him, I've seen his workouts at the gym. Denying this guy a medical is lunacy when there are grossly overweight individuals still allowed to carry on despite holding onto their medical by a thread.

The fact is we don't live in a world of black and white, there are individual cases with their own nuances. Said Flybe captain has repeatedly demonstrated his competence and, as I said earlier, did so again here.

Competency, surely, is not in question? Policy is.

How far removed is the detached prosthetic from a pair of spectacles being accidentally knocked off?

(I'm not advocating barring spectacle wearers from passing the medical BTW)

Hi there,

Personnally, despite the colleague landed, I do not agree to let a pilot with a prothesis arm, flying professionnaly... but I do not make rules and take decision, it's just my view.

We can congratulate him, but in the same time, be AWARE, that it is OUR JOB and simply our job to land a plane in safety conditions. So, we can not say that this captain was a hero or what. He did what he HAD TO do. No more, no less.
What if , if he would have crashed ? what families would say ? huh ? What we would say ?

About the airline policy, an equal opportunity does not mean to put everybody in a cockpit. In aviation you can be Sim instructor no ? You can work in management field ? no ? so, that would have been equal opportunity too.

BOAC Exactly, this plane full of paying passengers were very lucky to have someone as skilled as this pilot to handle such an anomoly moments before touchdown. I don't think I've seen anything negative about the pilot or his piloting skills mentioned. It's a question of policy and methods to manage risk.

I read there were 4 pilots registered with the CAA with arm prosthetics. I think they should be allowed to fly "IF" they are qualified and "IF" the mechanical prosthetic arm is engineered with high quality parts and has scheduled inspections. Apparently now the policy makes no difference between an economy model prosthetic with cheap linkages and fasteners and a higher end model that has been built with the safety of the crew and passengers in mind.

Why build a high quality plane of tested parts for tens of millions of dollars and then agree to control it with parts of unknown quality. Unknown-quality parts could fail at the worst possible time and put the passengers at unnecessary risk. 25 percent of the prosthetic arm pilots have now experienced just that event. Why can't they certify the arm joints and clamps to engineering standards and let them continue flying.

This subject goes deeper than it appears! flying is an occupation/profession unlike any where every year a pilot has to present himself/herself for a first class medical to continue with their livelihood /profession.

Just imagine a Lawyer / Doctor having to present themselves every year or six months and being told sorry mate your career is over.

i know some pilots who avoid going to the doctor with ailments for fear of it going on their records.

The aviation medical authorities because of this fact do try to accommodate pilots with issues and keep them flying where possible and where they consider flight safety is not compromised.

The great Sir Douglas Bader flew with no legs and was famous for his saying
" Rules are for fools to obey and wisemen to question". This was a guy who pushed the limits.

Another great saying? " If you do not push the limits you will never find what lies beyond" A saying which will attach to all human endeavour in all walks of life from medicine research to individuals challenging their own disabilities to achieve what they want in life.

Well statistically these chaps who are flying on a prosthetic are actually safer than us fully handed pilots.

That group of pilots has never had a fatal accident that I have heard about.

MJ ;)

statistics? :E How many able bodied pilots have had their arm fall off during the approach and landing? There are only 4 with false arms flying so you could say 25% of pilots with one arm have had them fall off!

Should one of these pilots have a fatal then statistically 25% of pilots flying with one arm are likely to be killed.
The number of able bodied pilots go into the millions worldwide :ugh:
But keep them flying I say

Pilot's artificial arm 'became detached while landing plane'
 

Very sensible safety action by the AAIB. Not the knee-jerk reaction of politicos that do not dare carry any responsibility.

The man met all the tests simrides etc. so obviously qualified to fly.

Well I have had FO's who have got their finger stuck in the yoke. There is a hole where the PTT goes in but has a blank on the other side which had come out.

I have had some ones leg get trapped under the rudder pedal. That was a bit of a sod to sort out.

lost count of the number of time I have read reports of feet slipping on pedals.

In fact if you listed out all the things which we take as "just part of the job" that wouldn't happen if our hands were strapped to the controls. We all might end up clamping our hands to the yoke.

Toaddy, the document you seek is at post 4, from Fostex. It is as you surmised that a double amputee is required by CAA (and now EASA) to have the prosthetics certificated to aircraft engineering standards, as they are considered to be part of the control system but there is no such requirement for single upper limb amputees.

Thanks moosp, they talk about no certification required as long they don't lose "complete" control of the aircraft. Interesting choice of words. They will never lose complete control as long as they have feet.