Pilot incapacitation during CAT II/III
Just had an error in my last posting pointed out by Airclues.
I DID fly for an outfit who recommended:
"In the event of a lack of response by the captain to the "Decide" call, due to incapacitation, it is considered safer for P2 to continue to autoland the aircraft in Cat 3 conditions than to execute a go-around"
Mea culpa etc
I DID fly for an outfit who recommended:
"In the event of a lack of response by the captain to the "Decide" call, due to incapacitation, it is considered safer for P2 to continue to autoland the aircraft in Cat 3 conditions than to execute a go-around"
Mea culpa etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh al last some replies that I was looking for...ie SOPs.
We all have our own take on the rights and wrongs of our SOP but we do have to follow them. That is why I was after pure fact not opinion.
Thanks guys
We all have our own take on the rights and wrongs of our SOP but we do have to follow them. That is why I was after pure fact not opinion.
Thanks guys
SOPs are great, but do not forget they are only a guide to operate the aircraft, every situation is different and sometimes we have to discard them. Bear in mind that once airborne your alternates now under JARs can be Cat 3 if your aircraft is capable. (not a new rule that I agree with). Theoretically when at 100 ft your Capt is incapacitated and you go-around you might not have a Cat 1 airfield to go to. So you now have a first officer who has performed a high workload go-around, and now has to plan another Cat3 approach with a lot less fuel. Not a nice situation!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats an interesting point that I wasnt aware of. As far as I was aware you required an alternate with Cat I RVR Minima.
What in JARs wisdom do you do if you then get a system unservisablity in flight that makes you Cat I and you are down to fuel for only a Cat III alternate, since you left base as Cat III?
What in JARs wisdom do you do if you then get a system unservisablity in flight that makes you Cat I and you are down to fuel for only a Cat III alternate, since you left base as Cat III?
Batty,
You may find your own ops manual is more restrictive. Certainly my own inflight planning is. I only found this out whilst joining a new airline a few years ago. My question has always been what do you do if in this scenario in a 737 you lose an engine. You are basically commited to land below your minimums!
You may find your own ops manual is more restrictive. Certainly my own inflight planning is. I only found this out whilst joining a new airline a few years ago. My question has always been what do you do if in this scenario in a 737 you lose an engine. You are basically commited to land below your minimums!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty and jack the lad,
Have you ever diverted anywhere ?
The aircraft dosn't know what the weather is.
Common sense guys,
let the aircraft land, pull reverse, stop on the runway, (you don't need to worry about controlling the thing on the ground since to be cat2 it would have to have roll out guidance), stop engines, call services, go to pub .
or
Follow sopa's - go around trying not to rip off flaps and remembering to bring gear up, check fuel, divert to somewhere no one wants to go, get medical assistance on the wireless, sort out any other failiures you might have on the way (hydraulics failiure etc) fly to an airfield you may not know, get patient stable (read dead !)
i take it you two fellows are f/o's !!
Have you ever diverted anywhere ?
The aircraft dosn't know what the weather is.
Common sense guys,
let the aircraft land, pull reverse, stop on the runway, (you don't need to worry about controlling the thing on the ground since to be cat2 it would have to have roll out guidance), stop engines, call services, go to pub .
or
Follow sopa's - go around trying not to rip off flaps and remembering to bring gear up, check fuel, divert to somewhere no one wants to go, get medical assistance on the wireless, sort out any other failiures you might have on the way (hydraulics failiure etc) fly to an airfield you may not know, get patient stable (read dead !)
i take it you two fellows are f/o's !!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Im an FO or not has nothing to do with the discussion. Its a company SOP that has been come upon by the company and Boeing. The company has used the experience of its TREs TRIs and Boeing etc etc to come up with the SOP. As a Captain should I bow to your knowledge and ignore SOP and ignore the vast experience (greater than your or mine) that has decided on the SOP....I think not. Yes I have diverted many times though not from a Cat III approach.
Part of it is that at 50ft you dont have time to analyise the situation weigh up all the possibilities and make a decision, you have to react. I have been trained to react and Go Around.
Trying to label me as just an FO (so I dont know what Im talking about) belies a lack of CRM. I hope on YOUR flight deck the FO isnt just an unnecessary apendage with no input till the day you make a mistake and he/she is ignored!
Part of it is that at 50ft you dont have time to analyise the situation weigh up all the possibilities and make a decision, you have to react. I have been trained to react and Go Around.
Trying to label me as just an FO (so I dont know what Im talking about) belies a lack of CRM. I hope on YOUR flight deck the FO isnt just an unnecessary apendage with no input till the day you make a mistake and he/she is ignored!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Ryanair SOP, however well intentioned, does not allow for common sense and in the majority of cases will not provide the safest course of action. It seems like this SOP is in the minority.
Under our SOP
"If one pilot becomes incapacitated during a CAT2 or 3 approach to land, it is generally preferable for the other pilot to continue the approach. The only exception might be if the incapacitated pilot was obstructing the flying controls (including the rudder)."
My opinion is that if the aircraft is configured and stable that to continue and land is the safer and less stressful option, it also ensures that your colleague receives medical attention sooner.
"If one pilot becomes incapacitated during a CAT2 or 3 approach to land, it is generally preferable for the other pilot to continue the approach. The only exception might be if the incapacitated pilot was obstructing the flying controls (including the rudder)."
My opinion is that if the aircraft is configured and stable that to continue and land is the safer and less stressful option, it also ensures that your colleague receives medical attention sooner.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP = Standard Operating Procedure.
Pilot Incapacitation is a non-standard event.
At this point, you are fast approaching the point of having to think "outside the box", if not from a procedural point of view, a decision making one.
DODAR is uniquely down to you now.
Batty,
You can surely see the merits of a continuation of the approach under the circumstances?
If you are worried about you personal ability to assess the continued ability of the aircraft to land in CAT 3 conditions, and subsequently execute/manage the landing/roll-out, a few approaches in the sim should address that concern...
I'm curious... The answer to your own scenario, namely, an incapacitation and all out CAT 3 weather, is?
Pilot Incapacitation is a non-standard event.
At this point, you are fast approaching the point of having to think "outside the box", if not from a procedural point of view, a decision making one.
DODAR is uniquely down to you now.
Batty,
You can surely see the merits of a continuation of the approach under the circumstances?
If you are worried about you personal ability to assess the continued ability of the aircraft to land in CAT 3 conditions, and subsequently execute/manage the landing/roll-out, a few approaches in the sim should address that concern...
What in JARs wisdom do you do if you then get a system unservisablity in flight that makes you Cat I and you are down to fuel for only a Cat III alternate, since you left base as Cat III?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussing what is “common sense” isn’t valid here – there are obviously 2 schools of thought on the issue, both of which have been carefully thought out and argued above.
Some questions:
If airlines have a policy of ignoring a “decide” call at 50’, 20’ 10’ or zero feet, then what is the point of that call? If the Capt doesn’t like something then he will call for a go around anyway; if he’s too incapacitated to not like something he won’t say anything and you land. Do some companies have this continue to land policy because they have a DH of zero, in which case the aircraft is landing anyway?
Is the decision to go around (if there is no response at this very short but critical time) based on the possibility that the incapacitated pilot may interfere with the controls? Don’t be blinkered with heart attacks, consider convulsions or any other conditions that may cause a sick person to move voluntarily or involuntarily against the controls, disconnecting the AP which some are expecting to “do it all for you”. Unlikely, yes, but so are most things we legislate against and create SOPs for.
Going around doesn’t mean a diversion to Cat I for some companies, it means get the ac safely away from the ground, get the incapacitated pilot away from the controls, then do another Cat 3 as a single pilot safe in the knowledge there will be no interference on the controls at the critical stage. Companies do practise this very scenario in the sim. The subsequent “mayday” call can help the single pilot’s workload considerably. The extra 10 minutes in the air to guarantee the safety of the pax is considered time well spent by those from the "go around" school.
Some well respected companies (according to this forum, anyway) follow the same philosophy used by FR: just because you think their leader is a jerk doesn’t mean to say the men and women who write their SOPs and operate them at the coal face are.
Comments above imply that SOPs only apply to “standard” events, which doesn't include incapacitation. In my company we have SOPs for many “non-standard” events, such as engine failure, equipment failure in RVSM/MNPS airspace, incapacitation to name a few. Aren’t SOPs designed to maximise aircraft safety in the time critical events when crew do not have the luxury of time to even get through the first “D” of DODAR, eg the V1 cut, failure to rotate at the V1 call, lack of response at Cat 3 DH?
Some questions:
If airlines have a policy of ignoring a “decide” call at 50’, 20’ 10’ or zero feet, then what is the point of that call? If the Capt doesn’t like something then he will call for a go around anyway; if he’s too incapacitated to not like something he won’t say anything and you land. Do some companies have this continue to land policy because they have a DH of zero, in which case the aircraft is landing anyway?
Is the decision to go around (if there is no response at this very short but critical time) based on the possibility that the incapacitated pilot may interfere with the controls? Don’t be blinkered with heart attacks, consider convulsions or any other conditions that may cause a sick person to move voluntarily or involuntarily against the controls, disconnecting the AP which some are expecting to “do it all for you”. Unlikely, yes, but so are most things we legislate against and create SOPs for.
Going around doesn’t mean a diversion to Cat I for some companies, it means get the ac safely away from the ground, get the incapacitated pilot away from the controls, then do another Cat 3 as a single pilot safe in the knowledge there will be no interference on the controls at the critical stage. Companies do practise this very scenario in the sim. The subsequent “mayday” call can help the single pilot’s workload considerably. The extra 10 minutes in the air to guarantee the safety of the pax is considered time well spent by those from the "go around" school.
Some well respected companies (according to this forum, anyway) follow the same philosophy used by FR: just because you think their leader is a jerk doesn’t mean to say the men and women who write their SOPs and operate them at the coal face are.
Comments above imply that SOPs only apply to “standard” events, which doesn't include incapacitation. In my company we have SOPs for many “non-standard” events, such as engine failure, equipment failure in RVSM/MNPS airspace, incapacitation to name a few. Aren’t SOPs designed to maximise aircraft safety in the time critical events when crew do not have the luxury of time to even get through the first “D” of DODAR, eg the V1 cut, failure to rotate at the V1 call, lack of response at Cat 3 DH?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our SOP is to continue the approach and land if the ASA continues to show Land2 or Land 3 (757 & 767). Bearing in mind the reliability of Autoland systems (CAT II and III ground equipment included) I have always felt this a more sensible option than diverting single crew. Once saw someone "divert" in the sim for an incapacitation and the workload went through the roof with reconfiguring, climbing to diversion Flight Level, change of ATC freqs, reprogramming FMC, fishing for charts, setting up nav aids etc etc.
I would find the prospect of a "single crew" VOR or NDB approach to minima far more daunting than pressing App and watching it all happen for me.
I would find the prospect of a "single crew" VOR or NDB approach to minima far more daunting than pressing App and watching it all happen for me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Option one:
Make a go-around single handed while securing the other guy, declare an emergency, call cc1 and tell her/him what´s going on, comply with restrictions in altitude/track during missed approach. then make another approach (look for better weather, or if landing at same airport, why go-around in the first place) worry about fuel status......etc...etc...
Option two:
Continue the approach, declare an emergency, and let the autopilot land the plane. Call for a doctor.
Which one should be the safer one? Hmmm?
Make a go-around single handed while securing the other guy, declare an emergency, call cc1 and tell her/him what´s going on, comply with restrictions in altitude/track during missed approach. then make another approach (look for better weather, or if landing at same airport, why go-around in the first place) worry about fuel status......etc...etc...
Option two:
Continue the approach, declare an emergency, and let the autopilot land the plane. Call for a doctor.
Which one should be the safer one? Hmmm?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty, what r u on about ?
you tell us you have 3000hrs, well are you seriously saying that you would go around, and then you ask what happens if you lose hydraulics etc and have to revert to cat 1 !!!
Sopa's are for GUIDANCE and boeing states :
"While every attempt is made to establish necessary non-normal checklists, it is not possible to develop checklists for all conceivable situations etc etc.The captain must assess the situation and use sound judgment to determine the safest course of action"
You asked the question as an f/o with 3000hrs, captains are here giving you their opinion and you are non-negotiable.
you tell us you have 3000hrs, well are you seriously saying that you would go around, and then you ask what happens if you lose hydraulics etc and have to revert to cat 1 !!!
Sopa's are for GUIDANCE and boeing states :
"While every attempt is made to establish necessary non-normal checklists, it is not possible to develop checklists for all conceivable situations etc etc.The captain must assess the situation and use sound judgment to determine the safest course of action"
You asked the question as an f/o with 3000hrs, captains are here giving you their opinion and you are non-negotiable.
Last edited by Captain Stable; 14th Oct 2004 at 20:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longstay
1) I asked about what other company SOP were.
2) I intend to follow my company SOP, as I hope you do even if they are different from mine and visa versa, especially as you are supposed to me setting the humble FO an example to follow.
3) I would not want to carry out a Cat II/III without having a
Cat I alternate, FR require that as a minimum.
4) Right Way Up brought up a very interesting point with a new JAR ruling that I didnt know about , as I said as I understood you required Cat I RVR minima as an alternate for a Cat II/III. A very valid point, far better than your quips. And hense the qu about how that would you divert if you only had a Cat III alternate available in the first place, even before you had a problem with incapactitation. Should you just have Cat III alternates then the FR SOP wouldnt work but since FR require a Cat I alternate they do.
5) At 50ft and 140 kts yes I am unnegotiable, I will react...that will be a go around...that is what I have been taught...that is my SOP, I will not have time to mull over the alternatives. My SOP states that I will go around 'If for any reason pilot incapacitation is suspected' This is a concieved situation!
CMR well at least you can spell it!
1) I asked about what other company SOP were.
2) I intend to follow my company SOP, as I hope you do even if they are different from mine and visa versa, especially as you are supposed to me setting the humble FO an example to follow.
3) I would not want to carry out a Cat II/III without having a
Cat I alternate, FR require that as a minimum.
4) Right Way Up brought up a very interesting point with a new JAR ruling that I didnt know about , as I said as I understood you required Cat I RVR minima as an alternate for a Cat II/III. A very valid point, far better than your quips. And hense the qu about how that would you divert if you only had a Cat III alternate available in the first place, even before you had a problem with incapactitation. Should you just have Cat III alternates then the FR SOP wouldnt work but since FR require a Cat I alternate they do.
5) At 50ft and 140 kts yes I am unnegotiable, I will react...that will be a go around...that is what I have been taught...that is my SOP, I will not have time to mull over the alternatives. My SOP states that I will go around 'If for any reason pilot incapacitation is suspected' This is a concieved situation!
CMR well at least you can spell it!
Last edited by batty; 14th Oct 2004 at 18:45.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facsimile, seems a bit harsh to me. At least Batty as had the interest and thoughtfulness to discuss this issue and maybe he will learn from others different points of view. Batty, you have to realise that SOP's do not cover every situation you may encounter. Airmanship is about using SOP's and your own knowledge and experience in order to influence the outcome in as positive a way as possible.
Grim Sleeper
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised this issue with your SOP has not come up for discussion before at FR.
As many here have stated, it is probably safer at 50ft to continue the landing unless you clearly do not have a visual reference (Cat3a). By including a mandatory go-around at 50ft DH in the event of pilot incapacitation, this would appear to be unnecessarily loading the remaining pilot (who may be a very inexperienced F/O in your position) at a critical moment.
What do your colleagues think of this particular SOP? Surely you must have discussed it amongst yourselves at some point?
As many here have stated, it is probably safer at 50ft to continue the landing unless you clearly do not have a visual reference (Cat3a). By including a mandatory go-around at 50ft DH in the event of pilot incapacitation, this would appear to be unnecessarily loading the remaining pilot (who may be a very inexperienced F/O in your position) at a critical moment.
What do your colleagues think of this particular SOP? Surely you must have discussed it amongst yourselves at some point?
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty,
To my mind, JAR OPS 1.340 prevents you departing for your destination in your CAT 2/3 a/c if you do not have an alternate at the flight planning stage (JAR OPS 1.295) that meets the prescribed planning minima in JAR OPS 1.297.
In this case, it would need to be CAT 1.
However, once airborne, the relevant legislation is JAR OPS 1.400 & 1.405, whereupon CAT 3 weather at your alternate does not preclude you from using it.
Perhaps you are confusing what is legal at the planning stage and what is legal once airborne?
Just a thought.
To my mind, JAR OPS 1.340 prevents you departing for your destination in your CAT 2/3 a/c if you do not have an alternate at the flight planning stage (JAR OPS 1.295) that meets the prescribed planning minima in JAR OPS 1.297.
In this case, it would need to be CAT 1.
However, once airborne, the relevant legislation is JAR OPS 1.400 & 1.405, whereupon CAT 3 weather at your alternate does not preclude you from using it.
Perhaps you are confusing what is legal at the planning stage and what is legal once airborne?
Just a thought.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: thomond
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longstay got it right
clohessy, you are also banned. How long will it take the numbskulls to appreciate that I do not appreciate personal attacks in this forum?
Captain Stable
Captain Stable
Last edited by Captain Stable; 15th Oct 2004 at 10:10.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok batty, may i pose this question ?
If the two of you up front, fine and well making a cat3b/a approach and you have an indication of an engine fire, that after firing the bottles isn't extinguished, if you don't see the
a)1 centreline light for a cat 3b
b)3 consecutive lights for a cat 3a/cat 2
would you go-around ?
I ask this question only because when your a captain you sometimes have to be able to make a decision that you consider safe at the time, and you can talk about it on the ground if required, your the captain and that's what you did - end.
If the two of you up front, fine and well making a cat3b/a approach and you have an indication of an engine fire, that after firing the bottles isn't extinguished, if you don't see the
a)1 centreline light for a cat 3b
b)3 consecutive lights for a cat 3a/cat 2
would you go-around ?
I ask this question only because when your a captain you sometimes have to be able to make a decision that you consider safe at the time, and you can talk about it on the ground if required, your the captain and that's what you did - end.
Last edited by longstay; 15th Oct 2004 at 17:52.