Pilot incapacitation during CAT II/III
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stable the use of numbsulls tends to destroy your point.
There are several experienced Captains who are trying to let batty know he is entirely wrong in his thinking.This is a serious safety issue, its not about SOP's its about airmanship.
Captain Scarlet Pimpernel.
There are several experienced Captains who are trying to let batty know he is entirely wrong in his thinking.This is a serious safety issue, its not about SOP's its about airmanship.
Captain Scarlet Pimpernel.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty i have to say that i think longstay,facsimili and captain pimpernel are right, I find it hard to believe that FR sop'a require this ?
I read "pilot might be obstructing the controls - so go-around" !!
How about, pilot might be obstucting the controls so lets not even think about flying off into the bundu again ?
Batty i don't know what you are asking ? if your sopa's say that well you are at liberty to follow them, but would you really go around when you maybe only 30' from landing ?
I read "pilot might be obstructing the controls - so go-around" !!
How about, pilot might be obstucting the controls so lets not even think about flying off into the bundu again ?
Batty i don't know what you are asking ? if your sopa's say that well you are at liberty to follow them, but would you really go around when you maybe only 30' from landing ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our low viz manual says that most pilots need to see not less that 3 lights in order to land. The operative word is most which then leaves room for manover since you can state that you did have adiquate visual reference to land. Tell me then if you dont see any lights at all would you still land? In which case why have any minimums at all?
We can argue what would you do if.... at infinitum since most situations are not specificaly dictated by the SOP. The situation I am talking about is specificaly mentioned in my SOP. A go around is manitory if I quote:-
'If for any reason pilot incapacitation is suspected'
(Toon that is word for word my SOP)
Tell me if you reach DH in a perfecly normal Cat III approach and the lights are not seen you would go around...correct? Or would you wait a second or two to access the situation thus breaking your DH before deciding to go around or land. Now since I am acting as the PF under my SOP I am flying the aircraft head in, the Capt is PNF at this stage looking out, at DH if he doesnt call 'Land' I would execute a go around would I not. Tell me how I know in that split second if he has just missed the call or I didnt hear it at opposed to him having become incapacitated. We all practice pilot incapacitation in the sim how many of us realise the split second it happens? That is what you asking me to do.
These actions have been approved by the governing authority and somewhere along the line form part of the AOC. They have not come about lightly. I agree there are different thoughts on the subject and if I was working for an airline who gave me some flexability my thoughts may well be different.
I am glad to see we are getting reasoned arguement now instead of insults! Excuse any spelling ..I know Im C&*p at that!
We can argue what would you do if.... at infinitum since most situations are not specificaly dictated by the SOP. The situation I am talking about is specificaly mentioned in my SOP. A go around is manitory if I quote:-
'If for any reason pilot incapacitation is suspected'
(Toon that is word for word my SOP)
Tell me if you reach DH in a perfecly normal Cat III approach and the lights are not seen you would go around...correct? Or would you wait a second or two to access the situation thus breaking your DH before deciding to go around or land. Now since I am acting as the PF under my SOP I am flying the aircraft head in, the Capt is PNF at this stage looking out, at DH if he doesnt call 'Land' I would execute a go around would I not. Tell me how I know in that split second if he has just missed the call or I didnt hear it at opposed to him having become incapacitated. We all practice pilot incapacitation in the sim how many of us realise the split second it happens? That is what you asking me to do.
These actions have been approved by the governing authority and somewhere along the line form part of the AOC. They have not come about lightly. I agree there are different thoughts on the subject and if I was working for an airline who gave me some flexability my thoughts may well be different.
I am glad to see we are getting reasoned arguement now instead of insults! Excuse any spelling ..I know Im C&*p at that!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
batty, fair enough, we are now talking about the exact time the captain pegs it ? well you have to remember every captain has been an f/o and yes, i have landed in cat 3b (not nice), on the 737 you arn't cat 3b ??, but if the skipper keeled over on the approach i'd still land, try a go around in the sim, the pressure would be all self imposed, and in real life, imense, just get the a/c on the ground.
I have to assume you are not talking about mr.standard day here, an incapacitated captain and the aircraft not flying a perfect autoland !
I have to assume you are not talking about mr.standard day here, an incapacitated captain and the aircraft not flying a perfect autoland !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty,
You originally asked for other airlines SOPs on this. Well, not exactly an SOP, but it is nevertheless written in the Ops Manual, Low Vis Ops bit that in the event of the commander becoming incapacitated during CAT2/3 ops, the F/O is authorised, and expected to continue the approach provided LAND 3 (i.e. Fail Operational) is displayed & the a/c is below 600ft RA.
I have never operated for a carrier that adopts 'The Monitored Approach' (sic), but wonder from your last posting whether this indicates a weakness in this particular technique? Do I assume correctly that under your SOPs a fully, compus mentis captain would say nothing at DA, unless he obtained adequate visual reference?
You raised the point ealier of the difficulties adjusting at DA - which for CAT3A will be 50ft RA - for an F/O who has flown the approach & expecting the captain to 'take control' for the landing (despite the fact that it is the AFDS that is actually landing the a/c!). So at DA, you hear nothing & execute a G/A. What then happens when you ask for flap & gear retraction & nothing happens?......If the AFDS has satisfactorily flown the approach as far as 50ft RA, the risks of it not completing a successful landing are minimal. Personally, I don't feel it would be any harder for the F/O to adjust to handling pilot mode than to select his own flap & retract the gear while also 'flying' the missed approach.
SR71 is quite correct about JAROPS Aternate Minima & this would appear to be reflected in your Ops Manual. Right Way Up was not totally accurate on this point.
The issue of the incapacitated pilot interfering with the controls is a red herring; if(s)he can interfere in the autoland, (s)he can also interfere in the auto go around.
Perhaps this should be up for discussion on your next refresher course?
You originally asked for other airlines SOPs on this. Well, not exactly an SOP, but it is nevertheless written in the Ops Manual, Low Vis Ops bit that in the event of the commander becoming incapacitated during CAT2/3 ops, the F/O is authorised, and expected to continue the approach provided LAND 3 (i.e. Fail Operational) is displayed & the a/c is below 600ft RA.
I have never operated for a carrier that adopts 'The Monitored Approach' (sic), but wonder from your last posting whether this indicates a weakness in this particular technique? Do I assume correctly that under your SOPs a fully, compus mentis captain would say nothing at DA, unless he obtained adequate visual reference?
You raised the point ealier of the difficulties adjusting at DA - which for CAT3A will be 50ft RA - for an F/O who has flown the approach & expecting the captain to 'take control' for the landing (despite the fact that it is the AFDS that is actually landing the a/c!). So at DA, you hear nothing & execute a G/A. What then happens when you ask for flap & gear retraction & nothing happens?......If the AFDS has satisfactorily flown the approach as far as 50ft RA, the risks of it not completing a successful landing are minimal. Personally, I don't feel it would be any harder for the F/O to adjust to handling pilot mode than to select his own flap & retract the gear while also 'flying' the missed approach.
SR71 is quite correct about JAROPS Aternate Minima & this would appear to be reflected in your Ops Manual. Right Way Up was not totally accurate on this point.
The issue of the incapacitated pilot interfering with the controls is a red herring; if(s)he can interfere in the autoland, (s)he can also interfere in the auto go around.
Perhaps this should be up for discussion on your next refresher course?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are Cat IIIa and are Fail Passive not Fail Operational on our B737-800's I would agree that it is totaly different stuation in a Fail Operational system.
We use the sim to train for the day, that it ever happens and as such we should used the sim as if it were the real aircraftand my training has always been to go around.
God forbid it ever happens to any of us since in either situation it realy wont be our day. Hopefully whatever our decission at the end of it all it will be resolved safely.
We use the sim to train for the day, that it ever happens and as such we should used the sim as if it were the real aircraftand my training has always been to go around.
God forbid it ever happens to any of us since in either situation it realy wont be our day. Hopefully whatever our decission at the end of it all it will be resolved safely.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Pimpernel, the use of the word "numbskulls" entirely reinforces my point, which is that this forum is concerned with Safety and CRM and relevant issues.
If people are incapable of entering a discussion here without resorting to personal abuse, they have no business even coming onto this forum. If they can't understand that point, then the use of the word "numbskull" is entirely appropriate. I refrain (at times with much difficulty!
) from insulting people here. However, the point of the rules here has been made time and time again.
As for the discussion in this thread, I completely see the point that people are trying to get over to Batty. If they can do that without insulting him, then he is far more likely to see and understand what they are saying than if they put him on the defensive, irritate and upset him, and far more heat than light is then likely to be generated.
This forum is to educate, inform and discuss in a professional manner. Those whose attitude and approach to it is less than professional are not welcome. Nor do they have any entitlement to be considered captains trying to train, educate and inform the more junior members of the profession.
Anyway, here's my input (FWIW):-
Batty, SOP's are for guidance, not to be blindly followed in every situation. For one thing, they can never cover all possibilities, or you'd have another aircraft tagging along behind you carrying your ship's library. Even when they are specific, it is always the captain's prerogative to depart from SOP's provided he has what he sees as good cause. I frequently do so as my current company's SOP's are sadly lacking in many respects, and are being addressed even as I write this. Good CRM would dictate that you should brief other crew members affected prior to departure from SOP, but this is not always possible. I have flown CAT III aircraft. My current ship is CAT II capable, but not currently certificated for anything but Cat I, but when it all heads southwards, I would want the aircraft on the ground ASAP - even to the point of letting the autopilot land it if necessary (something it's not supposed to be capable of). If it's a nice day, your captain is not THAT ill, just incapacitated, say, by a severe case of Gandhi's Revenge, then by all means go around. But I think if he's having a heart attack and you fancy increasing your hours by diverting elsewhere, the skipper dies, your pax are upset by being bussed 150 miles and the company have to get the aircraft back from whereever you abandon it, you may have to find a few things to say to the Commercial Director, the Fleet Manager and the skipper's widow.
Remember - securing life on board take priority over legality at all times in cases of conflict. Then safety, then legality, then commercial expedience.
If people are incapable of entering a discussion here without resorting to personal abuse, they have no business even coming onto this forum. If they can't understand that point, then the use of the word "numbskull" is entirely appropriate. I refrain (at times with much difficulty!
) from insulting people here. However, the point of the rules here has been made time and time again.As for the discussion in this thread, I completely see the point that people are trying to get over to Batty. If they can do that without insulting him, then he is far more likely to see and understand what they are saying than if they put him on the defensive, irritate and upset him, and far more heat than light is then likely to be generated.
This forum is to educate, inform and discuss in a professional manner. Those whose attitude and approach to it is less than professional are not welcome. Nor do they have any entitlement to be considered captains trying to train, educate and inform the more junior members of the profession.
Anyway, here's my input (FWIW):-
Batty, SOP's are for guidance, not to be blindly followed in every situation. For one thing, they can never cover all possibilities, or you'd have another aircraft tagging along behind you carrying your ship's library. Even when they are specific, it is always the captain's prerogative to depart from SOP's provided he has what he sees as good cause. I frequently do so as my current company's SOP's are sadly lacking in many respects, and are being addressed even as I write this. Good CRM would dictate that you should brief other crew members affected prior to departure from SOP, but this is not always possible. I have flown CAT III aircraft. My current ship is CAT II capable, but not currently certificated for anything but Cat I, but when it all heads southwards, I would want the aircraft on the ground ASAP - even to the point of letting the autopilot land it if necessary (something it's not supposed to be capable of). If it's a nice day, your captain is not THAT ill, just incapacitated, say, by a severe case of Gandhi's Revenge, then by all means go around. But I think if he's having a heart attack and you fancy increasing your hours by diverting elsewhere, the skipper dies, your pax are upset by being bussed 150 miles and the company have to get the aircraft back from whereever you abandon it, you may have to find a few things to say to the Commercial Director, the Fleet Manager and the skipper's widow.
Remember - securing life on board take priority over legality at all times in cases of conflict. Then safety, then legality, then commercial expedience.
My airline has had the policy of autolanding off a cat II+ approach, when one of the pilots is incapacitated, for so long that it has ceased to be a discussion point. Indeed, with any incapacitation the recommendation is to do an autoland even if it's CAVOK (ILS permitting, of course). Same with other non-normal situations where the A/Land is still functional.
I think the majority of contributors to this thread are saying much the same thing. Once configured, the aircraft needs no further input to complete a successful autoland. In fact, both pilots could pass out and it would make no difference to the landing if they had selected some autobrake and the aeroplane was rollout equipped.
If the approach goes wrong as well as one of you conking out, well, it's just not your day is it!
SOP's are great 99.9% of the time... but can cause problems if rigidly followed in very particular circumstances. I personally feel that this is the major reason that I am employed to sit on the flight deck. Of course I try to be as 'standard' as possible but at the end of the day I am expected to use my judgement and, if necessary, step outside the normal operation to conduct the flight in what I regard as the safest manner.
I would also point out that as professional airmen we are beholden to the CAA/FAA or whatever, above and beyond our individual airlines. We are licenced and policed by our particular governments who, sometimes unfortunately, will have the final say. We are in the invidious position of being accountable to two masters, who may not be reading from the same rulebook, even though this should not be the case...
I think the majority of contributors to this thread are saying much the same thing. Once configured, the aircraft needs no further input to complete a successful autoland. In fact, both pilots could pass out and it would make no difference to the landing if they had selected some autobrake and the aeroplane was rollout equipped.
If the approach goes wrong as well as one of you conking out, well, it's just not your day is it!
SOP's are great 99.9% of the time... but can cause problems if rigidly followed in very particular circumstances. I personally feel that this is the major reason that I am employed to sit on the flight deck. Of course I try to be as 'standard' as possible but at the end of the day I am expected to use my judgement and, if necessary, step outside the normal operation to conduct the flight in what I regard as the safest manner.
I would also point out that as professional airmen we are beholden to the CAA/FAA or whatever, above and beyond our individual airlines. We are licenced and policed by our particular governments who, sometimes unfortunately, will have the final say. We are in the invidious position of being accountable to two masters, who may not be reading from the same rulebook, even though this should not be the case...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF/PNF?
I have flown LVP Cat III procedures in different airlines in the past with SOPs that used both the Captain as PF and the FO as PF. I have to say that the SOPs designating the FO as PF seemed much more sensible to me than the other way around (as we presently do, sadly)
In a prior company the SOP was along the following lines. The (Monitoring) Captain is looking outside seeking visual reference from say 200' whilst the FO continues the approach to DH, then calling 'Decide'. At this call, the Captain replies either, 'Land' or 'Go-around' and the FO responds appropriately. In the event nothing is heard from the Captain at this point then incapacity is assumed, the FO looks up, and if he has visual refernce, he lands. QED. Safe and sound. The fact that the aircraft will have gone below the Cat III minima in the short time the FO has to look up and decide is irrelevant. Fail Passive/active don't come into the discussion here. We are talking about the Fail Passive of the Captain! 737, 747, A340, it matters not.
Happy landings Batty!
In a prior company the SOP was along the following lines. The (Monitoring) Captain is looking outside seeking visual reference from say 200' whilst the FO continues the approach to DH, then calling 'Decide'. At this call, the Captain replies either, 'Land' or 'Go-around' and the FO responds appropriately. In the event nothing is heard from the Captain at this point then incapacity is assumed, the FO looks up, and if he has visual refernce, he lands. QED. Safe and sound. The fact that the aircraft will have gone below the Cat III minima in the short time the FO has to look up and decide is irrelevant. Fail Passive/active don't come into the discussion here. We are talking about the Fail Passive of the Captain! 737, 747, A340, it matters not.
Happy landings Batty!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty,
Both of your postings on the previous page are logically thought out and well expressed. Your company SOPs are the same as ours - we operate Cat 3b aircraft. We are also expected to do a go around as you describe and practise this in the sim. Single pilot go arounds followed by another Cat3 approach are not too taxing - and even less so after practise.
Most of the other correspondents are of the other school of thought which is equally valid and represents the other way to "skin the cat". If we were to join their companies we would obviously switch allegience to the different SOPs.
You seem to be aware that studies have shown that about 50% of hull losses could have been prevented by adherence to SOPs.
Both of your postings on the previous page are logically thought out and well expressed. Your company SOPs are the same as ours - we operate Cat 3b aircraft. We are also expected to do a go around as you describe and practise this in the sim. Single pilot go arounds followed by another Cat3 approach are not too taxing - and even less so after practise.
Most of the other correspondents are of the other school of thought which is equally valid and represents the other way to "skin the cat". If we were to join their companies we would obviously switch allegience to the different SOPs.
You seem to be aware that studies have shown that about 50% of hull losses could have been prevented by adherence to SOPs.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow SOP.
This is usually the best answer. Usually.
In an emergency does following SOP preclude good judgement in the interest of safety?
I think we all will agree that safety is the primary objective.
It is up to the remaining flight crew member to choose to go around or choose to land. He would be trained to follow company SOP. However the choice he makes hopefully will be to take the safest course of action.
We cannot be slaves to an SOP to the point that common sense and safety are ignored. SOP are guidlines to ensure safe operation. They do not cover every situation. Most SOP's recognize this fact.
We are professional decision makers. Sometimes we have to just decide what is best given the circumstances.
This is why there is usually a caveat that gives the captain emergency authority to do what is best in the interest of safety.
If I were incapacitated, I would hope my winger would assume command and make a command decision that is the best one given the circumstances. CRM I am no longer a part of.
He or She should decide what is safest at that given moment and follow through on their decision. Most likely follow SOP. But then again, perhaps making an exception is the better choice. One cannot cover all the variables in an SOP to give a canned answer to live or die by under all circumstances.
Just my thoughts. Some may agree. Others may not quite see it this way.
This has been a good discusion to consider the pros and cons of landing vs. a go-around.
This is usually the best answer. Usually.
In an emergency does following SOP preclude good judgement in the interest of safety?
I think we all will agree that safety is the primary objective.
It is up to the remaining flight crew member to choose to go around or choose to land. He would be trained to follow company SOP. However the choice he makes hopefully will be to take the safest course of action.
We cannot be slaves to an SOP to the point that common sense and safety are ignored. SOP are guidlines to ensure safe operation. They do not cover every situation. Most SOP's recognize this fact.
We are professional decision makers. Sometimes we have to just decide what is best given the circumstances.
This is why there is usually a caveat that gives the captain emergency authority to do what is best in the interest of safety.
If I were incapacitated, I would hope my winger would assume command and make a command decision that is the best one given the circumstances. CRM I am no longer a part of.
He or She should decide what is safest at that given moment and follow through on their decision. Most likely follow SOP. But then again, perhaps making an exception is the better choice. One cannot cover all the variables in an SOP to give a canned answer to live or die by under all circumstances.
Just my thoughts. Some may agree. Others may not quite see it this way.
This has been a good discusion to consider the pros and cons of landing vs. a go-around.
