Pilot incapacitation during CAT II/III
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot incapacitation during CAT II/III
My company ( FR ) SOP for pilot incapacition during a low viz approach either Cat II or Cat III is to do a go around.
I have a friend with BMI Baby who insists that their SOP is for the remaining pilot, either Capt or FO to continue the approach and land.
Companies have different approaches to the Cat II/III approach, and we should follow our SOP. We (FR) have the FO fly the approach to minimums and the Capt monitors. Should he become visual at minimums he will take control and land. Should the Capt not respond at minimums or calls go around the FO goes around. The point of note is that if there is no response we Go Around. I believe the BMI Baby SOP is for the Capt to fly the whole approach and landing with the FO monitoring.
It seems odd to me that should the Capt collapse that the FO would take control and continue the approach to land as opposed to going around. One reason I think this way is that should any call be missed the FO might not even realise the Capt is dead and continue regardless...ie never go around.
What is your take on this? What is your company approach to the Low Viz enviroment?
I have a friend with BMI Baby who insists that their SOP is for the remaining pilot, either Capt or FO to continue the approach and land.
Companies have different approaches to the Cat II/III approach, and we should follow our SOP. We (FR) have the FO fly the approach to minimums and the Capt monitors. Should he become visual at minimums he will take control and land. Should the Capt not respond at minimums or calls go around the FO goes around. The point of note is that if there is no response we Go Around. I believe the BMI Baby SOP is for the Capt to fly the whole approach and landing with the FO monitoring.
It seems odd to me that should the Capt collapse that the FO would take control and continue the approach to land as opposed to going around. One reason I think this way is that should any call be missed the FO might not even realise the Capt is dead and continue regardless...ie never go around.
What is your take on this? What is your company approach to the Low Viz enviroment?
Last edited by batty; 13th Oct 2004 at 16:55.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuing to hopefully a landing seems a little more sensible to me than bumbling off, still single pilot, to who know's where. The dual autopilot approach is a very safe and low workload procedure. Sure if a go-around needs to be made then do it, but my company don't have a particular SOP on this that I can recall, and in the sim I always try and continue to a landing if possible, even suggesting that you could break minimums to do so if you feel the sutuation requires it. Worrying about go-arounds, fuel, diversions etc is the last thing you need when single-pilot, and I'm sure the poor Captain wouldnt thank you for flying him around with a hear-attack longer than necessary.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 50ft you dont have time to use common sense. With zero reaction time at 50ft if the pilot initiates a go around the B737 will still loose 30ft. If you allow common sense to prevale sooner or later an accident will occur when the common sense is in the wrong, hense we have SOPs that have been thought of in the cold light of day. Hense we have the V1 call and there is no common sense allowed there....
Along these lines the FO when no reply is made at 50ft (because of incapacitation would look over, see the Capt had collapsed decide mmm well I think I will be ok, look out adjust to the new visual picture, (since the have been on the instruments all the approach) and land safely? I think not...no time for that hense the SOP we have of doing a immediate go around should there be no response.
Should the FO continue and land he/she is doing so in conditions that the have never experienced before. They have not been taught to land the aircraft in Cat III vizibility with low lateral vizability and control it on the ground.
And as regard to the poor capt...what happens to the poor 189+ passengers should you bugger it up?
As for doing a go around and diverting you are diverting to a Cat I or better field and into conditions that you have been taught to deal with. All FOs should be able to handle a Go Around and diversion into Cat I conditions but have probably NEVER landed in Cat III as PF
Along these lines the FO when no reply is made at 50ft (because of incapacitation would look over, see the Capt had collapsed decide mmm well I think I will be ok, look out adjust to the new visual picture, (since the have been on the instruments all the approach) and land safely? I think not...no time for that hense the SOP we have of doing a immediate go around should there be no response.
Should the FO continue and land he/she is doing so in conditions that the have never experienced before. They have not been taught to land the aircraft in Cat III vizibility with low lateral vizability and control it on the ground.
And as regard to the poor capt...what happens to the poor 189+ passengers should you bugger it up?
As for doing a go around and diverting you are diverting to a Cat I or better field and into conditions that you have been taught to deal with. All FOs should be able to handle a Go Around and diversion into Cat I conditions but have probably NEVER landed in Cat III as PF
Last edited by batty; 13th Oct 2004 at 16:16.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop worrying, the aircraft will do it all for you. Just select reverse if you can. Stop on runway and ask for help.
If the Captains just had a heart attack you'll finish him off if you do a go around.
If the Captains just had a heart attack you'll finish him off if you do a go around.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe...the country?
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don´t think it has as much to do with SOPs as it does with the machine you are flying, i.e. fail operational (757 and A320) and Fail passive (737). The fail operational has three redundancies per system as opposed to only two in fail passive system.
Most likely then, 737 operators go around, and 757 and A320 guys land.
Most likely then, 737 operators go around, and 757 and A320 guys land.
First of all, unless there are overriding considerations you have to follow the company SOP.
If you think that the SOP could be improved then write to the CP with supporting evidence.
I've operated both systems where the FO flies the approach and where the captain does it all and <<don't recollect working for any outfit whose SOP was to continue and land if the captain did not respond at RDH.>>
Of course for Cat3c that would be 1000ft aal with no DH.
Bit in << >> is in error - flew for 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"
Blame failing memory
If you think that the SOP could be improved then write to the CP with supporting evidence.
I've operated both systems where the FO flies the approach and where the captain does it all and <<don't recollect working for any outfit whose SOP was to continue and land if the captain did not respond at RDH.>>
Of course for Cat3c that would be 1000ft aal with no DH.
Bit in << >> is in error - flew for 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"
Blame failing memory
Last edited by Basil; 14th Oct 2004 at 08:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Me Please: Common sense would dictate that it you went around you would divert to a Cat I or better field you wouldnt re commence a CatIII would you! You then wouldnt be limited by no response at your DH.
The B737-800 system we use is a Fail Passive system hense the go around. I would agree with a landing in the Fail Operational case.
Im happy with my company SOP of a go around in case of incapacitation, was just surprised at the BMI SOP that was all. This is my first airline and as such was wondering what other company SOP were in this case, Im still relatively inexperienced with only a little over 3000 hours jet time.
The B737-800 system we use is a Fail Passive system hense the go around. I would agree with a landing in the Fail Operational case.
Im happy with my company SOP of a go around in case of incapacitation, was just surprised at the BMI SOP that was all. This is my first airline and as such was wondering what other company SOP were in this case, Im still relatively inexperienced with only a little over 3000 hours jet time.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure that SOP's are particurly helpful in a case such as this, they are a "one size fits all solution", and First Officers come in all sorts of sizes and shapes.
Some airlines would recruit a 90 year old grandmother if she had a licence, and would work for peanuts, whereas other airlines don't recruit First Officers at all, but rather Captains of the future, then spend money and effort in training them, knowing they will still be around.
Some FO/s might have a difficulty in carrying out a cat3 landing single handed, but then some might have difficulty in flying a go around selecting their own gear, flaps etc. then doing a 45 minute diversion and possibly having to do an automatic approach and/or landing at the end of it.
I am lucky in that with no more than a handfull of exceptions, all the F/O's I have flown with are, in my opinion, capable of deciding if they have sufficient reference to continue, or if they should do an IMC G/A and then divert, and making a good job of it, whatever they decide.
Captains are used to the concept that if they have good reason they can bend SOP's, provided they are prepared to justify their actions, F/O's perhaps less so, and I am not convinced that tying their hands behind their backs with an SOP is the best policy.
A few hours in the simulator would probably be more useful, we used to do this exercise in the sim every couple of years and it didn't on the whole prove a problem.
Some airlines would recruit a 90 year old grandmother if she had a licence, and would work for peanuts, whereas other airlines don't recruit First Officers at all, but rather Captains of the future, then spend money and effort in training them, knowing they will still be around.
Some FO/s might have a difficulty in carrying out a cat3 landing single handed, but then some might have difficulty in flying a go around selecting their own gear, flaps etc. then doing a 45 minute diversion and possibly having to do an automatic approach and/or landing at the end of it.
I am lucky in that with no more than a handfull of exceptions, all the F/O's I have flown with are, in my opinion, capable of deciding if they have sufficient reference to continue, or if they should do an IMC G/A and then divert, and making a good job of it, whatever they decide.
Captains are used to the concept that if they have good reason they can bend SOP's, provided they are prepared to justify their actions, F/O's perhaps less so, and I am not convinced that tying their hands behind their backs with an SOP is the best policy.
A few hours in the simulator would probably be more useful, we used to do this exercise in the sim every couple of years and it didn't on the whole prove a problem.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people if not everyone I have discussed this with consider continuing to a landing the better option assuming a normal approach from the automatics.( Various UK jet operators)
Flying a single crew go-around and diversion is not something I would consider lightly. If the FO was incapacitated I believe very few Captains would fly a go-around in reality - SOP or not.
At the end of the day its an emergency situation and should be handled as such.
Flying a single crew go-around and diversion is not something I would consider lightly. If the FO was incapacitated I believe very few Captains would fly a go-around in reality - SOP or not.
At the end of the day its an emergency situation and should be handled as such.
Batti, I just pray that if I ever have a heart attack in this situation you are not in the RHS.
As 'facsimile' says, it will do it for you, all you have to do is stop it like you do on any other landing.
And remember 'when for the purpose of saving a life'......
As 'facsimile' says, it will do it for you, all you have to do is stop it like you do on any other landing.
And remember 'when for the purpose of saving a life'......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a company I once worked for the FO was taught (and practised in the sim) to continue to complete the autoland as long as the FMA still indicated the aircraft would do it.
The alternative action (i.e going around) was discussed and when the FO realised that he (she) would now be faced with an unprepared single pilot diversion to a destination that now had to be Cat I, with a medical emergency, the 'risk' in completing the autoland was now regarded as significantly being the lesser of the two evils.
The important thing was providing the FO with the opportunity to practice.
The importance of both pilots completing their SOP calls was also promoted as being the primary clue as to whether incapacitation had occurred.
Hope this helps......
The alternative action (i.e going around) was discussed and when the FO realised that he (she) would now be faced with an unprepared single pilot diversion to a destination that now had to be Cat I, with a medical emergency, the 'risk' in completing the autoland was now regarded as significantly being the lesser of the two evils.
The important thing was providing the FO with the opportunity to practice.
The importance of both pilots completing their SOP calls was also promoted as being the primary clue as to whether incapacitation had occurred.
Hope this helps......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As part of our recurrency sims we practice the incapacitation sinario (even if I cant spell it). It is our company SOP and as such it is what I am trained to do, and will do. Should you not follow the SOP and something does go wrong your ass is realy in a sling. It probably is anyway but thats another story....
We do not practice the FO landing in low viz, but I know I can fly a single pilot go around and safely divert to a Cat I field.
Do no other airlines legislate in this case?
We do not practice the FO landing in low viz, but I know I can fly a single pilot go around and safely divert to a Cat I field.
Do no other airlines legislate in this case?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with basil 150%.
Follow SOP's; Your SOP's have not been lightly adopted. They have been derived firstly from the airplane manufacturer and then "refined" after very careful consideration by your employer.
Airbus or Boeing procedures are profoundly safe. They may not be the best, but you can guarantee that any airline that has changed them from standard, has indeed considered the reasons for doing so and also the legal consequences of doing so. You are therefore safe, in liability terms, if you follow your SOP's. (Tudor might wish to confirm or deny that assertion?)
No airline and no pilot can accept a variance from the understood and accepted principles of how you operate their airplanes. That is why we have SOP's. We expect that on a dark and dirty night, when the sh1t hits the fan, the other pilot, whether he be Capt or F/O, will perform exactly as we expect him to do so.
If you cannot accept this fundamental principle, but reserve the right to apply your own personality or imprint on the situation, then go start your own airline, but please don't happen to be a Captain OR f/O on any flight I happen to be on.
Is not that the essence of CRM?
and, as Clothy says, after having fullfilled all of your obligations, then it is time to go down the pub! I\'ll agree with him on that point.
To say \'bs\' before you have extinguished your resonsibilities is Heresay, as he well knows. I\'m sure Clothy is a professional, but his anger regarding his employment issues colours his judgement in what you see here. I\'m sure he is a very reliable and safe pair of hands. A professional!
Follow SOP's; Your SOP's have not been lightly adopted. They have been derived firstly from the airplane manufacturer and then "refined" after very careful consideration by your employer.
Airbus or Boeing procedures are profoundly safe. They may not be the best, but you can guarantee that any airline that has changed them from standard, has indeed considered the reasons for doing so and also the legal consequences of doing so. You are therefore safe, in liability terms, if you follow your SOP's. (Tudor might wish to confirm or deny that assertion?)
No airline and no pilot can accept a variance from the understood and accepted principles of how you operate their airplanes. That is why we have SOP's. We expect that on a dark and dirty night, when the sh1t hits the fan, the other pilot, whether he be Capt or F/O, will perform exactly as we expect him to do so.
If you cannot accept this fundamental principle, but reserve the right to apply your own personality or imprint on the situation, then go start your own airline, but please don't happen to be a Captain OR f/O on any flight I happen to be on.
Is not that the essence of CRM?
and, as Clothy says, after having fullfilled all of your obligations, then it is time to go down the pub! I\'ll agree with him on that point.
To say \'bs\' before you have extinguished your resonsibilities is Heresay, as he well knows. I\'m sure Clothy is a professional, but his anger regarding his employment issues colours his judgement in what you see here. I\'m sure he is a very reliable and safe pair of hands. A professional!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Basil and Jack the Lad
Please Guys your taking this the wrong way I WILL FOLLOW MY SOPs and the fact that I believe in them as well helps! I was just wondering what other airline SOP were in this instance.
And Clohessy the Claw. Your previous posts say you are in Ryanair, in which case you indicate you will ignore your SOPs or dont know them
Which other SOP's do you suggest I ignore?!!
SOPs are the cornerstone of safe airline operations.
Please Guys your taking this the wrong way I WILL FOLLOW MY SOPs and the fact that I believe in them as well helps! I was just wondering what other airline SOP were in this instance.
And Clohessy the Claw. Your previous posts say you are in Ryanair, in which case you indicate you will ignore your SOPs or dont know them
Which other SOP's do you suggest I ignore?!! SOPs are the cornerstone of safe airline operations.
Last edited by batty; 14th Oct 2004 at 09:07.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the approach to EGLL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty
It appears that some of the (FR) SOPs are out of step with the majority of UK operators! The incapacitation issue is one of them.
Big Airways have had a Cat 3 incapacitation policy for many years, namely:
Perhaps, you should ask your Managers to review their policy on this matter. 
It appears that some of the (FR) SOPs are out of step with the majority of UK operators! The incapacitation issue is one of them.
Big Airways have had a Cat 3 incapacitation policy for many years, namely:
In the event of a lack of response by the Captain to the "decide" call, due to incapacitation, it is considered safer for the co-pilot to continue to autoland the a/c in Cat 3 conditions than to execute a go-around.