Passenger pontification and pilot safety
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really donīt like to be on an airplane which suffers an engine-failure shortly after take-off and the pilots choose to continue a rather long flight. The feeling would be different if this had happened somewhere along the route (even if returning to the departure airport would still have been nearer than continuing with the flight).
Itīs strange for an airline like BA to do such a thing
it does not FEEL right (for the passengers).
is something (maybe) an African airline would have done...but obviously this is just some kind of prejudice!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
At the risk of drawing this out beyond its already limited welcome, what if the climb indication was the erroneous one? In instrument conditions at night there is simply no way to tell.
The point is that if you're reliant on instruments and those instruments are giving conflicting readings, you're going to hve a hell of a time trying to put that aircraft safely back on the ground no matter how good you are.
The point is that if you're reliant on instruments and those instruments are giving conflicting readings, you're going to hve a hell of a time trying to put that aircraft safely back on the ground no matter how good you are.
) sitting in the cockpit of that Birgen Air 757 as a captain that night (of course, after having gotten an ATPL, gotten type-rated on the 757 etc, as proposed by the very cool, overstressed "overstress"). I KNOW I would have been utterly confused, too, in that situation. Thatīs why I said I donīt disagree with you.P.S.: You can relax: I have no intention whatsoever to become a pilot - I donīt even play MS Flight Simulator - a thing that seems to irritate many people here
(awaiting sarcastic comments now...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by L337
So where is OK for me to continue? One hour into the flight, 5 hours? 20 minutes? Why is it safer say 5 hours into a flight than say one hour? Does the weather at the departure point, and the weather en-roue play a part? Or do we land regardless just because you say "It does not feel right"?
Do you think it is just BA that do such a thing? Do you think it is only BA that is behaving like an African airline.....your words, not mine.
Maybe remember this (for continuing flying with gear down):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0095397/L/
No, it does not FEEL right for you. How do you know what all the other millions of passengers think? Plenty of passengers here have voiced there support for the Captain, and his decision.
Not only do you have the expertise to judge BA, but (maybe) all African airlines. Amazing.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thePassenger
I can only hope so...
Maybe remember this (for continuing flying with gear down):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0095397/L/
Maybe remember this (for continuing flying with gear down):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0095397/L/
There's electing to continue and electing to continue - you can't claim one case is the same as another here.
From reading the forums of different newspapers, maybe?
It is a fact that they DID what they did and it is a fact that many people are concerned when hearing about this.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you are over-stressed.
According to your logic, you must be a very quiet man. Apart from flying and (maybe) one or two other things you will be no expert in almost every other field
Let me give you an example. I've been on a passenger ferry a few times, yet I don't feel it necessary to find a Master mariners' internet forum and make unqualified comments on matters of maritime operations, even though I hold an RYA Coastal Skipper amateur qualification.
Moderators: can we move this thread to J-B now, where it belongs? Then we can say what we really think of pontificators
Moderator
I make no specific comment in respect of several of the accidents referred to .. however, is this not why we train specifically for flight with unreliable pitot static instruments .. ie basic I/F attitude and thrust for configuration and required performance ?
There has been a number of accidents and incidents where a reversion to the basics may have provided a better outcome ...
Perhaps I'm just an old dinosaur .. but I was drilled attitude + thrust = performance ... it is always good fun to see the confidence level in pilots soar when they get a chance to do some serious basics in the box for training ...
overstress .. forum policy is that we are very tolerant with threads while the posters are reasonably polite and the posts reasonably pertinent to the thrust of the forum subject matter. The thread stays for the time being.
Reading between the lines, it is obvious that thePassenger is far better read that the great majority of passengers. While I might not go to the stage of lumping him/her in the esteemed class of Milt, he/she certainly has cranked up a discussion of great vigour and one, if I may be so bold as to suggest, canvasses important matters of interest to many ...
There has been a number of accidents and incidents where a reversion to the basics may have provided a better outcome ...
Perhaps I'm just an old dinosaur .. but I was drilled attitude + thrust = performance ... it is always good fun to see the confidence level in pilots soar when they get a chance to do some serious basics in the box for training ...
overstress .. forum policy is that we are very tolerant with threads while the posters are reasonably polite and the posts reasonably pertinent to the thrust of the forum subject matter. The thread stays for the time being.
Reading between the lines, it is obvious that thePassenger is far better read that the great majority of passengers. While I might not go to the stage of lumping him/her in the esteemed class of Milt, he/she certainly has cranked up a discussion of great vigour and one, if I may be so bold as to suggest, canvasses important matters of interest to many ...
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most passengers in modern day aviation have yet to come to terms with the fact that when the doors close, you cease to be an agent and become a patient. The peebs of today hate not being able to influence what's happening to them - but flying is one such necessary evil. Hence, you see people jumping up when arriving at the gate, before the signs are off, thereby reclaiming their right to act as agents. They need this to assert their "rights", it's not a right they want to wait for to be givne to them.
Now, this kind of pax agrees to act the patient-role during the flight under the pre-text that a) I surrender part of my free will to you, the crew, provided b) you get me safely to my destination, more or less on time, and in return c) I will not interfere with how you do your job. This is not a carbon-copy of what is says on your IATA-format ticket, but that is what people expect.
When things don't go according to plan (tech fault, diversion, precautionary landinging etc.), these pax feel that we have violated the agreement - and they don't care about the small print in the terms-of-carriage. It doesn't matter that a rational analysis shows that, yes, ever so often a quad will have a run-down in departure. They feel that the terms of the "emotional contract" have been broken - and therefore, they now have a right to have their say.
Typically, "The Passenger" didn't just decide for himself that he was never to fly BA again, he had to vent his frustration of the broken contract at the "culprits", in this case the PPRuNe fraternity. It's about making us understand how disappointed he is and to make us suffer a bit in return. That is a very human - if also very irritating - response.
May I therefore humbly suggest that we accomodate "The Passenger"? He has now had a chance to vent his frustration - but unfortunately, some rose to the bait, thereby denying "The Passenger" his "right" to shove all his broken promises into our faces. I fear that "The Passenger" might have had other instances of people close to him letting him down, and therefore is prone to react visibly when he is (once again) let down - or senses that he might in the future be let down, e.g. when travelling on a BA quad.
Dear "The Passenger"! I am sorry that you do not feel happy about said crews decision to continue the flight. We recognise your sense of anger and frustration, and admit that, yes, under similar circumstances (in other areas of life) we'd be capable of feeling the same emotions that you're going through. We cannot change those emotions, only acknowledge that it is the way you feel.
We are sorry if some of us let our emotions get the better of us and did not acknowledge your emotions (I'm sure you remember which posts I refer to here). We are also humans, and sometime give in to an irrational sense to convey our skill, expertise and knowledge in order to solve the problem, when deep down, we know it is not the solution to your emotions and is unlikely to bring closure.
We are also sorry to hear that you will not fly BA in the future. It is a choice you make, and I'm sure all PPRuNers respect that choice.
We wish you the best of luck making transportation arrangements in the future that will hopefully be to your taste with regards to percieved security.
We also wish you the best of luck reconciling any emotional distress that said incident (or indeed similar incidents from time immortal) may have caused you. You seem like a capable individual who'll eventuall pull through.
From all at PPRuNe - the best of luck.
Empty
Now, this kind of pax agrees to act the patient-role during the flight under the pre-text that a) I surrender part of my free will to you, the crew, provided b) you get me safely to my destination, more or less on time, and in return c) I will not interfere with how you do your job. This is not a carbon-copy of what is says on your IATA-format ticket, but that is what people expect.
When things don't go according to plan (tech fault, diversion, precautionary landinging etc.), these pax feel that we have violated the agreement - and they don't care about the small print in the terms-of-carriage. It doesn't matter that a rational analysis shows that, yes, ever so often a quad will have a run-down in departure. They feel that the terms of the "emotional contract" have been broken - and therefore, they now have a right to have their say.
Typically, "The Passenger" didn't just decide for himself that he was never to fly BA again, he had to vent his frustration of the broken contract at the "culprits", in this case the PPRuNe fraternity. It's about making us understand how disappointed he is and to make us suffer a bit in return. That is a very human - if also very irritating - response.
May I therefore humbly suggest that we accomodate "The Passenger"? He has now had a chance to vent his frustration - but unfortunately, some rose to the bait, thereby denying "The Passenger" his "right" to shove all his broken promises into our faces. I fear that "The Passenger" might have had other instances of people close to him letting him down, and therefore is prone to react visibly when he is (once again) let down - or senses that he might in the future be let down, e.g. when travelling on a BA quad.
Dear "The Passenger"! I am sorry that you do not feel happy about said crews decision to continue the flight. We recognise your sense of anger and frustration, and admit that, yes, under similar circumstances (in other areas of life) we'd be capable of feeling the same emotions that you're going through. We cannot change those emotions, only acknowledge that it is the way you feel.
We are sorry if some of us let our emotions get the better of us and did not acknowledge your emotions (I'm sure you remember which posts I refer to here). We are also humans, and sometime give in to an irrational sense to convey our skill, expertise and knowledge in order to solve the problem, when deep down, we know it is not the solution to your emotions and is unlikely to bring closure.
We are also sorry to hear that you will not fly BA in the future. It is a choice you make, and I'm sure all PPRuNers respect that choice.
We wish you the best of luck making transportation arrangements in the future that will hopefully be to your taste with regards to percieved security.
We also wish you the best of luck reconciling any emotional distress that said incident (or indeed similar incidents from time immortal) may have caused you. You seem like a capable individual who'll eventuall pull through.
From all at PPRuNe - the best of luck.
Empty
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Difference being that flying with gear down will cause a more significant increase in fuel consumption due to drag than flying with a donk out.
There's electing to continue and electing to continue - you can't claim one case is the same as another here.
There's electing to continue and electing to continue - you can't claim one case is the same as another here.
Strangely things have still gone wrong in this case...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Empty cruise
Thanks! I already feel much better now. I´m still a little irritated that you wrote "staying out of the morgue" only on 3rd position in your profile but reading that you didn´t necessarily mean in that order, calmed me down again. And I didn´t even take my pills today...
Thanks! I already feel much better now. I´m still a little irritated that you wrote "staying out of the morgue" only on 3rd position in your profile but reading that you didn´t necessarily mean in that order, calmed me down again. And I didn´t even take my pills today...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
...he/she certainly has cranked up a discussion of great vigour and one, if I may be so bold as to suggest, canvasses important matters of interest to many ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
'Passenger' Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
I was citing the "International Herald Tribune".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?
'Passenger' Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
I was citing the "International Herald Tribune".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?
- Way over Maximum Permitted Landing Weight (possible, but hazardous, and only justified in "emergency" which they were not)
- Much longer runway needed than normal landing weight - and maybe in excess of runway available
- Very decreased margins in event of second engine failure. Not hazardous when clean, fast and high, very much so near MTOW dirty, slow and low
The Fuel "Emergency" at the end is a completely different subject. There were lessons from this for all, from authors of QRH, to airline... As an industry, this aspect was not "ideal" IMHO. However, the crew, presented with a confusing situation not well covered by the manuals and their training, took the safest option. NB they were not "forced" to declare an Emergency - they chose to do so to obtain the maximum assistance from ATC...
PS And you still haven't answered the points about "emergency" calls etc.
NoD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
PS And you still haven't answered the points about "emergency" calls etc.
NoD
NoD
Let me give you an example: (again accident-related, I fear
)At 0114:15, SR 111 made a Pan Pan radio transmission to Moncton ACC.
At 0124:42, both pilots almost simultaneously declared an emergency on frequency 119.2 MHz;
I wonder if you think SR 111 should have tried to make an overweight landing? May have been better than the alternative? Iīm not saying that BA should have done this, but certainly the FAA must have some ideas what BA should have done (dump fuel)?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least you've demonstrated you know how to use Google. Now to your example:
Do you know the difference, if there is one, between those two radio calls. You've shown you can cut and paste but do you understand what you are pasting?
At 0114:15, SR 111 made a Pan Pan radio transmission to Moncton ACC.
At 0124:42, both pilots almost simultaneously declared an emergency on frequency 119.2 MHz;
At 0124:42, both pilots almost simultaneously declared an emergency on frequency 119.2 MHz;
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elysion
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A point, he said. Is there one, do we need one, or even a reason. Is the point of arguing, the point, is it the pet hang-ups that gets an airing to great satisfaction.
Oh, the jocularity of it all. Carry on.
Oh, the jocularity of it all. Carry on.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
Well at least you've demonstrated you know how to use Google. Now to your example:
Do you know the difference, if there is one, between those two radio calls. You've shown you can cut and paste but do you understand what you are pasting?
Do you know the difference, if there is one, between those two radio calls. You've shown you can cut and paste but do you understand what you are pasting?
By the way - this was not using google this was from the official accident report (Report Number A98H0003).
The distress call should be:
MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, this is Titanic, this is Titanic, this is Titanic"
Mayday is used in an emergency situation (you are sinking or the equivalent).
A PAN-PAN message is an urgent message that involves the security of one or several ships and/or persons. It might be someone that is ill or a ship that has lost control of steering.
Damn! I cut and pasted from the wrong site!
Mayday is used in an emergency situation (you are sinking or the equivalent).
A PAN-PAN message is an urgent message that involves the security of one or several ships and/or persons. It might be someone that is ill or a ship that has lost control of steering.
Damn! I cut and pasted from the wrong site!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to statistics....
according to statistics,
the odds of dying in a car crash is 1 in 5,000 and
the odds of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 25 million
therefore, one is more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane crash given that person does travel by air.
take a look at this http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
suppose there were 2,000 pilots currently employed and available for duty in BA,
and also suppose that certain long-haul flight had 4 crew on flight deck
assume all 4 pilots in the cockpit thought it was ok to carry on flying
then we are talking about 4 pilots in 2,000 BA pilots, that is 0.2% of the overall BA pilots,
and that is what we call "biased sampling" in statistics since 0.2% is not significant.
therefore we cannot judge BA by this little 0.2 figure.
there might be some over-confident pilots out there, but being self-confident is one of the most important criteria of being a professional pilot.
ok, say you have decided not to take a BA flight anymore, but if you travel by air with some other airline, how would you know if there are any ex-BA pilots on your next flight waiting for you at the gate ?
if you were on a flight about to ditch, the pilots would still try to be calm and save you life together with the other pax and cabin crew whether you like them or not.
the odds of dying in a car crash is 1 in 5,000 and
the odds of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 25 million
therefore, one is more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane crash given that person does travel by air.
take a look at this http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
suppose there were 2,000 pilots currently employed and available for duty in BA,
and also suppose that certain long-haul flight had 4 crew on flight deck
assume all 4 pilots in the cockpit thought it was ok to carry on flying
then we are talking about 4 pilots in 2,000 BA pilots, that is 0.2% of the overall BA pilots,
and that is what we call "biased sampling" in statistics since 0.2% is not significant.
therefore we cannot judge BA by this little 0.2 figure.
there might be some over-confident pilots out there, but being self-confident is one of the most important criteria of being a professional pilot.
ok, say you have decided not to take a BA flight anymore, but if you travel by air with some other airline, how would you know if there are any ex-BA pilots on your next flight waiting for you at the gate ?
if you were on a flight about to ditch, the pilots would still try to be calm and save you life together with the other pax and cabin crew whether you like them or not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by megto
according to statistics,
This is also quite interesting (in case you have not read it already):
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...obability.html
Apart from that I have seen similar statistics but using quite different figures.
therefore we cannot judge BA by this little 0.2 figure.
ok, say you have decided not to take a BA flight anymore, but if you travel by air with some other airline, how would you know if there are any ex-BA pilots on your next flight waiting for you at the gate ?
if you were on a flight about to ditch, the pilots would still try to be calm and save you life together with the other pax and cabin crew whether you like them or not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by overstress
Ah! Good! So you're off to wind-up the mariners now, Passenger! bye-bye, thanks for (not) choosing to fly with us!
There have been some interesting, intelligent replies in this thread and quite a number of silly ones. Now I´m leaving you (and I can almost see all the nasty comments coming). Take care!
Moderator
thePassenger: I'm not sure I really ...
Either way, you have done extremely well ... are you sure that you are not, at least, related to our esteemed colleague, Milt ?
Either way, you have done extremely well ... are you sure that you are not, at least, related to our esteemed colleague, Milt ?