Does he Die or Live?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Does he Die or Live?
Hi all,
Well here's a scenario:
You've just taken off within weather limits, however landing is not within weather limits.
20mins after t/o a passenger has a heart attack, the nearest airport within weather limits is 2hrs away. What do you do?
(just read the Question in a book-could be an interview question)
Thanking you in advance
Regards
777
Well here's a scenario:
You've just taken off within weather limits, however landing is not within weather limits.
20mins after t/o a passenger has a heart attack, the nearest airport within weather limits is 2hrs away. What do you do?
(just read the Question in a book-could be an interview question)
Thanking you in advance
Regards
777
Guest
Posts: n/a
There you go!
Easy job?
If you're the boss, find out as much as you can about the state of the patient (pax) and then make a decision on the likelihood and safety of being able to get in or not.
The answer in the exam is likely to be different from the action in practice! Same as what does the FO do when established on a Cat111 approach the Capt becomes incapacitated?
Easy job?
If you're the boss, find out as much as you can about the state of the patient (pax) and then make a decision on the likelihood and safety of being able to get in or not.
The answer in the exam is likely to be different from the action in practice! Same as what does the FO do when established on a Cat111 approach the Capt becomes incapacitated?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strangely enough 777 I had a similar scenario last year. I assume you infer that the passenger has positively been identified as suffering a heart attack, there is no doctor on board and you have been reliabley advised (by the senior crew in charge) that the passenger will die if he doesnt get proper medical attention fast.
Ok the decision here is not wether returning back to the departure field is legal but do you believe it is safe for all on board if you attempt to do so after careful consideration of all factors. There is no sense in unrealisticaly putting everyone in a possibley hazardous high-risk situation (including you) for the sake of one.
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 16 May 2000).]
Ok the decision here is not wether returning back to the departure field is legal but do you believe it is safe for all on board if you attempt to do so after careful consideration of all factors. There is no sense in unrealisticaly putting everyone in a possibley hazardous high-risk situation (including you) for the sake of one.
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 16 May 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
don't forget to ask for a doctor on board. Check the weather; diversion is 2 hrs you said, probably within that time the weather has cleared up at your departure field.
I would land above landing weight limit in that situation, but busting the minima is another story.
Make sure the ambulance is ready upon arrival where ever you land.
I would land above landing weight limit in that situation, but busting the minima is another story.
Make sure the ambulance is ready upon arrival where ever you land.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you have a cat3 equiped aircraft with full autoland etc,return to the departure field and land it.Watch the automatics like a hawk,but let the autoland do its thing.Set the parking brake and await medical assistance.This is a commonly debated scenario with the hapless victim normally an incapacitated captain.Two points;the situation you describe is critical in terms of life or death.The CAA would be extremely sympathetic provided the situation was dealt with sensibly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
777, please start to use the correct forums for posting your questions. I'll attempt to anawer for you but this topic will be going into the Tech Log forum.
If the weather at the departure airfield is below landing minima a suitable departure diversion must be established within 250nm. The forecast conditions at this airfield must be equal to or better than the minimum values for the available approach aids but never less than those given for a CAT I approach in the SAOM. An update on the latest actual weather conditions at this airfield should be obtained prior to departure to re-affirm its suitability. Due regard must be paid to en-route terrain in selecting the take-off alternate.
For planning requirements the selection of a take-off alternate must satisfy the following conditions:
[list=a][*]Met reports or forecasts must indicate that the weather at the aerodrome will be at or above the applicable landing minima for ± 1 hour of the a/c's ETA; and
[*]If only non-precision or circling approaches are available, ceiling (broken or more cloud) must be taken into account; and
[*]Any one engine inop limitations must be taken into account. e.g. Loss of CAT II or III capability[/list=a]
Now that is according to my ops manual and I am sure it is a legal requirement for any company operating on a UK AOC.
So, if you can't land within 250nm of your departure (approx 30 minutes in a jet) then you may be liable for the death of your pax if a landing within that time would have increased their chances of survival.
------------------
Capt PPRuNe
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork
If the weather at the departure airfield is below landing minima a suitable departure diversion must be established within 250nm. The forecast conditions at this airfield must be equal to or better than the minimum values for the available approach aids but never less than those given for a CAT I approach in the SAOM. An update on the latest actual weather conditions at this airfield should be obtained prior to departure to re-affirm its suitability. Due regard must be paid to en-route terrain in selecting the take-off alternate.
For planning requirements the selection of a take-off alternate must satisfy the following conditions:
[list=a][*]Met reports or forecasts must indicate that the weather at the aerodrome will be at or above the applicable landing minima for ± 1 hour of the a/c's ETA; and
[*]If only non-precision or circling approaches are available, ceiling (broken or more cloud) must be taken into account; and
[*]Any one engine inop limitations must be taken into account. e.g. Loss of CAT II or III capability[/list=a]
Now that is according to my ops manual and I am sure it is a legal requirement for any company operating on a UK AOC.
So, if you can't land within 250nm of your departure (approx 30 minutes in a jet) then you may be liable for the death of your pax if a landing within that time would have increased their chances of survival.
------------------
Capt PPRuNe
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your primary responsibility is the safety of your passengers and fellow crewmembers. Busting approach minimums and risking the safety of everyone to get one sick guy on the ground is unthinkable. Under that same category comes the notion of using autoland to bust minimums on a Cat 1 runway.
[This message has been edited by Jurassic Jet Man (edited 16 May 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jurassic Jet Man (edited 16 May 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt PPRuNe,
Your 250 nm limit appears to be a company rule only. I can take off as long as I have an alternate within 2 hours flying time at one-engine-out speed (I have 4 engines). For twin-engined a/c within the company the limit is 60 mins. Our companies agree on the other conditions. Assuming then that the question refers to a 4-engined a/c, it is not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Your 250 nm limit appears to be a company rule only. I can take off as long as I have an alternate within 2 hours flying time at one-engine-out speed (I have 4 engines). For twin-engined a/c within the company the limit is 60 mins. Our companies agree on the other conditions. Assuming then that the question refers to a 4-engined a/c, it is not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ojay,
To watch the automation like a hawk you have to know what you are watching. Your scenario obviously precludes all non precision approaches. But then, an ILS that is not certified for Cat II/III operation is possibly either higher, lower, curved or a comination of these. As long as you are on this high, low or cuved ILS your ILS indications on your flightdeck will be centered. The A/P is just doing its job: It is following the same radio signals you see on your instruments. The only clues you may have are DME distances/Altitudes, powersettings and vertical speeds. To monitor all this may just be a little too much if you are in a hurry to get a patient down and at the same time flying a bumpy or curved ILS in lousy weather. So I have to agree with JJM; for me a return is out of the question for this scenario.
I can however imagine a scenario where I would bust minima. A thing I learned from an old instructor long ago is that if you must crash, the best place to do that is on an airfield. That's where the fire engines are closest.
Capt PPRuNe, my chief prescribes 1hr flying to T/O alternate for a twin.
So 777 I think my patient would have to hold on for another 40 minutes at least.
To watch the automation like a hawk you have to know what you are watching. Your scenario obviously precludes all non precision approaches. But then, an ILS that is not certified for Cat II/III operation is possibly either higher, lower, curved or a comination of these. As long as you are on this high, low or cuved ILS your ILS indications on your flightdeck will be centered. The A/P is just doing its job: It is following the same radio signals you see on your instruments. The only clues you may have are DME distances/Altitudes, powersettings and vertical speeds. To monitor all this may just be a little too much if you are in a hurry to get a patient down and at the same time flying a bumpy or curved ILS in lousy weather. So I have to agree with JJM; for me a return is out of the question for this scenario.
I can however imagine a scenario where I would bust minima. A thing I learned from an old instructor long ago is that if you must crash, the best place to do that is on an airfield. That's where the fire engines are closest.
Capt PPRuNe, my chief prescribes 1hr flying to T/O alternate for a twin.
So 777 I think my patient would have to hold on for another 40 minutes at least.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Most takeoff alternates that I work with (turbojet 2 engine) have to be within one hour. If the senerio occures then the Pilot in Command can deviate from any regulation for the reason of safety. Thats the good news. The bad news is the PIC is accountable for the action. So the Pilot in Command decides to execute an approach he is not certified for, all for the sake of one passenger. He in essence jeopardizes the entire passenger load doing something that he is not only not suppose to do, but isn't trained to do. I would say definitly go to the takeoff alternate. I believe the Government Agency would give a big frown as well as the airline.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Noddy,
I was about to say the same thing to the big boss. We must work for the same company. Although it's probably a company rule, I imagine it's based on CAA guidelines, so any four engine jet (or flying hairdryer in our case) must have more leeway.
Also, we do not lose our CAT 3 status for the paltry loss of one engine (sorry, hairdryer). Pish!
Interesting question but, as is being demonstrated, there are too many variables to answer it precisely. In the main, though, I would agree with the majority. Don't bust minima and risk a serious accident: Far better to defend the death of one passenger with the ANO and SOPs in black and white in your favour, than the death of many trying to be hero! At the end of the day, on top of everything else, we are not responsible for everybody's health problems.
One thing nobody has mentioned, though, is do you at least make an approach, or two, (pushing the boat out here) or do you just go straight to your alternate and save time?
I presume that this question would mainly be aimed at long haul hopefulls because I don't know of any commercial airports in Europe that would be two hours away from the nearest 'landable airfield'. It would have to be one hell of a fog bank!
------------------
Be good to your kids, they'll be chosing your retirement home!
I was about to say the same thing to the big boss. We must work for the same company. Although it's probably a company rule, I imagine it's based on CAA guidelines, so any four engine jet (or flying hairdryer in our case) must have more leeway.
Also, we do not lose our CAT 3 status for the paltry loss of one engine (sorry, hairdryer). Pish!
Interesting question but, as is being demonstrated, there are too many variables to answer it precisely. In the main, though, I would agree with the majority. Don't bust minima and risk a serious accident: Far better to defend the death of one passenger with the ANO and SOPs in black and white in your favour, than the death of many trying to be hero! At the end of the day, on top of everything else, we are not responsible for everybody's health problems.
One thing nobody has mentioned, though, is do you at least make an approach, or two, (pushing the boat out here) or do you just go straight to your alternate and save time?
I presume that this question would mainly be aimed at long haul hopefulls because I don't know of any commercial airports in Europe that would be two hours away from the nearest 'landable airfield'. It would have to be one hell of a fog bank!
------------------
Be good to your kids, they'll be chosing your retirement home!
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulations governing Take-off Alternates are laid down by the Joint Aviation Authorities, (JAR-OPS 1.2959(b) and 1.297(a)). The alternate must be located within 60 minutes at the one-engine inoperative cruising speed for a two engined aircraft, and 120 minutes at the one-engine inoperative cruising speed for a three or four engined aircraft. There are also some additional rules for ETOPS aircraft.
However, these are the maximum distances, and any company may write their own rules, so long as they are within these limits.
The alternate minima rules are for planning purposes only. Once a flight has commenced, then any airfield can be used as an alternate so long as it is above operational minima.
However, most of this is irrelevant to your question. What the interviewer is asking is 'Would you bust minimums and risk all of the passengers to save the life of one passenger who might die anyway?' Whatever you might do in practice then, at the interview, the answer has to be NO.
Airclues
However, these are the maximum distances, and any company may write their own rules, so long as they are within these limits.
The alternate minima rules are for planning purposes only. Once a flight has commenced, then any airfield can be used as an alternate so long as it is above operational minima.
However, most of this is irrelevant to your question. What the interviewer is asking is 'Would you bust minimums and risk all of the passengers to save the life of one passenger who might die anyway?' Whatever you might do in practice then, at the interview, the answer has to be NO.
Airclues
Guest
Posts: n/a
Accidents caused by human errors are the result of chain of events. Analysis of aircraft accidents confirm that at least four of the following signs were present in any one accident:
Ambiguity-Fixation-Departure from SOP-Use of undocumented procedure-Failure to meet Target-No one is flying the aircraft-Violating minimums or limitations-no one is looking out of the window- Miscommunications-Unresolved discrepancies conflicts- Preoccupation or distraction- Confusion.
You departed your field knowing that you couldn’t come back and already filed a departure alternate. So the planning was already done. Now you have a situation that it requires you to land due to a sick passenger that can’t get enough help onboard. You immediately look for the nearest suitable airport to land. I had more than one case during my flights and by taking the right decision I was lucky that I saved all of them. (Identify the problem – Recognize needs-Collect facts- Identify alternatives –Select possible solution and best response-evaluate and implement response.
Ambiguity-Fixation-Departure from SOP-Use of undocumented procedure-Failure to meet Target-No one is flying the aircraft-Violating minimums or limitations-no one is looking out of the window- Miscommunications-Unresolved discrepancies conflicts- Preoccupation or distraction- Confusion.
You departed your field knowing that you couldn’t come back and already filed a departure alternate. So the planning was already done. Now you have a situation that it requires you to land due to a sick passenger that can’t get enough help onboard. You immediately look for the nearest suitable airport to land. I had more than one case during my flights and by taking the right decision I was lucky that I saved all of them. (Identify the problem – Recognize needs-Collect facts- Identify alternatives –Select possible solution and best response-evaluate and implement response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Albeit a different airline, our Departure Alternate minima are exactly the same as those stated by Capt PPRuNE. That is 250 NM with all the same provisions.
Perhaps your chances of surviving depend on the company you fly with ?
Agree with most of the comments. The passenger would be attended to by the cabin crew. PA's would be done for medical assistance etc. The aircraft would be diverted to an airport at which it was both safe and legal to complete a landing.
Hard to imagine a suitable airport being 2 hours away except in the Etops situation but in such an event, then that is de-facto and the pax would have to be attended to for the time it took to get there. If the situation arises where it is necessary to ignore limits and thereby compromise the safety of the flight, it must be for a position of serious jeopardy. As harsh as it may sound one pax with an illness however serious doesn't really fall within that definition.
IMHO !
Perhaps your chances of surviving depend on the company you fly with ?
Agree with most of the comments. The passenger would be attended to by the cabin crew. PA's would be done for medical assistance etc. The aircraft would be diverted to an airport at which it was both safe and legal to complete a landing.
Hard to imagine a suitable airport being 2 hours away except in the Etops situation but in such an event, then that is de-facto and the pax would have to be attended to for the time it took to get there. If the situation arises where it is necessary to ignore limits and thereby compromise the safety of the flight, it must be for a position of serious jeopardy. As harsh as it may sound one pax with an illness however serious doesn't really fall within that definition.
IMHO !