Words you DONT want to hear on approach !

[SteamWake]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081218122051.1u8i8nx3&show_article=1

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hmmm...... a regrettable lack of foresight but better than crashing the plane, I would venture. I do wonder, though, how much different landing a Q400 in fog could be from doing the same in a Q300. I mean, how much different could it be? Maybe some pilots out there who would know?

[SteamWake]

Hmmm...... a regrettable lack of foresight but better than crashing the plane, I would venture. I do wonder, though, how much different landing a Q400 in fog could be from doing the same in a Q300. I mean, how much different could it be? Maybe some pilots out there who would know?

Probably not that much, perhaps the 'stack' is a little different but an ILS is an ILS.

More to do with regulations and unions I would suspect. If he had landed sucessfully they could have stripped him of his license.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I had a feeling.....

[subchaser12]

Bureaucracy at its finest.

[Enigma]

This has to do with Ins. approach minimums and a sign off in a log book. The Captain just chose hos words very badly....

[Biggles]

Bureaucracy at its finest.

Oh well, he did do the proper thing, if you ask me. I've heard of worse things.

(wanna read about bureaucracy at its finest? Try Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. Just a sidenote, my favourite book;))

[Enigma]

a link to a good explanation. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UAM2fGcej9UC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=%22ask+the+pilot%22+%22qualified+to+land%22&source=bl&ots=wKhESA1WtI&sig=qSbw8ptO2q_gHFkqkCtg7vTRP9k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

[Skybird]

After 30 years, he probably would have known how to land a plane in that weather.

but British pilots are said to be the most regulated in all Europe. That he diverted (better: returned), is neither a sign of competence or incompetence, nor heroic courage to admit a deficit in skills. If he would have landed in that weather without having formal qualification for that plane to land in that kind of weather, he simply would have risked serious trouble with the officials. If he was in the middle of retrainign to qualify for a very different plane model, basically he had to undergo all the bgeinner'S exams again. and if passing exam for landing plane model X in foggy weather still had not been formally ticked of the list of to do-things, he simply is not allowed to land plane X in foggy weather, although he maybe could. Doing so nevertheless would be like driving a car without licences - just with more serious penalties.

He simply followed preset orders and regulations, that's all, imo.

[NealT]

I might point out that if memory serves me correctly, a CAT III approach and landing is 'hands off'. In other words, you dial it all in on the computers (3 of them to be exact) otherwise known as FMS (Flight Management System), sit back, and the plane does the rest.

I have yet to meet a pilot comfortable with doing that...

[Enigma]

I might point out that if memory serves me correctly, a CAT III approach and landing is 'hands off'. In other words, you dial it all in on the computers (3 of them to be exact) otherwise known as FMS (Flight Management System), sit back, and the plane does the rest.

Just a touch more complicated than that.....


Category III A - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range not less than 200 meters (656 ft).
Category III B - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 50 feet (15 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range less than 200 meters (656 ft) but not less than 50 meters (164 ft).
Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations. A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the runway surface.

[SteamWake]

Cat III 'auto land' is not all its cracked up to be. One small error on the inputs, an incorrect barometer setting for example can lead to a mess.

Most pilots cut off the AP as soon as the runway is in sight if the runway is not in sight within 300 feet its time to place your fate in the hands of technology built by the lowest bidder. Not an attractive situation.

But Im sure all the passengers were veeery understanding ;)

[UnderseaLcpl]

a link to a good explanation. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UAM2fGcej9UC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=%22ask+the+pilot%22+%22qualified+to+land%22&source=bl&ots=wKhESA1WtI&sig=qSbw8ptO2q_gHFkqkCtg7vTRP9k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

I think I'll buy that book. The preview was very good, and I couldn't stop reading until the end. Thanks:up:

[Enigma]

It's a great book. Even as a pilot, I found it fun to read and interesting. I recommended it! :up:

[Falkirion]

I think the fact he didn't land was something to do with PIC hours not being up there. He'd only recently upgraded to the Q400 and Flybe's guide says that you need 100 PIC on the Q400 before you can do an autoland.

Lots of info over on www.airliners.net

[GoldenRivet]

As someone with first hand experience regarding this very issue... the pilot was perfectly capable of flying the aircraft in fog, weather, etc.

However, On paper... he was not legally qualified to do so in this particular case.

I have flown with a number of captains who had to enter holding, and subsequently divert to an alternate because they had just recently upgraded from First officer to Captain and had not yet gained 100 hours as captain of that particular aircraft.

as a result... the minimums for an instrument approach have to be increased by a certain factor.

on paper... if he increases the minimums as the book says, and the minimums for the approach are higher than the weather is low... his hands are tied, no choice, though the captain in this scenario would have tens of thousands of hours of flight time and perhaps an even greater number of approaches in foggy weather... he has no choice but to call up dispatch on the horn, coordinate with them, go to the alternate, or return to the hub.

plain and simple.

the pilot's choice of words were poor... he should have said something like

"Ladies and gentlemen, i apologize for the inconvenience but the foggy weather at our destination airport has dropped below the minimums for our approach, we will have no choice right now but to divert to __________ airport, once there we will either wait out the weather and resume the flight, or wait for the company to make a command decision for re-booking you folks on another flight at a later time."

this would be the point in time to ding the flight attendant and let her know whats up so she can answer the flood of questions that are sure to fire at her.

funny story, but the problem is there are going to be 8 out of 10 people who dont understand the context of "not qualified to land the plane" and freak out about "what sort of people are the airlines hiring these days?!"

poor choice of words on the part of the pilot and perhaps irresponsible reporting on the part of the media :nope:

[bookworm_020]

Well a least his words weren't "brace for impact!"

[Enigma]

Is there a parrot or two in here? :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

a link to a good explanation. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UAM2fGcej9UC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=%22ask+the+pilot%22+%22qualified+to+land%22&source=bl&ots=wKhESA1WtI&sig=qSbw8ptO2q_gHFkqkCtg7vTRP9k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

I think I'll buy that book. The preview was very good, and I couldn't stop reading until the end. Thanks:up:

His column at Salon is great also http://dir.salon.com/topics/patrick_smith/