#1
|
|||
|
|||
'I'm not qualified to land,' pilot tells passengers
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I would like the pilots to be qualified to land in these conditions as well.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQhyL...eature=related |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In Australia, you would be Low Vis qualified as part of your conversion to type.
After all, you need to have all the boxes ticked for exactly this reason. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which box do you tick for autoland
MS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Love the media, as usual.
From what I can gather from the report, the pilot could have coneyed his message with a bit more clarity about the situation- who knows, he may have but we are not getting all the information! The crew obviously made the right decision. Not rated/current/qualified, do not do it. Wasn't the coey at Lockhart not rated on the RNAV; the type of approach they were conducting?????? Nice vid David.
__________________
Dire Straits........ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If the crew are not qualified to fly an aircraft in all conditions possibly expected for a scheduled operation, the flight should not have departed and another crew found. With the advancements in weather predictions and monitoring, not to mention the ability to obtain inflight weather updates, the flight (285nautical miles) shouldnt have left, or should have turned around prior to when it did.
Perhaps someone can someone explain to me the difference between a Q300 and a Q400 that would require additional training for 'such conditions'. I could understand the hesitation if moving from a different brand of a/c, or from a different model for the first time, but why would "an experienced aviator with more than 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types." not be confortable when qualified to fly the aircraft in clearer conditions, and be cleared to fly the Q300 in poor conditions. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Q300 cockpit http://www.airliners.net/photo/De-Ha...ada/1224605/L/
Q400 cockpit http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qanta...ada/1370358/L/ Spot the difference |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Philip |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Adrian B,
1) The view that the flight should not have departed or turned around earlier is a rather simplistic one. Weather forecasting is not completely accurate, and the weather at destination is frequently different to that forecast. The cloud only has to change by 100ft or visibility by a few hundred metres to have a completely different outcome. If they believed the weather was going to be above the captains minima, or forecast to be above, then they have every right to depart, and manage the situation safely. If the cloud was forecast to be at 300ft, for example, then there is a difficult operational decision to make. Do you sit on the ground and delay passengers and an aircraft even though the weather is ABOVE your minima, but has the possiblity of going below? Or do you depart, and do the "pilot thing" and manage the situation as it unfolds? 95% of the time you will land successfully, and thats something that the Captain in consultation with their control department will discuss. Same goes if the aircraft is restricted to higher minima because of an unserviceablity. 2) I'm sure that the captain would have been more than comfortable flying a low visibility approach in the aircraft. However, there is a good chance that having just qualified on the aircraft he hadn't completed all of the company's low visibility requirements (which often include a certain number of sectors in the aircraft, a certain number of approaches etc). Its nothing about ability, its all about legality. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|