It's foggy so we can't land

Davidth88

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7787496.stm

Now I have never heard of this one ! Although fair play to the captain for doing the right thing , maybe I would have felt different if I was a passenger though !

What's the regulations , wouldn't the 1st Officer be qualified ?


Quote from Beeb web site

A pilot with 30 years experience told passengers on a flight to Paris that he was returning to the UK because he was not qualified to land in foggy weather.

Flybe flight BE1431 from Cardiff was approaching Charles De Gaulle airport on Tuesday when the captain made the announcement over the tannoy.

A spokeswoman for Flybe said there had been dense fog at the airport in Paris.

She said the company stood by the pilot's decision and said passenger safety had not been compromised.

The Flybe pilot concerned has 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types, said the Flybe spokeswoman.

"He has relatively recently transferred his 'type-rating' from a Bombardier Q300 to a Bombardier Q400 and has not yet completed the requisite low-visibility training to complete a landing in conditions such as the dense fog experienced in Paris Charles de Gaulle," she said.


I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman

"The captain therefore quite correctly turned the aircraft around and returned to Cardiff; a decision which the company stands by 100%.

"Aviation is the most highly regulated form of public transport in the United Kingdom. As a result, technical situations like these arise where a pilot with 30 years experience correctly abides by regulatory rules.

"At no point was passenger safety compromised."

Flybe added that when the pilot took off from Cardiff, the weather at Paris Charles De Gaulle was clear.

The Civil Aviation Authority described the incident as "quite unusual but probably not unheard of".

"I guess he thought when he initially took off that conditions would be suitable for him to land," said a spokesman.

"There are different classifications of aircraft and when an aircraft is updated, pilots who have flown an older version have to completely retrain.

"There can be significant differences in terms of how an aircraft is operated.

"Different climatic conditions like fog require a certain level of skill and he probably didn't have the level of training required for this particular aircraft."

diverdriver

I'm not an expert on these. But Paris was probably either declared Catergory II or Cat III visibility conditions. Probably Cat II in this case. Pilots must receive appropriate training to land in these conditions and of course the aircraft must be suitably equipped. The news report stated that the Captain hadn't yet received the training. Neither had the FO. So it was a case of having to divert.

Simple as that.

Davidth88

I can't see the bit that says the FO wasn't qualified .. but maybe I am missing something

It's was only a curious story , not one that happens often I would reckon

APM

regardless of whether the f/o was LVP CAT II/III certified, both crew members would've had to have been certified to land in CAT II/III conditions

FlutterinBantam

Nothing at all strange about that.

Obviously the PIC had not the requisite hours/ training to complete a probable CATIII landing on that particular a/c type.

Would have taken off based on forecast conditions.but it didn't work out.

These things happen reasonably regularly.

highlydebased

Both crew members must be CATII/III certified to land in those conditions. If not, they cant land there. Simple as.

Also if aircraft or airline is not CAT II/III approved, the same applies.

Davidth88

Ok I get your drift lads !

Very glad I wan't on board , can you imagine you are taking your missus on a romantic break to Paris and you end up in Cardiff

FlutterinBantam

Same goes for crosswind components and the like, as a matter of interest, especially if the person is 'inexperienced' on the a/c type.

diverdriver

This is why flying is so much safer nowdays. In the past, he would have tried to get in and probably smeared the thing into the ground short of the runway.

APM

yeah, tbh I can't actually see why this made the news. Its hardly a newsworthy item. One can only guess that there was a BBC reporter onboard and found it a major inconvenience.

N2

LVP's great way to get the adrenelin pumpin, especially if it's to Cat111a min's of 200m/50ft, it puts you right in the TDZ the first thing you see is usually the lights at the numbers, if there red you just entered the ploughing championship's.

highlydebased

Not quite CatIII, but you get the drift. There is another one which I cant find...

FlutterinBantam

Thick fog there sure enough......:rolleyes:

diverdriver

Looks more like a white cat in a blizzard to me, neon!

To those of you, who might wonder why they ever took off in the face of such conditions. During the summer I took off in absolutely fabulous conditions, CAVU. Once airborne, I contacted Shannon. The controller was shocked to hear from from me. 'We're CAT II here. What are conditions like with you?' Shannon was only thirty miles away. Yet conditions were perfect for me. It didn't last of course. Slowly but surely it worked it's way towards us and we were grounded by mid morning. That's fog for you.

N2

RVR's for a low vis departure are 125/125/125m, concentrates the mind! And the airport does not have to be Cat 11/111.

highlydebased

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=PfCayaMNqrA

Oops!

N2

I would say the first one is actually cat1, you can hear the trim wheel as they get the lights, on the 73 autoland you get nose up trim at about 400ft rad alt in case the A/P disengages.

wittymoniker

it's an auto coupled approach in cat 1 conditions, minimums set to 50'.

jhegarty

Silly question,

Do aircraft normally fly with over twice the fuel needed for the trip ?

wittymoniker

no such thing as a silly question...

fuel is usually:
total of taxi fuel, sufficient to get to destination make an approach and go around, go to alternate, 30 mins holding at landing weight at 1500', 5% contingency, reserves plus any company/authority specified extra.

...unless of course you're tankering...

N2

wittymoniker wrote: »

it's an auto coupled approach in cat 1 conditions, minimums set to 50'.

I ment the RVR's for the approach

N2

N2 wrote: »

I would say the first one is actually cat1, you can hear the trim wheel as they get the lights, on the 73 autoland you get nose up trim at about 400ft rad alt in case the A/P disengages.

Yeah I ment RVRs for the approach,

FlutterinBantam

wittymoniker wrote: »

no such thing as a silly question...

fuel is usually:
total of taxi fuel, sufficient to get to destination make an approach and go around, go to alternate, 30 mins holding at landing weight at 1500', 5% contingency, reserves plus any company/authority specified extra.

...unless of course you're tankering...

Indeed, would apply to longer haul flights rather than those of under 2.5 hours where the fuel would usually be the company standard for the a/c type and the capt's discretion for weather situations, traffic etc.

For instance DUB to LHR might be say 6.5 tonnes where the standard burn might be around 2 tonnes depending on a/c type.