Sydney Airport Message Board - 'I'm not qualified to land,' pilot tells passengers

Sydney Airport Message Board (http://www.yssyforum.net/board/index.php)

- International Industry (http://www.yssyforum.net/board/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - 'I'm not qualified to land,' pilot tells passengers (http://www.yssyforum.net/board/showthread.php?t=2132)

'I'm not qualified to land,' pilot tells passengers

Quote:

'I'm not qualified to land,' pilot tells passengers

Agence France-Presse
December 19, 2008 07:41am

A BRITISH passenger plane was forced to turn back minutes before landing in Paris because the pilot was not qualified to land in fog. Speaking over the address system as the Flybe flight approached Charles de Gaulle airport, the pilot announced to startled passengers "I am not qualified to land the plane" and turned back to Cardiff.

A spokeswoman for the low-cost airline said the pilot was "an experienced aviator with more than 30 years commercial aviation experience flying a number of different passenger aircraft types."

"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.

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

One passenger, 29-year-old Cassandra Grant, said she had missed a job interview in the French capital as a result.

She told the South Wales Echo newspaper: "Twenty minutes outside Paris, the captain said, 'Unfortunately I'm not qualified to land the plane in Paris. They are asking for a level two qualification and I only have a level five. We'll have to fly back.

"The whole thing beggars belief. If I had not been on the plane, I would not have believed it."

The British 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," a spokesman said.

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

"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."

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/...014090,00.html

I would like the pilots to be qualified to land in these conditions as well.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQhyL...eature=related

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.

Which box do you tick for autoland ;)

MS

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trent Hopkinson (Post 18417)

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 ;)

The 400 has rain on the windscreen - that's obviously why you can't fly it with only VFR. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trent Hopkinson (Post 18417)

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 ;)

What is your point? Yes they are different cockpits, but the captain was qualified to fly the Q400, just not land in the conditions at the time.

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.