|
#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. |
|
|