pilot turns back, as cant land plane in fog?!

brightonman123

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081218/tuk-i-m-not-allowed-to-land-in-fog-45dbed5.html

geez, they'll be crying off because of leaves on the runway next.. how on earth does a pilot get 'qualified' ATA LL, without being able to cope with changes in the weather?!

Blackpool_Saver

Level 2? level5 ??

Are they qualified or not?

Any pilots on here, seriously can you advise please?

Daytona_nev

brightonman123 wrote: »

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081218/tuk-i-m-not-allowed-to-land-in-fog-45dbed5.html

geez, they'll be crying off because of leaves on the runway next.. how on earth does a pilot get 'qualified' ATA LL, without being able to cope with changes in the weather?!

There are different levels of qualification.

e.g. lower level(s) are not qualified for night flying.

Typical media b***!!!!!!. Looks like they requested a lower level pilot than required, and didn't cover all the contingencies when assessing what level was required.

Just a mistake. The media have taken it all out of context as usual.
They never like to let facts or the full picture get in the way of a good story!

Blackpool_Saver

So are you saying that it is routine to 'use' less qualified pilots in sitations where higher level qualifications are not expected to be utilised?

I read that his only mistake was to say he was not quallified rather than he couldn't land due to adverse conditions........ that would make you think this a common practice really wouldn't it?

Daytona_nev

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Level 2? level5 ??

Are they qualified or not?

Any pilots on here, seriously can you advise please?

I think you need to ask yourself, "If i learnt to fly a Cessna would i then be qualified to fly a Jumbo jet"

Then ask your question again.

Pilot training is extremely expensive. There's no point on over-qualifying them if they are not going to use certains skills in what they are tasked to do.

Daytona_nev

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

So are you saying that it is routine to 'use' less qualified pilots in sitations where higher level qualifications are not expected to be utilised?

I read that his only mistake was to say he was not quallified rather than he couldn't land due to adverse conditions........ that would make you think this a common practice really wouldn't it?

Dunno how you read that i suggesting it's 'routine'.

I'm suggesting they need pilots of a certain level for certain jobs.

It 'appears' they've mistakenly under-assessed the level of pilot required for the given task, or not taken into account the eventualities that might occur when deciding on the level required for said task.

Either way, the media have done what they usually do. That was my main point.

Daytona_nev

i.e The media have cherry picked the points they want to make out of this situation whilst ignoring the important points that would put it into context...... in order to create a 'good story'.

Blackpool_Saver

Daytona_nev wrote: »

Looks like they requested a lower level pilot than required, and didn't cover all the contingencies when assessing what level was required.

I got it from this, yes of course the media have hyped it, but I am sure there is some truth in it.
I am thinking the lower level ones are cheaper to use, and on this occasion they got it wrong, what say you?

Daytona_nev

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I got it from this, yes of course the media have hyped it, but I am sure there is some truth in it.
I am thinking the lower level ones are cheaper to use, and on this occasion they got it wrong, what say you?

I reckon money almost always comes into these things.

Says the cynical side of me!

Nilrem

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I got it from this, yes of course the media have hyped it, but I am sure there is some truth in it.
I am thinking the lower level ones are cheaper to use, and on this occasion they got it wrong, what say you?

Lower level ones are cheaper to use, as they've generally got less training and experience, but if the job was thought to only need a pilot with X experience, there is no point in paying for one with Y experience who might reasonably expect a much higher wage.

IIRC with commercial pilots as well as the obvious basic training they require additional training for:
Each type of aircraft they might need to fly - even if it's a relatively similar model, so even if you're just moving from one version of the 747 you might need additional qualifications.
Various instrumentation levels - you've got visual flight, instrument etc.
Weather conditions - IIRC a pilot may require specific training if they are going to be flying into an area which has heavy snow etc due to the problems that can cause.
You may even need additional training just for the route you're taking - some airports are trickier to land in than others, so they train specifically for them.

From what i've heard to get a basic qualification in a jet passenger aircraft you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds, and every additional qualification costs a lot on top of that - which either has to be paid by the airline, or by the pilot (if he wants to get qualified in another aircraft to improve his chances of getting a job with another airline).

Most airlines routinely retrain pilots/air crew on a regular basis, as they have to be tested every year or two, to ensure they are still ok to fly and are fully up to date with the latest training/knowledge, so it's possible that the pilot in this case was even qualified to both fly the aircraft in question, and land in fog - just not on that aircraft, and it's generally a case of "better safe than sorry", as most pilots won't take any unnecessary chances.

So basically, if you're expecting a flight into an airport that rarely has bad fog, you'll probably use a less senior (cheaper) pilot, and keep the more senior ones who might be certified for many more aircraft and full IFR to do the run into an airport that is more likely to need his skills.

He had recently switched from flying a Bombardier Q300 to a Bombardier Q400 and has not completed the "requisite low-visibility training," she said.

Basically sounds like he had both general IFR training (on the older aircraft), and normal training for the new one, but not been certified for IFR on the new one - so he may well have been ok to land in a pinch, but it wouldn't have been against the terms of his licence and airlines insurance except in an emergency.

Blackpool_Saver

Very interesting, thanks for that