http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081218122051.1u8i8nx3&show_article=1
Wonder how the passengers felt about that one.
Wonder how the passengers felt about that one.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pilot unqualified to land
- Thread starter Python
- Start date
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Who really cares? I mean, they should realize that he had the good judgement to say "I'm not going to push it, I'd rather have live passengers that have been inconveinenced than dead passengers."
I highly doubt that. Don't recall ever being told I have to check-in w/ atc and state quals . . . .
The article is not saying the pilot didn't have the skills, it's saying he didn't have the qualification.
He switched from one plane to another. In the U.S. when you do this, a Captain has higher approach minimum criteria for his first 100 hours in the aircraft. They're called "High Min Captains". I had a similar situation flying into Hilo last spring with a new B-717 Captain. He had to divert to Kona because Hilo was right at published minimums and my Captain needed mins +100. It doesn't matter how much time in the plane the FO has, it's all based on the Captain.
This same idea goes for Cat II and Cat III approaches. A Captain may have flow hundreds of them but if he doesn't get the required training for his new aircraft or his required periodic training, he is no longer qualified to fly them.
I'm not sure what "level two" and level one" qualifications are but from the article it sounds like a U.S. High Mins Captain. FAA vs. JAA.
If the Captain only told the pax the quote in the article, then he could have made a lot better explanation. Likewise, the article could have explained it better too but that wouldn't have been as sensational.
He switched from one plane to another. In the U.S. when you do this, a Captain has higher approach minimum criteria for his first 100 hours in the aircraft. They're called "High Min Captains". I had a similar situation flying into Hilo last spring with a new B-717 Captain. He had to divert to Kona because Hilo was right at published minimums and my Captain needed mins +100. It doesn't matter how much time in the plane the FO has, it's all based on the Captain.
This same idea goes for Cat II and Cat III approaches. A Captain may have flow hundreds of them but if he doesn't get the required training for his new aircraft or his required periodic training, he is no longer qualified to fly them.
I'm not sure what "level two" and level one" qualifications are but from the article it sounds like a U.S. High Mins Captain. FAA vs. JAA.
If the Captain only told the pax the quote in the article, then he could have made a lot better explanation. Likewise, the article could have explained it better too but that wouldn't have been as sensational.
Question:
Does having an "enhanced vision system" do anything to your minimums?
Like this: http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/evs_window.cfm
Does having an "enhanced vision system" do anything to your minimums?
Like this: http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/evs_window.cfm
Looks like some nifty "whiz-bang" shit. Don't know if it'd do anything to mins. It could fail, leaving you completely blind if you didn't have the foresight to have a back-up your faux visual with an actual NAVAID. I know that I got yelled at a few times for not backing up PAR's and ASR's with some kind of radio aid. Seems like more a crutch than a useful tool.
Then again, what do I know.
Looks like FLIR.
I believe it is FLIR, tied in with an internal terrain database in some systems. That sorta synthetic vision thing is migrating to GA nowadays, check out Cirrus/Garmin's offering:
Cirrus Perspective
Cirrus Perspective
The G1000 MFD is a from a database, it isn't vision at all. Nice looking, but it doesn't really add any safety compared to other GA MFD's.
The IR camera really adds something if you're using out of the way airports that might have deer or something crossing the runway at night. Here's Gulfstream's site for videos, check out the runway incursion one.
Are you talking about a G1000/900 with SVT? It adds a HUGE level of safety and while it is from a database, it is 3D terrain right in front of you. Maybe you are talking about the MFD only though, and not the PFD with SVT...?
In the platform I flew, we had FLIR right next to the G900...great thing if there isn't any clouds, fog, smoke, etc in the air...clear night, it's awesome.
Lancair Evolution G900 w/ touchscreen/FLIR in the middle.
Attachments
I don't know about that system but a couple of airlines are flying with HUDs. It allows them lower minimums without an autoland capability. Southwest and Horizon are the 2 that readily come to mind.
I think I have mentioned this somewhere else on here but to go to certain wx mins, it requires that the Aircraft, Runway and Aircrew be certified and current to those mins.. (ie.. CAT III, CAT II)
From our Manuals:
PS: I think the Captain of the tread topic could have done a better job in helping folks understand that they were NOT LEGAL for the approach, much less the landing!
From our Manuals:
There is a somewhat confusing chart for what kind of approaches are legal that I can't post for proprietary reasons but, generally speaking, 'High Mins' at Purple and Orange can go down to CAT II mins as long as auto-coupled and auto-land are used..
PS: I think the Captain of the tread topic could have done a better job in helping folks understand that they were NOT LEGAL for the approach, much less the landing!
Was he legal to take off with dest weather where it was? What are Civ rules on that (VFR divert etc), even with CAT X capability? Does dispatch track individual captains certs and currency?
I know Alaska has HUDs too.