If it’s not lighted, then it’s not a runway. Geez, even the taxi chart on my iPad would sort of indicate I wasn’t on a runway.

(Written on 10/08/2018)(Permalink)

I’m afraid you are right. We have a rule, that if one is writing, looking at a chart, briefing, the other MUST fly, including looking out the window! But the number of times I see both pilots “inside” is astounding. Companies are to blame. I recently flew for a company that wanted a text message just before take off and just after landing. With fuel, ETA, actual landing, fuel remaining, etc. I just said no, but most in this company are texting the damn messages while taxi-Ing out! Or just after landing. IMO both pilots should be focusing on what is happening in their cockpit, not satisfying some dispatcher! Same during climb out, they grab the plog and start writing ETAs, noting take-off times while the other guy has his nose in the FMS! No one looking outside! Had this happen one night on a take-off in to pitch black. FP pushes NAV, VS, sets ALT and starts to write. Never pushed AP though. So I’m watching this and asked if he was going to return and land (as we were now in a 20 dégrée

(Written on 27/07/2018)(Permalink)

There is a lot of research regarding bird strike damage, as the study points out, some impacts can cause damage. The point was not at all that drones should be given free reign. The point was not that a collision is without risk, but the point was to not go crazy and assume a CRASH! There is a massive difference between damage and a crash. The drone should not have been there. By all means, track the idiot down. But also keep perspective. I find it typical that rather than react to the statements, you choose to attack the person. Has the ability to debate ideas gone completely out the window, replaced by Personal attacks and innuendo whenever someone has a statement You don't like?

(Written on 09/02/2018)(Permalink)

https://www.google.dk/amp/s/www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-11-29/study-drone-damage-can-exceed-bird-strikes%3famp

(Written on 09/02/2018)(Permalink)

He is a dumbass and makes life difficult for all other operators. Leading to rules like the mentioned TC ban. It is similar to Danish rules which in practise, have closed most of the really interesting areas. The 5-10km ban from airports is one of the "interesting ones." Aircraft not on actual final or departure are not going to be at the general upper limit of 400 feet for drones. So being 2 km to the east of a north/south runway, at 150 feet, poses what danger? The 5-10 km rules are frankly a bureaucratic convenience and don't address safety. Therein lies the problem. Respect for the law. Yes it is now in place, but hard to accept as it is mindless and simple, but not based on a thing. I have my base between Biggin Hill, Gatwick, City airport and 1000 arrivals at Heathrow overhead. But a drone flying at 200 feet is no where near any of them and would never constitute a hazard. Thus far, we have a rather lenient set of rules in UK and I can only hope they continue, but I doubt it.

(Written on 09/02/2018)(Permalink)

I am an ATPL pilot, but also a drone operator. I have watched the rules get tighter in various places in the world and the worst are outright bans. Irresponsible flight like this is a big reason, but a lot is also emotional "i don't like drones." I condemn this ass, but seriously, the chances of "killing everyone on board" are practically non-existent. A statement like that leads to the ban on emotional grounds. So track him down and educate and punish, but do it on a real basis.

(Written on 09/02/2018)(Permalink)

But nothing happened, except a potential accident. All the pilots needed to do was hit the event button and it would be preserved. The article writer then says that Air Canada was somehow remise using the aircraft and the pilots(!!!?). So nothing actually happens, except that the pilots realized their mistake, initialized the missed approach and thereafter landed. I am certain they had a long talk, they might have written a company report. That IS a system. It worked. No one was injured. I have sat on a closed runway when a 747 lined up to land. I pointed out to tower, at that moment, the 747 veered over to the correct runway, tower said, I see you altering course, can you make the landing or do you need a MA? I suppose we should all have taken off for three days while the non-incident was investigated? It is aviation. We fix it before it becomes an incident or accident.

(Written on 18/08/2017)(Permalink)

They must never be combined and are not in any country I know of, for good reason. Where ATC responsibility is related to a CAA (FAA in this case) they may be a part of an investigation and therefore the NTSB must be apart. It also checks other types of transport accidents.

(Written on 18/08/2017)(Permalink)

Our FMS can create a visual to any runway, giving an extended centerline and 3 degree "glidepath." Is this not a common FMS feature and is no one using this as a back-up?

(Written on 21/07/2017)(Permalink)

What a sensational headline. No near miss, no one endangered at all. The one airlines "switched his engine off"????? Yeah, right. That would be a great SOP. Lo vis, a confused pilot regarding his exact location (of course, doesn't have a moving map on an iPad, that's too advanced) blown all out of proportion and I wasted 10 minutes reading and commenting. Grrrrtt

(Written on 30/12/2016)(Permalink)