Air Corp Pilot Refused to Fly Minister in 2015

Storm 10

This has to be read to believe it, who the hell does he think he is to question an experienced pilot about his reason not to fly, we all know about Cork and its fog issues, it smacks of "Do you know who I am" well done that pilot and the Air Corps it just shows what these people in Government think about us they don't give a damn

Link: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coveney-challenged-pilot-who-refused-to-fly-due-to-fog-forecast-1.3143597?mode=amp

JCX BXC

What conditions can the Air Corps land in?

It seems a case of last minute flight cancellation due to possible fog, and then no fog arrived.

Anyway, I don't think ministers should be flown around Ireland at all, take the fecking car.

ELM327

Fair play to the pilot for standing his ground.
I heard this on Newstalk this morning, what a ridiculous sense of self entitlement our political classes have.

Storm 10

Fianna Fail getting involved rightly so

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/latest-coveney-needs-to-clarify-if-he-challenged-pilot-who-refused-to-fly-over-predicted-fog-796406.html

christy c

Storm 10 wrote: »

Fianna Fail getting involved rightly so

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/latest-coveney-needs-to-clarify-if-he-challenged-pilot-who-refused-to-fly-over-predicted-fog-796406.html

Fianna Fail are getting involved because they think it might benefit Fianna Fail, no other reason.

Anyway fair play to the pilot

L1011

If only Bertie's repeated cycle-building BAL-DUB positioning flights had ever been affected by fog...

smurfjed

Without knowing the weather, both actual and forecast, are we in a position to comment.
My WTF about this story is who released the pilots telephone number.

Irish Steve

Somebody somewhere looking to stir trouble, this story is 2 years old, so not what I would call hot news.

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories possible, but I'll leave them to the politics cafe or forum.

Fog at Dublin caused over 10 diversions earlier this week, so the issues are real.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if they'd gone, and then had to divert or return to Dublin with even longer delays as a result.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

No minister should be flown anywhere within Ireland. How much does each flight cost? I can bet it's not a few hundred euro, that's for sure. What a waste of our money. :mad:

JCX BXC

Irish Steve wrote: »

Fog at Dublin caused over 10 diversions earlier this week, so the issues are real.
.

Due to unpredicted fog, a long delay in getting CAT III and then a large amount of traffic, I don't think these two scenarios are remotely comparable to be fair Irish Steve.

PukkaStukka

Perhaps the minister would do well to read the events surrounding the Smolensk Air crash in 2010. A crash whilst trying to land in dense fog killed everyone on board including the POlish PM and most of his cabinet.

The Aer Corp pilot did very well to stand his ground. Quite why this has emerged now is probably a more juicy story....

J.pilkington

Jeez, everyone jumping on the bandwagon here some posters even basing their fury on Paul clown Williams on newstalk this morning. It's like reading the comments section of the journal.

We only have one side of the story don't forget.

To balance the outrage, here is a possible explanation; pilot is pissed off with covney (afterall convey was the minister of defence during all the cuts) so has used the fog excuse numerous times to not fly him, convey has enough of flights being cancelled where fog doesn't materialise and wants to talk about it.

bkehoe

Not sure what rules the Aer Corps operate under for these flights but for a commercial operator its perfectly legal to dispatch the flight to destination as long as there are 2 alternate airports available which have suitable weather and fuel for the alternate furthest away is carried.

Don't think this can be compared to the Polish disaster which was a totally different situation at an airport where the actual weather at the time was below the required minima.


Here is the TAF the pilot would have viewed that morning (so temporary periods of weather above CAT II minima but below CAT I minima between 7am and 11am local time);
TAF EICK 170500Z 1706/1806 23010KT 3000 SCT002 OVC005
TEMPO 1706/1710 0400 FG OVC001
BECMG 1710/1712 27012KT
BECMG 1714/1717 31010KT 9999 NSW SCT012 BKN022
PROB40 TEMPO 1717/1723 BKN008=

Irish Steve

JCX BXC wrote: »

Due to unpredicted fog, a long delay in getting CAT III and then a large amount of traffic, I don't think these two scenarios are remotely comparable to be fair Irish Steve.

You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems that a number of people don't agree with your position on a number of things recently, hopefully we're not about to derail this thread by getting into another heated discussion.

IFR weather is challenging, especially when it changes very quickly, which can be the case with fog, if alternates are available, it takes some pressure off, but if the alternates are also marginal, then the safest decision is to not get airborne in the first place.

At least one of the diversions the other evening happened because the aircraft could not accept a CAT3 approach, even though it was available, which was not a Dublin issue.

If the forecast for Cork was for fog, the Aer Corp pilot was absolutely correct in evaluating the forecast, and making an informed decision based on that information. The Manx 2 accident was partly caused by similar weather issues, and there have been others at other locations that have not ended well.

Dragging this up after 2 years suggests an agenda that's not related to flight safety, hopefully it will die down again real soon.

JCX BXC

Irish Steve wrote: »

You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems that a number of people don't agree with your position on a number of things recently, hopefully we're not about to derail this thread by getting into another heated discussion.

.

Excuse me?

Now that is piss poor for a mod I have to say. Should I not remind you the carnage that took place recently on this forum in regards to mod actions?

Really now time for cop on don't you think Steve?

martinsvi

J.pilkington wrote: »

To balance the outrage, here is a possible explanation; pilot is pissed off with covney (afterall convey was the minister of defence during all the cuts) so has used the fog excuse numerous times to not fly him, convey has enough of flights being cancelled where fog doesn't materialise and wants to talk about it.

We don't really have the planned departure or arrival times, but what we do have is that minister called the pilot at 7:05AM to complain. At that time fog is in full force in Cork airport as indicated by metar archives, so any claim that fog wasn't there simply is not true.

METAR EICK 170600Z 25005KT 0800 R17/1700U R35/0900U FG OVC001 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

JCX BXC

Commercial airlines regularly fly, even if weather is forecast out of limits, in the hope that a lull may occur (as they often do), is there a reason why Air Corps could not do this? Whatever your opinion is in ministerial use of this resource, is there not some merit to Simons concerns?

So in a topic about a minister questioning the decision making of a pilot we have lots of other people questioning the decision making of the pilot. I'm sorry but is that not a tad hypocritical of people ?

martinsvi

JCX BXC wrote: »

Commercial airlines regularly fly, even if weather is forecast out of limits, in the hope that a lull may occur (as they often do), is there a reason why Air Corps could not do this? Whatever your opinion is in ministerial use of this resource, is there not some merit to Simons concerns?

well when a commercial flight takes off knowing that the wx at destination is below minima, their goal is to get 50-100-200 or so pax closer to the destination, ideally making delays as little as possible. For them it makes sense.

If you're in VIP transporting business, if your VIP, a single pax, needs to make it to the meeting to a specific place at a specific time, what's the point in taking off, if you know that you will not make it?

JCX BXC

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So in a topic about a minister questioning the decision making of a pilot we have lots of other people questioning the decision making of the pilot. I'm sorry but is that not a tad hypocritical of people ?

Well to be fair, the media platform nowadays is to jump from outrage to outrage, I think trying to bring a bit of balance is good. Overall I think Coveney is totally in the wrong here, but I think a few questions can be asked and rightly so.

JCX BXC

martinsvi wrote: »

well when a commercial flight takes off knowing that the wx at destination is below minima, their goal is to get 50-100-200 or so pax closer to the destination, ideally making delays as little as possible. For them it makes sense.

If you're in VIP transporting business, if your VIP, a single pax, needs to make it to the meeting to a specific place at a specific time, what's the point in taking off, if you know that you will not make it?

Fair enough, although I must ask, how do you know you won't make it?

martinsvi

JCX BXC wrote: »

Fair enough, although I must ask, how do you know you won't make it?

let's say, the minister needs to be in Cork for a 9AM meeting, that probably requires to have wheels down at Cork at 8AM.. It's probably a 30 minute flight, at 7AM you just simply make the call on the facts and knowledge you have..

Any pilot flying in Ireland will tell you, if you have fog in the morning, there are just two things that will make it disappear - 1) heat - as in- day needs to warm up or 2) wind.

If it's 7AM, you have slack winds, OVC001, that situation is not capable of changing much until at least 10 am or so.. You simply call it off, because the goal will not be reached. If you take off under these conditions, someone else might come along and question pilots motive to go out and burn through tax payers money when it's well know that the target will not be met?

smurfjed

If the forecast for Cork was for fog, the Aer Corp pilot was absolutely correct in evaluating the forecast, and making an informed decision based on that information.

There was a TEMPOrary, changes expected for less than 1 hour, and less than half the total period. The weather shown above was TEMPO 1706/1710 0400 FG OVC001. In my world the decision to go would be based on fuel, did we have enough fuel to hang around for an hour or so and then divert to the planned alternates with legally required reserves. If the answer was yes, then its brought to the VIP attention, if the answer is NO, then the flight might go to destination with an immediate diversion to the alternate. It would all depend on the VIP.

smurfjed

@Martinsvi.... If it's 7AM, you have slack winds, OVC001, that situation is not capable of changing much until at least 10 am or so
Then its not a TEMPO and should be reported as such.

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

@Martinsvi.... If it's 7AM, you have slack winds, OVC001, that situation is not capable of changing much until at least 10 am or so
Then its not a TEMPO and should be reported as such.

notice that the TAF with tempo was issued at 0500z, where as the METAR that I copied was for 0600z (7am local) with NOSIG remark.

mosesgun

Dublin to Cork is about 2.5 hours in a car which he most likely wouldn't have been driving himself anyway. Seems like such a waste of money to fly him to Cork. The sense of entitlement is unreal. Get up early and take the car, or the train. Internal flights should not be available to them.

smurfjed

Aha, didnt notice that...
NOSIG issued at 0600z would be good until 0800z.

smurfjed

BTW, what type of aircraft was involved?

bkehoe

smurfjed wrote: »

Aha, didnt notice that...
NOSIG issued at 0600z would be good until 0800z.

I'd be willing to count on one hand how often I see anything other than NOSIG on Irish/UK METARs followed by a total change. As the METAR archive shows the fog lifts very quickly, totally in line with what the TAF forecast indicated would happen.

METAR EICK 170630Z 24005KT 9999 BKN002 14/14 Q1024 TEMPO
3000=
METAR EICK 170700Z 24007KT 9999 BKN003 BKN020 14/14 Q1024
NOSIG=

Besides, the METAR at 0600z gives conditions that are totally legal for a CAT I approach.

Perhaps the aircraft wasn't even CAT I capable and was limited to a NPA?

smurfjed

R17/1700U R35/0900U FG OVC001

We need 200 feet for CAT1.

AGC

mosesgun wrote: »

Dublin to Cork is about 2.5 hours in a car which he most likely wouldn't have been driving himself anyway. Seems like such a waste of money to fly him to Cork. The sense of entitlement is unreal. Get up early and take the car, or the train. Internal flights should not be available to them.

This.

If he is phoning a pilot at 07.05 he has in all likelihood known about the meeting since the day before.

Get up earlier and drive and eliminate any risk of weather or the aircraft going tech...

JCX BXC

smurfjed wrote: »

We need 200 feet for CAT1.

Even got that one myself, proud I am!

I've been watching METARs and TAFs for a few years now, and one thing I've learned is the NOSIG or trend, is regularly incorrect. Probably to do with the difficulty of forecasting Irish weather. While I appreciate pilots will have much more experience and will be watching them much closer, that's my experience. Especially for fog at Cork, one minute (or half an hour rather) you have 800m in fog with a trend of 2000m, and suddenly it goes to 100m in fog with a NOSIG.

bkehoe

smurfjed wrote: »

We need 200 feet for CAT1.

Cloudbase only affects non-precision approaches for us. Visibility or RVR are the only defining criteria for a precision approach. Destination is 'suitable' for planning purposes based on the TAF and legal to perform an approach to minima based on the actual RVR in the METAR.

While I admit that with OVC001, the chances of success are slim based on the DH, its certainly worth having a look before diverting. In fact Dublin, Stansted, other UK airports, etc frequently operate without LVPs in force with cloud varying between 100-200ft AGL with visibility above CAT I minima. Rather frustrating to be honest.

JCX BXC

DUB certainly offers CAT III with a cloud base of 100ft (assuming the airfield is protected), however once it reaches 200ft (which I assume could be as low as 151ft), they only allow CAT I, much to the dismay of many aircraft as you say

bkehoe

JCX BXC wrote: »

DUB certainly offers CAT III with a cloud base of 100ft (assume the airfield is protected)

If its consistent then yes however it takes time to activate LVPs and severely hinders airport surface movements which can cause significant delays. With most airports LVPs also mean increased separation between arrival traffic, reduced departure rates, etc. When the cloud is varying it would appear in my experience that the airports wait to see if traffic on approach is successfully landing or going around.

martinsvi

one thing to keep in mind is that Air Corps are not an airline/operator. We don't know what the story is with Air Corps own SOPs, or even if the crew were current on LVPs.

JCX BXC

My understanding was LVP's are not required for CAT I, am I incorrect?

bkehoe

JCX BXC wrote: »

My understanding was LVP's are not required for CAT I, am I incorrect?

You are correct. No LVPs required for CAT I weather. Martin would be referring to the crews low visibility qualifications. Most airlines in this part of the world train their crews for CAT II/III approaches (presuming they fly a CAT II/III capable aircraft) in their simulator training sessions and a new pilot will usually do a practice autoland on their first day flying in order to qualify them for low visibility operations. The air corps may not be qualified for CAT II/III approaches and/or the aircraft being operated that day may not have been qualified for anything other than CAT I, which is why I've been only referring to CAT I planning requirements in this thread.

jimmycrackcorm

AGC wrote:

Get up earlier and drive and eliminate any risk of weather or the aircraft going tech...

A lot of TDs do a fair bit of excessive time traveling on constituency matters as it is.

But Coveney as MoD should at least have known about the chain of command and not overridden it.

Stovepipe

Having been in the Air Corps, I assure you that they would have moved heaven and earth to get him to his destination so if the pilot made the call not to go, then you can take it as read than it was unsuitable, end of, and he was well within his rights to call off the flight and the Minister or any other official has no right to criticise him or even call him. He has a fleet of Mercs at his beck and call and there was probably one there to convey him from airport to house. That kind of intimidating crap happened before and the officials were effed off at the high port. The days of Air Corps pilots taking risks with the weather, to suit Ministers, are gone.

Bazzy

Stovepipe wrote: »

Having been in the Air Corps, I assure you that they would have moved heaven and earth to get him to his destination so if the pilot made the call not to go, then you can take it as read than it was unsuitable, end of, and he was well within his rights to call off the flight and the Minister or any other official has no right to criticise him or even call him. He has a fleet of Mercs at his beck and call and there was probably one there to convey him from airport to house. That kind of intimidating crap happened before and the officials were effed off at the high port. The days of Air Corps pilots taking risks with the weather, to suit Ministers, are gone.

Ive some friends who are currently active in the air corps and i fully agree with what you say.

Not wanting to stoke any fires but the search and rescue crews would have went in them conditions, that makes someone who needs help way more important than anyone who runs the country

dresden8

J.pilkington wrote: »

Jeez, everyone jumping on the bandwagon here some posters even basing their fury on Paul clown Williams on newstalk this morning. It's like reading the comments section of the journal.

We only have one side of the story don't forget.

To balance the outrage, here is a possible explanation; pilot is pissed off with covney (afterall convey was the minister of defence during all the cuts) so has used the fog excuse numerous times to not fly him, convey has enough of flights being cancelled where fog doesn't materialise and wants to talk about it.

That is a fairly large accusation you are making about the pilot. Hopefully neither he nor anybody he knows reads this. For your sake.

Pat Dunne

Stovepipe wrote: »

He has a fleet of Mercs at his beck and call and there was probably one there to convey him from airport to house.

Just to be wholly accurate about Ministerial car arrangements.

Only the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Minister for Justice, the Chief Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions are provided with a staffed Garda vehicle, in other words a Ministerial Car.

All other Government Minister's are entitled to an allowance which provides for the hire of 2 partime civilian drivers, working on a week on week off rota. Along with a milage allowance to run one (1) car, which is owned/leased/purchased directly by the person acting as a Minister, basically they must provide their own personal car.

The days of the Government Merc's were curtailed and mostly done away with in May 2011, by the then Minister for Justice and Law Reform Alan Shatter TD.

JCX BXC

Would first class on Iarnrod Eireann cut it? Or would you still be mixed in with too many working class for the liking of politicans? Remember that one time Shane Ross took the bus?

J.pilkington

dresden8 wrote: »

That is a fairly large accusation you are making about the pilot. Hopefully neither he nor anybody he knows reads this. For your sake.

What? wind your neck in sunshine, I put forward. POTENTIAL scenario (and stated so) to balance the pitchfork outrage based on a ONE SIDED STORY.

For my sake? Are they going to come and arrest me / beat me up?

Gaoth Laidir

Here are the pertinent parts of TAFs from 17Z the day before up to that morning. The timing of the forecast fog changed from the 23Z TAF to the 05Z TAF, so not good for a 9 am meeting.

TAF AMD EICK 170837Z 1708/1806 23010KT 9999 FEW002 SCT005 TEMPO 1708/1714 4000 -RADZ OVC001 BECMG 1710/1712 27012KT....

TAF EICK 170500Z 1706/1806 23010KT 3000 SCT002 OVC005 TEMPO 1706/1710 0400 FG OVC001 BECMG 1710/1712 27012KT...

TAF EICK 162300Z 1700/1724 23010KT 5000 SCT004 OVC008 TEMPO 1700/1708 0400 FG OVC001 TEMPO 1708/1714 -RA 3000 BKN003...

TAF EICK 161700Z 1618/1718 21012KT 8000 SCT002 BKN003 OVC009 BECMG 1618/1621 3000 BR TEMPO 1621/1708 0500 FG OVC001 TEMPO 1708/1714 -RA 3000 BKN003=

Of course, as luck would have it, it neither turned out as dense or as long as the later TAFs predicted, but hindsight and all that. If Coveney wanted to have a go he could have done so against the forecasters in Shannon who issued the TAFs, because forecasting is an exact science, especially for an airport on a hill near the sea...

METAR EICK 170830Z 23007KT 9999 FEW002 SCT006 16/16 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170800Z 22008KT 8000S FEW002 BKN004 BKN022 15/15 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170730Z 23011KT 9999 BKN003 BKN020 15/15 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170700Z 24007KT 9999 BKN003 BKN020 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170630Z 24005KT 9999 BKN002 14/14 Q1024 TEMPO 3000=

METAR EICK 170600Z 25005KT 0800 R17/1700U R35/0900U FG OVC001 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170530Z 25008KT 0600 R17/0600N R35/0700N FG OVC001 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170500Z 24008KT 0500 R17/0500N R35/0600N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170430Z 23008KT 0600 R17/0650D R35/0550N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170400Z 24006KT 0600 R17/0800N R35/0700N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

Gaoth Laidir

Here are the minimum hourly visibilities observed that morning from the SYNOP reports. These report the minimum visibility in any direction whereas the METARs report the prevailing visibility (visibility achieved over at least half the horizon).

05Z 500 m
06Z 800 m
07Z 18,000 m
08Z 8000 m
09Z 25,000 m

NewSigGuy

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Here are the pertinent parts of TAFs from 17Z the day before up to that morning. The timing of the forecast fog changed from the 23Z TAF to the 05Z TAF, so not good for a 9 am meeting.

TAF AMD EICK 170837Z 1708/1806 23010KT 9999 FEW002 SCT005 TEMPO 1708/1714 4000 -RADZ OVC001 BECMG 1710/1712 27012KT....

TAF EICK 170500Z 1706/1806 23010KT 3000 SCT002 OVC005 TEMPO 1706/1710 0400 FG OVC001 BECMG 1710/1712 27012KT...

TAF EICK 162300Z 1700/1724 23010KT 5000 SCT004 OVC008 TEMPO 1700/1708 0400 FG OVC001 TEMPO 1708/1714 -RA 3000 BKN003...

TAF EICK 161700Z 1618/1718 21012KT 8000 SCT002 BKN003 OVC009 BECMG 1618/1621 3000 BR TEMPO 1621/1708 0500 FG OVC001 TEMPO 1708/1714 -RA 3000 BKN003=

Of course, as luck would have it, it neither turned out as dense or as long as the later TAFs predicted, but hindsight and all that. If Coveney wanted to have a go he could have done so against the forecasters in Shannon who issued the TAFs, because forecasting is an exact science, especially for an airport on a hill near the sea...

METAR EICK 170830Z 23007KT 9999 FEW002 SCT006 16/16 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170800Z 22008KT 8000S FEW002 BKN004 BKN022 15/15 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170730Z 23011KT 9999 BKN003 BKN020 15/15 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170700Z 24007KT 9999 BKN003 BKN020 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170630Z 24005KT 9999 BKN002 14/14 Q1024 TEMPO 3000=

METAR EICK 170600Z 25005KT 0800 R17/1700U R35/0900U FG OVC001 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170530Z 25008KT 0600 R17/0600N R35/0700N FG OVC001 14/14 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170500Z 24008KT 0500 R17/0500N R35/0600N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170430Z 23008KT 0600 R17/0650D R35/0550N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 170400Z 24006KT 0600 R17/0800N R35/0700N FG OVC001 13/13 Q1024 NOSIG=

Not meaning to poke a hornets nest, But, the Weather was Cat 1 for the entire period on RWY 35

Growler!!!

Not legally. You won't get in on a CAT 1 with a cloudbase that low. 200ft is required.

Even if the cloudbase was higher the RVR requirement for Rwy35 is increased due to a shortened approach lighting segment.

NewSigGuy

Growler!!! wrote: »

Not legally. You won't get in on a CAT 1 with a cloudbase that low. 200ft is required.

Even if the cloudbase was higher the RVR requirement for Rwy35 is increased due to a shortened approach lighting segment.

Ok, I just checked, I see the 420m HIALS for RWY 35 mean an RVR requirement of 700m, RWY 35 is CAT 11 capable and hence CAT 1 Minimums would be 550M, a cloud base is NOT a requirement for an ILS Approach. The only requirement is to have the required RVR or adapted Vis at the Approach Ban Point.

For a standard Cat 1 Approach that is 550M.

bkehoe

Growler!!! wrote: »

Not legally. .

Please do tell me where the law says a certain ceiling is required for a precision/ILS approach as a few in this thread seem to be suggesting NPA criteria apply.