Air Corp Pilot Refused to Fly Minister in 2015

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.

bkehoe

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Not sure of the specifics of RWY 35 at EICK, but 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.

750M RVR for RWY35 at Cork. 550m RVR for RWY 17 CAT I and 300M for RW17 CAT II (with non standard DH of 125ft). With the surface wind forecast either runway is available that day.

Point is the weather is good elsewhere, planning wise the flight could have legally gone ahead with the minister being warned that they may have to divert - the question should be were they given that option? Maybe he called to simply enquire as to why it had to be totally cancelled as opposed to giving it a try, in which case I wouldn't blame him at all and if I was the pilot transporting a VIP I'd certainly have no issues in explaining my decision making process to the person concerned.

Growler!!!

Cloudbase may not be a requirement but it certainly should come into your decision making model.
RVR required is 750m on RWY35.

You may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.

If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with the sentence above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.

So you don't have the RVR or DH required for the approach.

NewSigGuy

Growler!!! wrote: »

Cloudbase may not be a requirement but it certainly should come into your decision making model.
RVR required is 750m on RWY35.

You may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.

If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with the sentence above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.

So you don't have the RVR or DH required for the approach.

No Cloudbase does not come into your decision making process, for a Precision Approach it is only Vis/RVR, at the minimums you will see the Approach Lights and they are your guidance for the Visual Segment to the RWY, the shorter HIALS on RWY 35 leads to the Higher RVR requirement.

Yes after the ABP if the condition deteriorate you can continue to your applicable minimums and Land if you acquire the required visual Reference.

Growler!!!

Ah I see where I caused the confusion I used required rather than needed.

Both you and Bkehoe are correct cloudbase is NOT a requirement for Precision Approach.

Another question - has Rwy35 a CAT 2 approach?

NewSigGuy

Growler!!! wrote: »

Ah I see where I caused the confusion I used required rather than needed.

Both you and Bkehoe are correct cloudbase is NOT a requirement for Precision Approach.

Another question - has Rwy35 a CAT 2 approach?

No RWY 35 Is not CAT 2, most likely because of the Reduced Lights.

Davidth88

Interesting debate here . But to me the Commander of the aircraft has the last say. If he didn't want to fly because he felt the conditions were not acceptable then that's it.

I have to question why his ( or her ) CO have the minister his number . The CO should have supported his staff.

NewSigGuy

Davidth88 wrote: »

Interesting debate here . But to me the Commander of the aircraft has the last say. If he didn't want to fly because he felt the conditions were not acceptable then that's it.

I have to question why his ( or her ) CO have the minister his number . The CO should have supported his staff.

Absolutely Commander has the Authority, but only when the weather is outside of the Operators Limits.. Feelings don't really Count!

martinsvi

I think there's a bit of a confusion here, I know that for CAT1 you can begin your approach and not take ceiling into account, that's not the debate here.. instead what I'm trying to suggest that using a bit of local knowledge or experience, pilot could tell that in certain circumstances if you have OVC001, you will not see the runway at DH.. guys, take off your commercial flying hats off for the moment, and focus more on the profile of the mission. Going missed or sitting in a hold for half an hour probably wasn't good enough for the mission.

NewSigGuy

martinsvi wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a confusion here, I know that for CAT1 you can begin your approach and not take ceiling into account, that's not the debate here.. instead what I'm trying to suggest that using a bit of local knowledge or experience, pilot could tell that in certain circumstances if you have OVC001, you will not see the runway at DH.. guys, take off your commercial flying hats off for the moment, and focus more on the profile of the mission. Going missed or sitting in a hold for half an hour probably wasn't good enough for the mission.

Sure, the mission may not have been valid with those options, diverting or holding.
That doesn't change the conditions and the fact that it is valid to shoot and ILS with the minimum required Vis, the cloud base is irrelevant, the type of operator does not change that fact.
In CAT 1 conditions there is a very high likely hood of a successful Approach particularly in an auto coupled aircraft.
I haven't heard of local knowledge that changes that fact.

martinsvi

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I haven't heard of local knowledge that changes that fact.

I suppose what I was thinking was sea fog, or any strip that's near a bog/swamp on a cool summer night.. any local specialties where you know the fog is going to be so thick you can extend your arm and not see your fingers anymore - but then again, those wouldn't be CAT1 conditions anymore, so disregard that..