How quickly can a commercial plane land?

[Jimmy_Russells]

Big difference the way pilots would deal with a medical emergency versus other time critical emergencies.

If you have smoke in the cockpit , you want to land as soon as possible or everyone might get killed if bad enough ( Swiss Air 111 ) due to fire hazards and losing systems.

If we have a medical emergency on board ( after consultation with flight dispatch and the aviation medical professional at a ground facility ) and ( nobody can order the Captain….they give us advice and recommendations but we have the final say ….but we have to answer for our decisions ) its agreed upon this passenger needs to get on the ground as soon as safely possible, we would NOT rush and jeopardize everyone else’s life to get one passenger on the ground as soon as possible.

I have never had to divert for an in flight medical emergency, so far.

We take more time dealing with those types of situations.

This makes sense. Since we were going to LHR I know a lot of those BA A380's are just going to a destination and back to LHR, and then sitting for a while at LHR, then repeat. So they probably didn't need the plane again until I would imagine 8-12 hours after landing on time anyway.

 

[Astro14]

I could not agree more. Talking directly to either flight dispatch, or maintenance control in Toronto via radio ( SATCOM for you, ARINC ground frequency for me because we don’t have SATCOM or CPDLC ) is faster, better than ACARS, etc.

Just want to be clear though, you are not suggesting that A320 Captain should have contacted flight dispatch after take off when they received the ( false ) avionics smoke warning?

Sure, he should have contacted flight dispatch ( to get a patch to maintenance control ) before pushback, but the Captain is on his own after take off in that type of situation.

He should have done a flight warning computer reset ( at the gate ) to clear the avionics smoke warning but because they didn’t , that warning popped up again ( inhibited on take off until 1500 ) right at thrust reduction altitude after take off.

Interesting final report.


https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/78757/pdf

Agree on all - and I was saying that the captain of the widebody that went into Goose with a heart attack should have made a better decision.

 

[Astro14]

I was on an A380 from YVR to LHR back in 2016 that had to divert to Goose Bay due to a heart attack on board. Took probably 45 minutes to land after the captain announced we were diverting, so it wasn't exactly fast but I think the normal route is quite far north. Two hours on the ground and we were off again but landed at LHR about 4:15 late.

Again - a mistake.

There is no hospital there - so how did they help this patient?

They should have gone a bit farther to a suitable airport that had true EMS.

Like Gander. Or Stephenville.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Information regarding Swiss Air 111 and ValueJet 592.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Again - a mistake.

There is no hospital there - so how did they help this patient?

They should have gone a bit farther to a suitable airport that had true EMS.

Like Gander. Or Stephenville.

Yeah, I am not sure. I do know they said they only other option was Gander but it was further away (and they also said Gander was the last stop for an A380 before the Atlantic).

 

[Tman220]

Yeah, he is o.k.

I find I can’t watch anything if the persons ego is too big but he doesn’t rub me the wrong way.

You can learn stuff watching “Captain Joe” also but his ego ( and wearing the uniform ) rubs me the wrong way.

I would imagine a pilot would have a different perception of how any of those other guys conduct themselves but for a non-pilot, engineer, I appreciate the facts based approach Mentour Pilot uses without the sensationalism you see with other shows.

 

[Astro14]

Yeah, I am not sure. I do know they said they only other option was Gander but it was further away (and they also said Gander was the last stop for an A380 before the Atlantic).

Right - so, instead of flying 20 minutes farther in the plane, they condemned this patient to a three hour ambulance ride to get from Goose to Newfoundland.

Not a good decision for the patient.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I would imagine a pilot would have a different perception of how any of those other guys conduct themselves but for a non-pilot, engineer, I appreciate the facts based approach Mentour Pilot uses without the sensationalism you see with other shows.

I learn all the time , unfortunately because of pilot error ( could happen to many pilots ) or incompetence ( harsh but valid in some cases ) and tragedy at times.

Even the best pilots can make mistakes ( mitigate by trying to be as knowledgeable/proficient as possible ).

I have made some dumb mistakes in my career and I am known to be a strong pilot.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

What airport/city is best for the patient is one thing I have no clue about , it’s up to the medical facility ( MEDLINK ) we talk to when dealing with in flight medical emergencies.

If I have a patient that ends up landing at the wrong airport, that’s there fault, 101%.

I just make sure it’s safe to land there.

 

[Astro14]

We use Medlink as well. Great resource. Used them many times - I call dispatch, they phone patch me in with Medlink, we consult, I make the decision.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

We use Medlink as well. Great resource. Used them many times - I call dispatch, they phone patch me in with Medlink, we consult, I make the decision.

We are not allowed to decide which airport/city is where to take the patient ( medical diversion ) , that's up to medical professionals outside the airline due to liability and proper care.

The only time I would be allowed to make that decision is if I was totally unable to contact Medlink

I would ask ( Fa's ) if there are any medical people on board ( nurse, Doctor ) in that case and make a command decision, but I can't see that situation ever happening.

Just to be clear, United allows the Captain to decide which place to land ( assuming its o.k to land where Medlink suggests you go ) with regards to which airport has the best medical care versus what Medlink says?

 

[Astro14]

We are not allowed to decide which airport/city is where to take the patient ( medical diversion ) , that's up to medical professionals outside the airline due to liability and proper care.

The only time I would be allowed to make that decision is if I was totally unable to contact Medlink

I would ask ( Fa's ) if there are any medical people on board ( nurse, Doctor ) in that case and make a command decision, but I can't see that situation ever happening.

Just to be clear, United allows the Captain to decide which place to land ( assuming its o.k to land where Medlink suggests you go ) with regards to which airport has the best medical care versus what Medlink says?

The Captain is always the final authority for the safe operation of the aircraft.

I would not accept any other authority being placed over that of pilot in command.

That said, I will listen to Medlink, discuss with them, and if they have a strong recommendation, to which I have no objection, then we will execute that recommendation.

Of course we have the FA gather medical professionals and I have even patched the doctor in the back through the interphone to the SATCOM to talk directly. The FAs will get medical professionals even as they are calling me, they don’t need my approval or direction to treat the patient. They are all trained for this.

But the decision on what to do with the airplane is mine.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The Captain is always the final authority for the safe operation of the aircraft.

I would not accept any other authority being placed over that of pilot in command.

That said, I will listen to Medlink, discuss with them, and if they have a strong recommendation, to which I have no objection, then we will execute that recommendation.

Of course we have the FA gather medical professionals and I have even patched the doctor in the back through the interphone to the SATCOM to talk directly. The FAs will get medical professionals even as they are calling me, they don’t need my approval or direction to treat the patient. They are all trained for this.

But the decision on what to do with the airplane is mine.

O.K, that makes sense but only if there is a safety reason why a pilot doesn't want to land where Medlink says.

If Medlink ( thats why airlines use them ) says XXX airport is best for the patient ( and flight dispatch has no issues with their recommendation ) and I cannot find any reason not to land there, I would be in MAJOR trouble if I decided which airport land at for the patient.

The Chief Pilot/flight OPs would not support my decision and I would be in trouble.

 

[Astro14]

O.K, that makes sense but only if there is a safety reason why a pilot doesn't want to land where Medlink says.

If Medlink ( thats why airlines use them ) says XXX airport is best for the patient ( and flight dispatch has no issues with their recommendation ) and I cannot find any reason not to land there, I would be in MAJOR trouble if I decided which airport land at for the patient.

The Chief Pilot/flight OPs would not support my decision and I would be in trouble.

Completely agree. I would not go against Medlink in that circumstance, either.

But I have had dispatch give me an alternate that I did not like. In fact, it was Goose.

When Gander was 5 minutes farther.

Dispatch said, “it is legal”. I said, “The winds are out of the west, at 25 knots, which means that we would have to do an RNAV approach in blowing snow and low visibility. The only ILS is to runway 8”. Dispatch said, “That is still legal weather.”

I said, “It may be legal, but it is not smart. I have a new hire on IOE, and you’re suggesting that we do a single engine RNAV to minimums. We do not train Engine out RNAVs, and I have never done one. I don’t want my first time doing an engine out RNAV to be into the blowing snow, at minimums, while doing IOE with a new hire. Make it Gander. Change the flight plan and the decision point to reflect Gander and KEF.”

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Completely agree. I would not go against Medlink in that circumstance, either.

But I have had dispatch give me an alternate that I did not like. In fact, it was Goose.

When Gander was 5 minutes farther.

Dispatch said, “it is legal”. I said, “The winds are out of the west, at 25 knots, which means that we would have to do an RNAV approach in blowing snow and low visibility. The only ILS is to runway 8”. Dispatch said, “That is still legal weather.”

I said, “It may be legal, but it is not smart. I have a new hire on IOE, and you’re suggesting that we do a single engine RNAV to minimums. We do not train Engine out RNAVs, and I have never done one. I don’t want my first time doing an engine out RNAV to be into the blowing snow, at minimums, while doing IOE with a new hire. Make it Gander. Change the flight plan and the decision point to reflect Gander and KEF.”

After take off, I do what I want to do based on SOPs ( only deviate if it’s safer to not comply and I can answer for it….I will have to answer for it actually ).

Use of fuel is my decision and where I want to divert ( weather related ) is my decision in the air.

Lots of new dispatchers these days.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Completely agree. I would not go against Medlink in that circumstance, either.

But I have had dispatch give me an alternate that I did not like. In fact, it was Goose.

When Gander was 5 minutes farther.

Dispatch said, “it is legal”. I said, “The winds are out of the west, at 25 knots, which means that we would have to do an RNAV approach in blowing snow and low visibility. The only ILS is to runway 8”. Dispatch said, “That is still legal weather.”

I said, “It may be legal, but it is not smart. I have a new hire on IOE, and you’re suggesting that we do a single engine RNAV to minimums. We do not train Engine out RNAVs, and I have never done one. I don’t want my first time doing an engine out RNAV to be into the blowing snow, at minimums, while doing IOE with a new hire. Make it Gander. Change the flight plan and the decision point to reflect Gander and KEF.”

Totally agree.

Even if I was o.k with doing a SE RNAV ( we train for them ….but they have to be hand flown from the FAF as per Airbus ….when SE ) , I am not comfortable with an alternate that has only a non precision approach with blowing snow and low visibility.

Nothing you can do ( sure, I could say I am still doing the approach if the visibility goes below legal minimums if committed to the alternate airport now , but I could not blow minimums on a NPA because of obvious terrain issues unlike if it was an ILS ) if you don’t see the runway at mins if NPA but I would blow ILS mins ( auto land ) if I didn’t see the runway at an alternate and didn’t have enough fuel to go anywhere else.

Command sim scenario stuff.

I can be very assertive, direct ….I won’t tolerate anyone/situation trying to put me into a low fuel or fuel emergency situation ( my FOs would laugh if they read this because they know what I am like at work ).

Last sim ( went very well, CP said very good CRM , SA, knowledge, skill ) ….evaluator tried to criticize ( in a constructive way ) me for not consulting the FO and dispatch before diverting but I told him there was no purpose ( but my communication was good, clear about what we are doing ) because nothing would change my mind and we were getting low on fuel ( if we don’t divert now ).

He agreed ( I have a lot more experince than most in the training department ).

I don’t play games.

 

[Fordiesel69]

I always wanted to see a simulator at FL400 and have the pilots put it into a stall, fall to 10,000 then recover and perform a normal approach. Terrible idea, because if real the structure would be compromised. But I bet you'd get it down real fast........

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I always wanted to see a simulator at FL400 and have the pilots put it into a stall, fall to 10,000 then recover and perform a normal approach. Terrible idea, because if real the structure would be compromised. But I bet you'd get it down real fast........

There would be zero stress on the airframe until it hit the ground.

If you allow the plane to get into a stall at 40,000 feet, you won't be able to recover on the way down passing 10,000.

 

[Astro14]

There would be zero stress on the airframe until it hit the ground.

If you allow the plane to get into a stall at 40,000 feet, you won't be able to recover on the way down passing 10,000.

While I agree on the unlikely recovery if you wait until 10,000 feet (in an Airbus, with a stab trimmed full nose up) it's not exactly zero stress on the airframe. The stall buffet is quite heavy.

That said, the fastest safe way down is Vmo, full speed brakes, idle power, open descent (which we call FLCH in Boeings) in every airliner I have flown.

 

[The_Eric]

There would be zero stress on the airframe until it hit the ground.

If you allow the plane to get into a stall at 40,000 feet, you won't be able to recover on the way down passing 10,000.

Why is this? Just too much speed and energy to deal with in 10k feet? If you magically had another 5 or 10k feet under you, would that allow enough room to recover?