Married pilot gets cabin crew girl pregnant - shock

Since when is this news?  I'm linking to a story in the Telegraph from December about a married British Airways pilot (I assume a Captain from the salary they refer to) who got a young female cabin crew member pregnant downroute.

Oh, to live in a world where this a surprise. Blimey, this goes on all the time, as anyone involved in the aviation industry unfortunately knows. I think this got into the press due to the recent (and completely misunderstood) BA "hug a pilot" training. His poor wife.

Who knows where on earth the Torygraph dug it up from - probably Facebook, or someone's mate. Quite frankly, they could have made it up and it would still be true ten times over. But come on, it's not news, is it?

What really happened on Air France flight 447

Recently, I came across this. It's an article in the magazine Popular Mechanics which contains the transcript of the flight deck recording just prior to the aircraft breaking up and crashing into the sea.

Personally, I think the article is sensationalist and rather unfair. It lays the blame firmly on the most junior of the two FOs at the controls. Admittedly he did react in an incredibly stupid way (pulling the control column up rather than pushing it down) but we all know that humans can behave insanely under extreme stress. As usual, the causes of the accident are many - both pitot tubes freezing at once, Air France failing to train its crews properly on this scenario in the simulator, the extreme weather, and who knows, fatigue may have played a part, too.

What this article does do, though, is remind us that today's aircraft, clever as they are, are not infallible. These pilots felt it was impossible to stall an Airbus, but learned to their cost that it wasn't.

As for that FO in the right hand seat - I can't stop thinking about his family reading this. The poor things. How awful that his final moments are available for all to read - and for all to condemn him, too.

Etihad bomb hoax

Caught this on the BBC news website today. A British man's been sent to jail for 3 years for pretending there was a bomber on an Etihad flight from Abu Dhabi to London.

I really can't fathom why anyone would do something like this. He must have been very drunk (they do say he'd had quite a lot to drink...) but surely he must have had time to say he was lying before they diverted the plane and scrambled fighter jets to accompany it to Stansted?

3 years in jail, though, seems a little harsh to me. I guess they're making an example of him.

Aviation security under the spotlight, AGAIN...

Gordon Brown's announcement today that the UK will "move quickly" to enhance airport security strikes me as shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Aviation security is always reactionary - locking flight deck doors after 9/11, banning large bottles of liquids after the transatlantic liquid bomb plot. Now, we have various kneejerk measures including a ban on leaving your seat in the last hour of flight (?!) How on earth that's supposed to stop a determined terrorist, I have NO idea. But it would be hell for pregnant ladies like me, I can tell you!

No, what needs to happen now should have happened years ago. We need to get rid of our feelings of prudishness and a slightly skewed interpretation of human rights, and bring in body scanners and passenger profiling at every airport.

I know that some people feel that body scanners invade our privacy, but really, I feel the security benefit and lack of hassle involved far outweighs the unease some feel about others seeing what they look like under their clothes. And as my Dad says, it will be worse for the person checking the scans than for him! In all seriousness, the scanning technology currently being trialed in the UK at Manchester Airport involves technicians in totally separate rooms with no view of the security area merely flagging up issues to their colleages on the ground if necessary. Therefore they have no idea who they're looking at on these scans, and even if they did, how quickly would they get bored? At some point during the first day, I bet. After all, we're all pretty similar underneath! And when you consider how useless a metal detector is against today's terrorists (they don't tend to favour grenades and knives these days) I think body scanners represent the only realistic way forward, whether you're offended by them or not. And just think for a second.. No need to take off your belt and shoes, no need for a pat down... I know which option I'd prefer!

And as for passenger profiling - this has been largely shunned due to fears that certain sectors of society will feel victimised by it. But without getting into statistics here, lone male travellers and people of particular faiths and lifestyle (which of course depends on the motive for terrorism at a particular time) have been shown to be the greatest risk. What's so wrong with asking a few extra questions? True, determined bombers could try to get round this by, God forbid, bringing their families with them, etc, but it's worth a try. I think most people would be prepared to put up with a little extra hassle if it makes them safer.

So, that's what I think. Clearly my view is influenced by the fact that my husband flies planes for a living, and that I'm a frequent flyer myself.

What do you think?

There are TWO pilots on the plane, damn it - revisited...

Just when I thought my blood pressure was safe on this subject, along comes the sad tale of the Captain who died en route to Newark. A very sad thing to happen for his family - I really feel for them. But get this, people - there was NO DANGER, and there was NO EMERGENCY! Because, and I'm going to say this quietly - there is more than one pilot on the plane! Shock, horror, probe, hold the presses!

(If you're experienced in aviation, you can skip the next paragraph. But if you're not, I recommend you read on. Particularly if your name is Jim Ferguson! More on that later....)

This, my friends, is because, even on a short-haul flight, you will have two pilots on the flight deck. One is called the Captain, and one is called the First Officer. They have exactly the same training, the only difference between them generally being experience (usually, but not always, Captains have flown more hours than First Officers) and responsibility - because it's the Captain who ultimately carries the can for the safety of the aircraft. When it comes to flying, though, there's nothing that separates them - they each take turns to land, take-off, or operate the radio - one becomes "pilot flying" for each flight, and one "pilot not flying" - but each has their own role, and as I said, they take turns. Yes, that's right, an FO might have landed the plane you were on when you came back from Spain last year! I know - shocking, isn't it?! Anyhow, ultimately, First Officers will generally become Captains themselves after a certain number of flying hours, and having passed the simulator for promotion. So, each Captain has been a First Officer at some point.

So, are we all clear so far? Good.

Now, take a look at these fantastic nuggets of journalism. (I apologise for not putting in the hyperlink - that feature doesn't seem to be working at the moment).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8109327.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8107838.stm

They contain such brilliant lines as:

Most of the passengers had no idea of the danger
That's what co-pilots are for, he says - to stand in for the pilot in case of emergency

And this brilliant piece of fiction by Jim Ferguson:

Jim Ferguson - an aviation writer from the UK - told BBC News the plane would have been difficult to land with only one pilot at the controls, as might have been the case on flights manned by only two pilots.

"You could, I gather, land a 777 single-handed - but it would require a lot of effort and it would appear [in this case there was] a very young co-pilot - so if there was another one, that would help.

"It would be very difficult, very distressing. I don't know if this [scenario] is carried out on simulator training or not.

Be still, my beating heart.

So, my dear Jim, if you're reading this - this is for you.

I hate to break it to you, but really only one person lands a plane anyhow - sure, the other one is on the radio and assisting, but there's only ever one person "at the controls". So it's not such a huge leap to cope with it all by yourself. And as for whether this is done in the simulator - I think the Captain "dies" on my husband every time he goes into the sim! Pilot incapacitation is practiced all the time. How can you possibly be an aviation "writer" and not know that? The mind boggles.

Golly, I feel much much better now. Much more healthy writing it all down than shouting at the TV!

Does anyone else share my annoyance?

Schiphol Turkish Airlines crash

Yet another blood-goes-cold moment. This was my husband's previous aircraft type, the 737-800. The Boeing Next Generation, a new design, and apparently a very reliable one at that. Yet, here it is, in a field near Amsterdam, and 9 people have lost their lives. It's a wonder there weren't many more deaths, when you see that the plane actually broke into three pieces, with the tail section being ripped open.



There doesn't seem to be any obvious cause so far, and I hate speculation, anyway. Everyone always has an opinion, usually a wrong one!

It's just the worst nightmare of those who love someone who flies for a living.

Here's a link to the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7909683.stm


***I've just found out that three of the crew, including both pilots and possibly a third in the jumpseat, are among the dead. My heart goes out to their poor families, particularly since they had to suffer the indignity of the cockpit being filmed from outside before the bodies were removed. Rest in peace.

And by the way, to all journalists reading this - there were TWO pilots (if not three, I can't yet find out) on the flight deck at the time. When you refer to "the pilot" you mean the CAPTAIN.

Sadly, I doubt they'll ever read that, but I feel better anyway!

What should we do with the drunken pilot?

This made me laugh this morning. Typical Daily Mail reporting. Some poor Captain suffered a stroke on an Aeroflot flight, and the passengers were convinced he was drunk. Quite understandably, they were slightly panicked...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1135305/Thissh-issh-captain-sshpeaking-Passengers-revolt-drunken-pilot.html

What really made me laugh was this:

Airline officials came on board to calm the situation, with one telling a passenger that even if the pilot was drunk 'it wasn't such a big deal'. He added: 'Really, all he has to do is press a button and the plane flies itself. The worst that could happen is he'll trip over something in the cockpit.'

That is nothing short of hilarious. Bless those little ignorant 'airline officials'!

There are TWO pilots on the plane, damn it...

First of all, congratulations to the crew of the US Airways Airbus A320 who managed to successfully ditch in the Hudson yesterday. Amazing pictures, and a timely reminder for us all to pay attention to the safety brief! Here's the BBC story about the incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7832439.stm

Secondly though - is it just me, or is the continual reference to the "hero pilot" rather annoying? Given that, of course, there were TWO pilots on the flight deck - a Captain and a First Officer. Either one of them may have been flying it at the time, and anyhow, the pilot not flying would have also played a crucial role in the handling of the emergency. It just makes me cross that the First Officer isn't even being mentioned.

Ok, end of rant...

A320 Perpignan crash

My heart is filled with sadness for the families of the seven people on board the A320 that ditched off France yesterday afternoon. Such a shocking, horrific thing to happen. I understand the aircraft had just finished a lease to XL Germany and was on its way back to Air New Zealand, and it had two German flight crew, and 5 Kiwis on board doing a check flight after maintenance. As I write this in the early hours, there are two confirmed dead, and five missing.

The crash didn't really rate high on the news agenda alongside the Mumbai terror attacks - what a day for horrible, horrible news - but as ever, this remains one of my nightmares, and my thoughts are with anyone involved in this horrible incident.

God bless them, and may they all rest in peace.

The girls of Ryanair

I don't think I need to say anything about this really... except that Ryanair claim their annual charity calendar isn't sexist! Bless them, it's all about excellent customer service, isn't it.

Spanair flight JK 5022

As I heard the news about the Madrid MD82 crash yesterday, I could feel my heartbeat quicken and my mouth go dry. Everyone who loves a person who flies for a living finds these moments particularly hard. Never mind how statistically safe flying is, these events are always a horrible wake-up call about the extremely rare, but terrible accidents that are part and parcel of the nature of aviation.

I just want to send my condolences to the family and friends of the 153 people who died. I can't even begin to imagine how they must be feeling (and I don't particularly want to try, either), but I do want them to know that our prayers are with them.

Sensationalist news

If any of you read PPrune on a regular basis (the link's on this blog if you don't) you'll know how much pilots HATE the media. I think they have a good reason to, often; when you know a little about what really happened in an incident, it's a real eye opener to see some of the rubbish that's reported in the end!

Anyhow - my husband found this link today on Pprune, and sent it to me. It's utterly hilarious, so I thought I'd share it with you all! It's an Australian "Lazy Journalist Plane Story Generator". Fantastic.

http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html