gqZJzU4vusf0Z2,$d7

Perhaps we are being troll'd?

golfmad

With that post count I suspect that's very unlikely.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought you meant the more recent post not the original post.

UKtravelbear

If you read the whole thread you'll see that the OP has made several comments in response to other comments and all have been reasonable and they have recognised they may have over reacted.

That is not trolling.

gcuk

Agreed, but when the first post is as outrageous as the OP's I skip to the end to see where the thread has got to. Glad he or she has recognised the over- reaction but I really can't be bothered to trawl through a thread like this one.

twb3

As a thought experiment in how asinine it is to make judgements about the flying skill of the crew from a passenger seat, imagine that a dozen randomly selected FT members observe you at your job for a day and then make judgements about your job performance. Would you have any regard for their opinion?

TWB

KARFA

Oh dear

DocWatson

I'm not sure whether this post is meant to be serious, but just in case it is and others feel the same...

LGW-FNC-LIS is 1847 nautical miles. If it was an A320 OP had, the absolute maximum it could go is 3100 nautical miles when fully loaded. On the assumption of a bit of headwind and any combination of congestion and queueing at LGW, sub-optimal routing and some headwind it's feasible more than 1847 nautical miles' worth of fuel would be burned. By all means circle for 20 minutes, but then what? 20 minutes more? It has been said in other threads that many airlines have a 2 strikes policy on approaches to avoid 'get-there-itis' from crews being desperate to land, and with crews needing to remain within hours how long should they just keep circling?

Others have stated a weight restriction for landing at FNC, plus when adding on fuel for headwinds, minimum requirements and circling fuel as well as the potential for LIS being unavailable there's not a huge amount of leeway to just 'keep circling'. That's before considering crew hours and the weather forecasts the crew were receiving from the tower that neither you, nor the passengers, would be privy to.

We have some real pilots on here who have made it clear the 2 landing attempts and subsequent diversion were not unusual and indeed are the expected result to these circumstances. I value their opinion.

cestmoi123

Agreed, and extended.

lorcancoyle

That must cover 50% of FT posts - be it check-in staff, security, lounge staff or cabin crew! We just tend not to comment on flight crew much

KARFA

Btw, after looking at the charts this morning I notice that none of the Canary Islands airports have any runways which are either CAT II or CAT III capable. Lisbon has a runway which capable to CAT III for full autolands. I suspect this may play a big part in LIS being the alternate and not one of the Canary Islands - you want to divert somewhere you know you are going to be able to land.

Waterhorse

The suitability of alternates is a day to day decision based on many criteria. If fog is forecast at an airport (I am talking generically not specifically about FNC) then you need a cast iron alternate where you know you can land. We use a "step down" principle. If you are planning to use CATIII at destination you must have CATI or better conditions at alternate. Obviously this is weather and airfield aids specific, you cannot plan on a CATI if all that is available is a NPA, so wind becomes a factor. Look at DIN a main alternate for JSY, the CATI ILS is only available on one end so if the wind is in the wrong direction then you would need NPA conditions.

In addition to this is the likelihood of diversion, if the likelihood is high then you would carry a "commercial" alternate, rather than a "fuel" alternate. This process is dynamic and we can also elect to carry additional fuel, this is a commercial and safety decision made by the captain on the day.

Hope that helps.

KARFA

Many thanks Waterhorse, it does indeed help ^

TMOliver

With a single runway, (05/23) FNC, open sea to the SE, rising terrain to the NW, in an area where wind conditions may change moment by moment, any "cross wind" landing with winds from the NW or SE becomes a potentially hazardous choice. One thing about the back of the bus...Pax don't receive wind velocity and direction updates, not that most of them would understand that cross wind landings have, since the dawn of powered flight, totally screwed up any number of flight plans and filled a few rows in cemeteries.

creampuff

It is never possible to guarantee you are going to arrive on time, without setting off 4 or more hours earlier than you actually need to for normal conditions. It usually takes me under an hour to get to work. On occasion through no fault of my own things have gone really wrong and it has taken 3 hours. It is unreasonable to expect people to leave 4 hours early every day, on the off chance something goes wrong.

I assume you do not have an important meeting with 150 people every single day you go to work. A pilot does, every single time they fly.

Are you saying then that you have never been late for work ever?

Finally you do not even know if the pilot who flew the plane was the pilot originally rostered on to fly the plane or if it was a substitute pilot.

TOGA88

Just to counter some of the "you don't know the circumatances, could have been a relief pilot/everyone is allowed to be late once in a while!" Comments. Allow me to invoke the Vietnam clause, you weren't there man, I was...

I won't comment on the airmanship of the flight crew. I have a current CPL, so I've seen a few approaches from beyond row 1 and know it's not cricket to fly from the cabin. Diverting was a pain but ultimately the only realistic option.

However, the captain was at a wedding in Derbyshire the evening before. It was the original scheduled captain, not a standby, my ears work just fine and I heard it from the horse in command's mouth as he chatted to the cabin crew. That is not acceptable, that is piss poor, irresponsible planning from that captain, who will only be named directly to BA.

Something that hasn't been mentioned as far as I've seem was the empty water tank on the LIS-FNC leg, not a great danger but had we had to divert once more further afield, this would be a limiting factor, the taps were bone dry and spitting only air from the start of the flight, no water flushing and no potable water surely means no flight?

As for BA, with the exception of the great cabin crew, the whole show was terrible; Portela staff picked up the slack in letting us know what was going on, because once we got on the busses it was a great guessing game. Luckily, through sheer grit, determination and whispered rumour, passengers found out what time we were to leave the hotel as the majority received no notification from BA at all. Still, those Chinese whispers entertained us whilst sat on our long haul flight in that short haul aircraft, and at 1AM when hairdrying soaking clothes and baggage left on the tarmac.