The other side of the news: what do you think?

[EHM-1749 Hector]

News No. 1

Pax were stunned when an airline pilot said he had to turn around on approach to Paris because he wasn't qualified to land in fog...

News No. 2

United Air Lines is sued for allegedly serving too much alcohol to an inebriated passenger, who later beat his wife.

[EHM-2168 Vaz]

After reading the whole news.no1, I agree with the pilot, and with the independent consultant...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1096552/This-captain-Sorry--Im-qualified-land-plane-Flybe-pilot-tells-stunned-passengers.html

Story nº2 is one of those stories, that could only happen in the USA
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-wed-overserved-united-uauadec17,0,7796929.story

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

LOL ...

[EHM-1821 Javier]

I wou;dn't want my pilot saying the first one!

As for the second, it's not UAL's fault :]

[EHM-1980 Brian]

Well my opinion on both news stories are as follows:

1) The pilot was correct in this case to turn back as he did not have the relevan t qualification to land in fog but this poses the question should he have been flying that aircraft at all without ALL of his qualifications??

2) Unless the air stewards were holding this passenger by the mouth and physically pouring alcohol down his throat then they cannot be blamed for this passengers actions! For someone to accept a drink in my opinion is counted as a personal choice and the only person that can be blamed in this situation is the passenger!!

My two cents

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Put me that Saab 2000 on my hands and I will tell that pilot how to land with fog!


.... I wonder what happened if, at the departure airport it had fog too .... lol

[EHM-2097 Andrei]

Originally posted by EHM-0948 Bruno
Put me that Saab 2000 on my hands and I will tell that pilot how to land with fog!


.... I wonder what happened if, at the departure airport it had fog too .... lol

The second question is troubling indeed, but as pointed out above the blame should be for the company not the pilot. And I assume the company was sued (especially if some angry passengers got nervous about the delay and eventually beat their spouses )

Back to the pilots... in the end, what they did was sticking to the regulations. And regulations may be wrong BUT statistics show more planes crashed due to people not sticking to "right" regulations than planes saved from crash by not observing "wrong" regulations.

And Bruno, of course you know what to do, as we all do here, but let's not forget that we all (or almost) have some "documented crashes" too, which RL pilots don't - fortunately.

As far as I m concerned, if I am a passenger and the pilot announces that chances to land uneventfully are 99% OR he can turn back, well, I prefer the latter. And, to see the bright side of the story, this makes two flights for the price of one!

Andrei

[EHM-2381 Ted]

1-Good pilot in my opinion. Knew his limitations and rather than risk lives/property he turned back. Of course this begs the question of why he was at the controls in the first place but thats another story. Folks with more pride than sense may have tried to land regardless  and made the situation go from embarrassing to deadly.

2-Yanks will sue for anything...especially stupid stuff. Double-especially when they need somone other than themselves to blame for actions. I'm a Yank btw :].