Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#101

Post by noir_lord »

panini_tech wrote: post #87
Jdam wrote: post #60

If this doesn't apply to the UK as well, it is not enough. I would like to see a flyover ban as well, as PIA flies through the EU to the UK. I'm following the aviation industry closely and there are plenty of reports every now and then where PIA flights don't respond on radio anymore, triggering fighter intercepts. It is assumed that those pilots are oftentimes either sleeping or just don't bother because of their eg…

Pakistan is a monster created by British..call it chickens coming home to roost

The partition was a hideous mistake but it was decades ago and how long can you blame it for unrelated things anyway?.

By that logic as an Englishman I can blame the French for all our screwups.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#102

Post by goodcanadian »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #75
goodcanadian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, ATC is also culpable (though much less so). They could have and should have ordered a go around, but instead, they re-cleared the airplane to land.

"ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.

Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#103

Post by netsharc »

randompwd wrote: post #83
jsinai wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This runs both ways though. At the same time though we should be mindful of our actions and words, as much as possible. If there is a way of saying something that would not be perceived as a dog whistle, then choose those words. This is hard though because our own experiences mean we might not always see right away what is offensive to others, but we should try.

Don't factually quote something because somebody might get offended on behalf of somebody else? Riight...Best of luck with that.

"OP" here.. I'm not shooting the quoter, I'm questioning if the original article writers have some sort of sneering attitude when they wrote that...

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#104

Post by FabHK »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #75
goodcanadian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, ATC is also culpable (though much less so). They could have and should have ordered a go around, but instead, they re-cleared the airplane to land.

"ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.

What do you mean? If I approach KORD in my Cessna 172 (as I've done), and ATC instructs me to go around, I would. Of course the pilot is the ultimate authority and can deviate from any instruction in an emergency, but ATC can, in my understanding, instruct an aircraft to go around for any number of reasons that the pilot of the aircraft is not privy to.

In this case, according to the preliminary report, `“Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach`. Had the cowboy pilots followed that instruction, the unnecessary deaths might have been avoided.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#105

Post by anon102010 »

goodcanadian wrote: post #102
_-___________-_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.

Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.

That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#106

Post by goodcanadian »

anon102010 wrote: post #105
goodcanadian wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.

That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already

The accident report indicates that ATC also didn't follow procedures, so no, ATC did not go above and beyond.

The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft.

My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce.

So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#107

Post by gruez »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #89
newsbinator wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> triggering fighter intercepts Also this costs tax money. Why spend the money on intercepts when you can ban the people causing the problems?

Only on paper. Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions. Anyway, the sunk cost of buying, maintaining and operating fighter jets is so high that the marginal cost of a mission is a bit of a wash.

>Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions

Is this really the case? Are there training missions 24/7? If not, does flying an intercept cause a future training mission to be canceled?

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#108

Post by Darmody »

simon1573 wrote: post #58
Darmody wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 of every 3 pilots have a fake license in Pakistan. It's mind blowing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/06/26/30-of-...

Worth noting that Forbes.com/sites/ are basically blog posts and not the same as de-facto Forbes.com

Yeah, probably should've posted another link but the first one was from a news site I don't like and I didn't want to give them visits so I picked the next one.

Anyway, Duck it and you will see it on several other sites.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#109

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gruez wrote: post #107
VBprogrammer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on paper. Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions. Anyway, the sunk cost of buying, maintaining and operating fighter jets is so high that the marginal cost of a mission is a bit of a wash.

>Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions Is this really the case? Are there training missions 24/7? If not, does flying an intercept cause a future training mission to be canceled?

I dont think this nitpicking achieves anything, his overall point stands - we have hundreds of military jets and pilots with fuck all to do (fortunately). How many intercepts are there, one every few months? It makes no material difference against the backdrop of training and eqipment used in a regular business as usual.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#110

Post by VBprogrammer »

gruez wrote: post #107
VBprogrammer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on paper. Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions. Anyway, the sunk cost of buying, maintaining and operating fighter jets is so high that the marginal cost of a mission is a bit of a wash.

>Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions Is this really the case? Are there training missions 24/7? If not, does flying an intercept cause a future training mission to be canceled?

I'm not sure how the military work when it comes to currency requirements. For private and commercial pilots it's certainly the case that they sometimes have to conduct flights (or at least, conduct specific procedures) purely for the sake of maintaining currency. I would be surprised if the same concept didn't apply broadly.

It's not quite as strong as because you flew that mission we are cancelling that training session, more because you flew that mission you don't need be booked out on a training session.

Post reply on HN