07-12-2016, 06:10 AM
“V” agreed – during a ‘routine’ anything awkward, that’s what multi crew operations have always done. But in the scenario you presented it is not ‘routine’. Like the old saw “Confirm operations normal” asked by ATC during a single engine approach – OEI approach is not ‘normal’, but the situation is under control and all will be well is the broad implication.
So what we are presented with in the above scenario specific version is a flight crew with a problem. Was the ‘problem’ so severe that both died in harness trying to solve the puzzle? The scenario indicates not; it assumes that they could and did sort it out then make a decision – return to land. Fine so far, they could even manage to program the wrong way point (which is a curious enough action); all this done ‘as per’ but then they fail to let ATC – or the company - know what they were doing. Why?
The scenario we are discussing is presented as a ‘return to land’. This means a course reversal – in control airspace, with a ‘problem’ of some sort, serious enough to warrant the action. This means communication and provided the crew were still effective; I cannot see where a trained crew would just throw in a major course change without saying a word. Even in a emergency descent after a 90 ˚off airway course change, eventually ‘communication’ occurs. The sequence of events in ‘routine’ emergency is as you describe it; identify the ‘problem’; run the checks; make a decision and then notify ATC of your intentions. The last bit never, as far as we know, happened. Why?
All I’m saying is that scenario specific discussion must remain within the parameters defined; it’s a problem of the genre. So when the proposition that a crew was alive and alert enough to (i) initiate a return to landing (ii) program the FMS for that return, it begs the question – why after all that did they not mention it? The other scenario specific question is why were they supposedly manually ‘programing’ in return waypoints?
This is why I like and stick to my ET theory. Anything else descends into making specific, scenario based assumptions which cannot be verified.
Toot toot.
So what we are presented with in the above scenario specific version is a flight crew with a problem. Was the ‘problem’ so severe that both died in harness trying to solve the puzzle? The scenario indicates not; it assumes that they could and did sort it out then make a decision – return to land. Fine so far, they could even manage to program the wrong way point (which is a curious enough action); all this done ‘as per’ but then they fail to let ATC – or the company - know what they were doing. Why?
The scenario we are discussing is presented as a ‘return to land’. This means a course reversal – in control airspace, with a ‘problem’ of some sort, serious enough to warrant the action. This means communication and provided the crew were still effective; I cannot see where a trained crew would just throw in a major course change without saying a word. Even in a emergency descent after a 90 ˚off airway course change, eventually ‘communication’ occurs. The sequence of events in ‘routine’ emergency is as you describe it; identify the ‘problem’; run the checks; make a decision and then notify ATC of your intentions. The last bit never, as far as we know, happened. Why?
All I’m saying is that scenario specific discussion must remain within the parameters defined; it’s a problem of the genre. So when the proposition that a crew was alive and alert enough to (i) initiate a return to landing (ii) program the FMS for that return, it begs the question – why after all that did they not mention it? The other scenario specific question is why were they supposedly manually ‘programing’ in return waypoints?
This is why I like and stick to my ET theory. Anything else descends into making specific, scenario based assumptions which cannot be verified.
Toot toot.