Dav1d:
Captain Peter Burkhill was sacked/let go/forced out following the crash at Heathrow. He later wrote a book, went on tv claiming he’d been unfairly dismissed/let go/forced out, and was, later still, taken back on.
John Coward was flying the aircraft at the time of the crash.
From what I remember, Burkhills claim to unfair dismissal was based on his decision to alter flaps (from 25 degress to 20 degrees ), which prevented the plane crashing earlier and allowed it to reach the grounds of Heathrow.
Seems he apparently took redundancy but couldn’t get a job with anyone else so went back.
Any accidents in aviation seem to leave you unemployable apparently, especially a major one like that. I’m sure he had back pay and put back on salary or even got a raise:lol:
The same thing happens at sea.Some of Titanic"s crew survived but their careers were effectively over.
Dav1d:
Pimpdaddy:
Freight Dog:
ATPL, on the 744
Lucky you… 
toby1234abc:
.
I went to school with Captain Coward, he crashed at LHR due to ice in the fuel system,his family are farmers near Warminster.
Another lucky guy Peter was, got to fly the triple for fun at BA:grin: Apparently he got sacked then got his job back after the investigation cleared his name.
Captain Peter Burkhill was sacked/let go/forced out following the crash at Heathrow. He later wrote a book, went on tv claiming he’d been unfairly dismissed/let go/forced out, and was, later still, taken back on.
John Coward was flying the aircraft at the time of the crash.
From what I remember, Burkhills claim to unfair dismissal was based on his decision to alter flaps (from 25 degress to 20 degrees ), which prevented the plane crashing earlier and allowed it to reach the grounds of Heathrow.
Seems he apparently took redundancy but couldn’t get a job with anyone else so went back.
I’ve not read that book. Does it detail as to why he was dismissed?
The Captain of the Titanic had a horrendous work record, basicaly before he joined the Titanic, he grounded ships on sand banks and had other accidents, he was chosen for his image.
A terrible accident occured when a Klm Captain of a 747, ended in tragedy, he was the poster boy of the airline, with a huge ego.
He terrified his crew.
On a foggy runway in Tenerife, there was confusion on clearance to take off or not.
His First Officer was too scared to say no clearance from Atc, but the Captain went for it and a collision and fireball occurred.
Since that CRM has been improved between crews.
Pimpdaddy:
Dav1d:
Captain Peter Burkhill was sacked/let go/forced out following the crash at Heathrow. He later wrote a book, went on tv claiming he’d been unfairly dismissed/let go/forced out, and was, later still, taken back on.
John Coward was flying the aircraft at the time of the crash.
From what I remember, Burkhills claim to unfair dismissal was based on his decision to alter flaps (from 25 degress to 20 degrees ), which prevented the plane crashing earlier and allowed it to reach the grounds of Heathrow.
Seems he apparently took redundancy but couldn’t get a job with anyone else so went back.
Any accidents in aviation seem to leave you unemployable apparently, especially a major one like that. I’m sure he had back pay and put back on salary or even got a raise:lol:
Lucky he’s still able to walk after that crash, or even be in state of mind to fly. The psychological damage after being in an accident has screwed up many aircrew.
Freight Dog:
Lucky he’s still able to walk after that crash, or even be in state of mind to fly. The psychological damage after being in an accident has screwed up many aircrew.
Yeah like that Scandinavian MD80 captain…
Which guy’s that? Scandinavian 751 Captain? I don’t know much about that. What happened to him?
Just to give fair play to Titanic"s Captain navigation and charting was a much more vague art than it is nowadays.Steering by the stars is all well and good so long as you can see the zb things.The KLM pilot was running out of hours ,he was in a position whereby if he was going he had to go now the other plane didnt know that he was on the runway.
alamcculloch:
Just to give fair play to Titanic"s Captain navigation and charting was a much more vague art than it is nowadays.Steering by the stars is all well and good so long as you can see the zb things.The KLM pilot was running out of hours ,he was in a position whereby if he was going he had to go now the other plane didnt know that he was on the runway.
As I remember the story the Pan Am crew had been given clearance to taxi while the KLM crew hadn’t been given clearance to take off.The KLM Captain decided that his movement clearances up to that point were sufficient to then also take that as clearance to take off.Meanwhile I think it was the flight engineer who then actually questioned that decision in asking the Captain was he sure he had clearance for take off.Obviously the flight engineer was brighter than the Captain and the co Pilot.While cost cutting would now mean that the third set of ears,eyes and brains wouldn’t be there to question what the other two are doing anyway.
As for the Titanic it is a fair bet that the ship was running at excessive speed by the orders of its owner’s representative on board not the Captain.Knowing that there was an ice hazard.Which had been confirmed to its radio operator by at least 1 other ship as being bad enough to need to stop for let alone run at full speed.The other question being that of the idea of trying to turn away from a highly probable collision position instead of just hitting it head on.Being that it seems to be accepted that taking the bows out won’t sink a ship but slicing it open or popping the rivets along enough of the side plates certainly will by crossing the bulkheads between watertight compartments.As shown by the example of the Stockholm.
gcaptain.com/years-today-andrea-doria-sinks
I wouldn’t say that’s entirely correct but interesting listening to you guys discuss it.
If you’re really into it this is an article on the accident. I can’t vouch for it being correct though.
factorhumano.files.wordpress.com … ipedia.pdf
Freight Dog:
I wouldn’t say that’s entirely correct but interesting listening to you guys discuss it.
This is an article on the accident. I can’t vouch for it being correct though.
factorhumano.files.wordpress.com … ipedia.pdf
If you dissect that radio transcript it seems to show that (1) the tower cleared a route ‘after’ takeoff but it didn’t clear the aircraft ‘for takeoff’ at that point.(2)The crew then seemed to reply with confirmation of that but ‘also’ then seemed to have added their own clearance for takeoff to that original instruction.That’s when it all seems to get confusing.IE the tower seems to answer that in a way which doesn’t sound right.
IE KLM ‘and’ we’re now at takeoff /uh taking off’. 
Then We gaan.Which shouldn’t be a transmission to the tower because it isn’t in English.
Then a reply from the tower ‘OK’.OK meaning in reply to what what in that case.
When at that point you’d expect firstly KLM to have asked clearly are we cleared for take off and a reply of either Tower yes KLM you are cleared for takeoff,or in view of the later transmissions,no KLM you are not cleared for takeoff. 
Meanwhile Pan Am seems to be aware of those previous transmissions and says No eh.Eh in that case probably meaning what the zb are you all doing.
Then the tower seems to reply,with no particular ident of who it is actually referring to,stand by for takeoff.I will call you.
Which logically would/should have been for the KLM crew and clearly identified as such.In which case why wasn’t that used where the message ‘OK’ was.As referred to previously as seeming to make no sense and which was given in answer to a statement in which the KLM Captain seems to have confirmed and cleared himself for takeoff in Dutch.In which case the tower probably didn’t have a clue what he was actually doing and meant. 
Meanwhile regardless of all the radio interference excuse bs the KLM flight engineer seems to have heard enough to make the conclusion that in ‘his’ view the Pan Am wasn’t clear.In which case as a lowly truck driver ( or KLM’s star pilot ) my instinct would have been he’s realised something I’ve missed I’ll abort the take off just in case. 
The Flight Engineer did indeed query (too late) but didn’t action on his doubts. This event has been extensively taught and dissected in CRM training as to why. The psychology of CRM gets quite in depth.
This is a more extensive article on the Tenerife disaster
1001crash.com/index-page-ten … age-1.html
Another similar disaster where culture played a part was a Korean Air Cargo 8509 at Stansted
airdisaster.com/investigations/korean.shtml
The Tenerife disaster overturned the safety culture in the industry and brought about several extensive changes.
The thing about the Titanic was that Smith was under pressure to get to NY at as high a speed as possible. Obviously he had to carry the can but in those days there was no employment law, if they sacked him or let him go, at his age it would have been the end of his career. So there was a back pressure.
Without radar his only method of iceberg detection was his lookouts. The design errors in the compartmentalisation and watertight bulkheads, plus lack of lifeboats led to the tragedy too.
I still feel safer on a ship or even a train than an aircraft. At least there’s a chance on a ship if things go wrong. Doesn’t seem much hope on an aircraft 
I’ve watched too many episodes of seconds from disaster and air crash investigation lol 
When I went to the US several years ago it was the same model of jet that stoved in at Heathrow due to ice crystals in the fuel system. We had an aborted landing at JFK due to another jet being on the runway! Thing is we were well over the threshold before he decided to go around, no one knew what was happening for a few minutes which didn’t help my nerves
Don’t get my started on terrorists lol
bazza123:
At least there’s a chance on a ship if things go wrong. Doesn’t seem much hope on an aircraft
^ +1
I’ve always preferred the odds on a ship.