If the F/O was PF it is often better to let them continue to fly as they have situational awareness, whereas if you're PNF and you suddenly take control, you have to think about what you were doing as your mind isn't immediately on the flying.

My father used to let the F/O keep flying unless it was a real SHTF moment (i.e. about to crash through F/O stupidity). Anything else and his company in general deemed it safer for the PF to retain control, whoever that might be, as their mind is already on the flying, and for the PNF to run any checklists, look at the problem, etc...

If the F/O was flying the 777, then the Captain probably deemed it better that he looked at the problem anyway (especially as it concerned an unresponsive engine). The problem wouldn't immediately scream imminent crash. First though was probably bird strike leading to engine failure. Only with a bit more looking they'd see it was still running apparently normally and not responding to thrust commands.

There is only so much a pilot can do. If the systems decide they're going to do their own thing, the pilot hasn't really got much of a choice.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

At least US Airways recognise a heroe .

It was Korea Air that said it! Look guys it was not the fault of anyone. It was a known issue with icing on the engines that RR clearly knew about!

 

'It was Korea Air that said it!'... Do you have a link to that?

 

And did Korean air say that in regard to employment with their airline?

 

I don't know what the policy is on employment in Korea but in most parts of the world such discrimination would be illegal.

 

My point is that it may have been hearsay, not fact.

 

When you know a little more about BA policy of flying then come back. Not guestimate that you think there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

Your hero worship is entertaining, but...

 

If you don’t provide evidence in terms of a link, then we have no choice but to speculate.

 

Before you make a claim like he wasn't employable due to the incident you need to provide evidence. Then we can determine if it was hearsay or fact.

 

Then perhaps we’ll make you happy and not ‘guestimate’ as you put it.

Thanks, now we can comment without speculation.

 

However, he was turned down because the airline requires that applicants do not have an "accident or incident" on their CV.

 

In which case the comment I made above regarding the employment laws in Korea apply. 

 

If Korean airlines have this policy then it applies to all applicants, all pilots. They are not discrimination against this individual pilot, Korean airlines are discriminating against 'all' pilots who have had accidents on their records.

 

 I would appreciate your angst more if Korean airlines had refused to employ him, but employed others with an accident record… then it would be wrong.

 

Perhaps your disapproval should be directed at the Korean airlines policy in regard to all pilots with an accident record rather than just this pilot’s case?

 

Basically he faced the same criteria for employment as all pilots applying to that airline, whether it is right or wrong in a moral or legal sense for the company to do that is another matter.

Roachy,