Originally Posted by Jsmth321

I didn't see anything recent about Atlas Air from last February, found an article from December using info the NTSB released.

Doesn't look like first officer should have been anywhere near the controls of a 767 based on his prior record, some of which he failed to disclose to Atlas Air.

FO joined Atlas Air in 2017 after failing to get a promotion at passenger airline Mesa Airlines after failing 2 simulator training sessions.

2 Mesa captains who evaluated the FO during his time there told the NTSB he would become flustered when encountering unexpected situations in training, and would make frantic mistakes and start pushing buttons without thinking what he was pushing.

He failed to finish training at Air Wisconsin and resigned citing personal reasons, and also failed to complete training at CommutAir and resigned due to lack of progress in training.

He failed to disclose his employment at Air Wisconsin and CommutAir and Atlas told the NTSB had they known, they would not have hired him.

His training at Atlas did not go well and required several rounds of remedial training.

"He failed his practical 767 type rating examination, the NTSB says, “due to unsatisfactory performance in crew resource management, threat and error management, non-precision approaches, steep turns and judgment.”

" a minute before impact, the automatic go-around switch was turned on" but " the activation may not have been intentional — the pilots made no mention of initiating a go-around. NTSB investigators suspect Aska may have become disoriented while the plane was in cloud cover, with the acceleration from the increased thrust tricking him into perceiving that the plane’s nose was too high, leading him to believe the plane was stalling. "

The final report isn't out yet, and well not looking good for the FO though.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyb.../#555c020e79cc

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Privacy be damned, there needs to be a universal database for flight crew training disciplinary records, that all airplane operators have access to and are obligated to contribute to, to keep idiota like that out of the cockpit.

Originally Posted by Expatrick

BA112 may have set a new subsonic trans Atlantic record yesterday, achieving 4 hours & 56 minutes JFK - LHR.

Originally Posted by Expatrick

Indeed,. 200 knots! Aircraft logged ground speed of 825 mph over Newfoundland!

Originally Posted by Expatrick

BA112 may have set a new subsonic trans Atlantic record yesterday, achieving 4 hours & 56 minutes JFK - LHR.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

But did it have a gate when it arrived....j/k (its a joke based on having seen many flights over my years on the ramp have to sit fairly long periods when they arrived too early into a bust airport to wait for a gate, I had a flight from Atlanta arrive 50 minutes early during summer 2017, and the airport made it wait for its original gate so they sat for 53 minutes, not the airlines fault since YVR is common use gates controlled by the airport, airlines have no power over gate assignments.)

Originally Posted by Expatrick

Predicted arrival, Heathrow gates are dynamically assigned so this would not have been an issue.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

The problem here is just during peak hours, simply not enough gates to go around even with remote stand use its gets really tight gate wise during peak periods.

Originally Posted by Expatrick

Predicted arrival, Heathrow gates are dynamically assigned so this would not have been an issue.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Maybe LHR has worked out how to solve the problem of planes sitting on the gate for hours at a time. .... That is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but although I have never flown frequently, I often notice planes apparently "abandoned" on the gate sitting there with no signs of activity either in the terminal building, nor outside around the plane. While I know that moving planes isn't necessarily quick or easy, I am puzzled why airports and airlines will use the "no gate available" excuse when based on observation, that doesn't appear to be strictly true.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Maybe LHR has worked out how to solve the problem of planes sitting on the gate for hours at a time. .... That is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but although I have never flown frequently, I often notice planes apparently "abandoned" on the gate sitting there with no signs of activity either in the terminal building, nor outside around the plane. While I know that moving planes isn't necessarily quick or easy, I am puzzled why airports and airlines will use the "no gate available" excuse when based on observation, that doesn't appear to be strictly true.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Are all gates capable of serving all (many/most) plane types?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Are all gates capable of serving all (many/most) plane types?

Originally Posted by markonline1

At Heathrow, not necessarily.