A follow up to this archived thread:

Captain Peter Burkill - Where Is He Now? (by Bochora Feb 14 2009 in Civil Aviation)

In today's news: Burkill has applied for voluntary redundancy under a company-wide cost-cutting scheme.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-smear-campaign.html#ixzz0NREOFrtY

Sad, sorry to hear that. Quite a man.

Maybe he is leaving under a cloud.

I don't know the full details of that incident but maybe it wasn't handled as expertly as we would like to believe.

As we say in France, "They don't tell us everything ! ..."

Quoting Hotelima (Reply 3): They don't tell us everything ! ..."

Yes but maybe in this instance we don't need to know everything. At the controls or not he was the captain, it was his aircraft and it got down (relatively) safely.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 2): I don't know the full details of that incident but maybe it wasn't handled as expertly as we would like to believe.

I suggest you research about this incident before you make such a comment.

Or perhaps quite simply he was tempted by the big pay off and has a better offer!

Quoting APYu (Reply 6): Or perhaps quite simply he was tempted by the big pay off and has a better offer!

Exactly, he is probably packing up to go to DXB, AUH or DOH to take up his new assignment  

Wasn't he having trouble with BA for the way everything was handled with him after the incident?
I rememeber readying something on the BBC about that, and I don't know if I am dreaming or something but also remember readying he wrote to Richard Branson?

Not sure if you guys have actually read the linked article (just picked one - it was in all British tabloids yesterday) - the title says "...quits over "chicken" smears"

Apparently training pilots made comments about his handling of the situation and on pilots forums he was accused of "chickening out" - to an extent that he even contacted BALPA. The story conveyed in the UK press is that he has become a victiom of a smear campaign. Who knows.

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 7): Exactly, he is probably packing up to go to DXB, AUH or DOH to take up his new assignment

According to his wife, he is now a "full-time house-husband".

It is unfortanate that such an experienced pilot who may not have been of real blame in this crash landing has been hounded out of the airline by his peers and the media. The investigation is still ongoing and it may very well be that the pilot could have been absolved of blame, but it is easier to blame one person than technical problems no one fully understands. This is not good for all other pilots who will further fear retailation and harassment for any incident. No wonder he is taking the bailout deal and somewhat fortunate that he can take it.

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 9): a victiom of a smear campaign

Thats pretty lame. If this is true, and the source can be found, I hope the guy sues "'till the cows come home" as we say in the south.

Or maybe ... he just feels the "system" let him down.

What I mean is, he was trained to a high standard, by a well respected airline with a high standard of maintenance, flying an airframe also respected to a high standard with well respected (see a trend here?) engines hung on the wing .... yet ... he landed a few hundred metres short of the runway.

And by the grace of some higher being, (or luck), no one was seriously injured and he did not plant the aircraft onto what could be considered the densest populated area on the earth.

Maybe he just can't get his head around ... why?

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 5): I suggest you research about this incident before you make such a comment.

Quoting 757MDE (Reply 8): Wasn't he having trouble with BA for the way everything was handled with him after the incident?

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 9): Apparently training pilots made comments about his handling of the situation

Maybe you need to do the reading.

BA would have to keep the blame sheet free by whatever means. Too many aircraft and jobs rely on it. I don't know the full story and neither do you.

Think before making such comments.

Maybe he just got sick of SAMO, same old sh*t. I mean, a lot of people leave jobs after a major incident happens, even if it was nothing of their doing and they weren't even involved. All it takes is a catalyst. Maybe he just needed change, who knows.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 13): Maybe you need to do the reading. BA would have to keep the blame sheet free by whatever means.

I was quoting. Don't shoot the messenger:

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 9): The story conveyed in the UK press

Quoting Babybus (Reply 13): Think before making such comments.

I said I read it in the BBC and was asking, not confirming.

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 15): Don't shoot the messenger

Ditto.

I read a while ago that after numerous trials in simulators that no pilot was able to reach the runway with the situation that Captain Burkhill faced. The criticism seems based on the fact that the first officer did the flying; but so what? Perhaps Burkhill had full confidence in his first officer and saw no reason to take over; he certainly knew that he would be blamed for anything that went wrong, and was right there to take over or give advice if needed. Also, perhaps he felt that he could better assess the situation without actually taking control himself; he might well have been searching for a cause (and possible remedy) for the problem and having to actually fly would have been a distraction from that. In any case, between them they reached the best outcome that was possible under the situation they faced, and any criticism from anyone not in authority in the situation seems to me to be extraordinarily mean spirited and out of place.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 2): I don't know the full details of that incident but maybe it wasn't handled as expertly as we would like to believe.

There wasn't a lot of room for expertise in this incident. Happened very low and very late in the approach. They must've been expert enough to stretch the glide the way they did and at that point that was all they could do. Now there is a new procedure which calls for full thrust to be applied on the RR powered 777s before the descent so any fuel blockage can be cleared (I am sure someone can give a lot more specific info on this than me).

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 5): Quoting Babybus (Reply 2): I don't know the full details of that incident but maybe it wasn't handled as expertly as we would like to believe. I suggest you research about this incident before you make such a comment.

Human psychology is interesting. I didn't see the first line quoted as disparaging the pilot. I read it, and thought about the (political) aftermath. I somehow didn't consider questioning the pilot's skill or decisions; he got the plane down and everybody out alive in a crisis.

I guess it's differences like this that make the world go 'round...

QD

There are many 777 pilots waiting on RR to fix the problem with their engine. Maybe Burkill got tired of waiting?

Quoting Md88Captain (Reply 20): There are many 777 pilots waiting on RR to fix the problem with their engine. Maybe Burkill got tired of waiting?

Seeing as the problem is fairly well understood, and has existed for the lifetime of the 777 with only one accident after nearly 15 years in service, and the problem can be avoided by not initiating a landing immediately after flying at high altitudes at extremely cold temperatures, I don't see why this should be a factor. Yes, it does need to be fixed, but I would rank it far below the A330 pitot tubes in urgency.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21): Seeing as the problem is fairly well understood, and has existed for the lifetime of the 777 with only one accident after nearly 15 years in service, and the problem can be avoided by not initiating a landing immediately after flying at high altitudes at extremely cold temperatures, I don't see why this should be a factor. Yes, it does need to be fixed, but I would rank it far below the A330 pitot tubes in urgency.

In my opinion, since there have been many RR 777 "rollbacks", it has resulted in one crash which EASILY could have resulted in all killed, and all long haul 777 flights will be landing shortly after cruising at high altitudes, it is of the utmost importance. Safety should come first.

Why all the speculation? The paper article seems to be speculating as well. They have no idea why he is really quitting. Plenty of experienced captains take the opportunity to leave early in their career. Sometimes the money has been good enough to afford a long retirement, or start a completely different venture, and seeing how he has been at BA for 20 years, I'd say he's not desperate for a new cockpit job right now.

It's hard to say whether the accident has anything to do with this decision.

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 9): Apparently training pilots made comments about his handling of the situation and on pilots forums he was accused of "chickening out" - to an extent that he even contacted BALPA. The story conveyed in the UK press is that he has become a victiom of a smear campaign. Who knows.

Where does it say anywhere it was training pilots, it says training managers, that could also mean cabin crew trainers as well. Bit of a catch all so who knows.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 10): hounded out of the airline by his peers and the media.

Where are you getting the media as having anything to do with it, or are you just being 'fashionable' by involving them?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 22): In my opinion, since there have been many RR 777 "rollbacks", it has resulted in one crash which EASILY could have resulted in all killed, and all long haul 777 flights will be landing shortly after cruising at high altitudes, it is of the utmost importance. Safety should come first.

Yes, safety must come first. But all of the rollbacks except this one happened at altitude and lasted only briefly, and all except this one happened on only one engine. I believe it is fairly well established that if you allow the fuel to warm up by flying for a while at lower (i.e. warmer) altitudes before landing the chance of this happening again is almost nil. This flight, from what I read, descended from high altitude after crossing the pole (in winter) directly to landing, which is not the usual procedure. Knowing that the RR engine can do this and planning accordingly should prevent any recurrence. A rollback of short duration at altitude is a non-event; when it happens to both engines on short final it is a potential disaster. But we now know enough that we should be able to prevent that even before the fix is installed.

What the majority of many people are missing is that he has full support of British Airways in his decision. Also he was controlling the flaps which translates to assisting PIF. Per the article; " He was altering the wing flaps to adjust the decent of the plane and he is a highly valued member of staff and he will continue to receive full support of BA."

Hunter

Nothing wrong with letting the co-pilot continue to fly it. Taking over the controls late in the approach (standard BA procedure in a monitored approach to mimima), requires a couple of seconds to "get the feel of it".

Taking the controls in that situation, the captain would have had to hit the ground running, if you'll forgive the expression, and take on board in a couple of seconds a set of conditions he'd never seen before. For example unusual deck angle, airspeed reducing at an extreme rate, different perspective out the front, the increasing heaviness of the controls etc. etc.

The alternative was to leave it with the F/O, who had several seconds more "feel" for the situation that was developing, and therefore infinitely more experience in that set of circumstances, than the captain. The F/O had the controls from the start of the event, and by that time would have started to get to grips with the above unusually varying parameters, and if the captain thought the F/O was doing as good a job as anyone could, he might as well leave it to him.

In one of the "respectable" papers yesterday there is mention of "..freezing at the controls...". Once in the sim I was questioned about going very quiet for a few seconds. The F/O was flying, doing a good job, nothing needed doing at that moment, and I was actually mentally calculating something (descent rate to lose height between here and there or something). Not being a rocket scientist, brain work like that takes up much of my capacity and I wouldn't have been talking/running checklists/liasing with cabin crew at that moment.

Imagine the sudden explosion of mental demands that crew were faced with. Its an unfortunate allegation and probably grew from chinese whispers, a misinterpreted comment or an overactive rumour mill.

In the absence of a full CVR transcript and FDR info, we should avoid judgement.

Regards - musang

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 27): " He was altering the wing flaps to adjust the decent of the plane and he is a highly valued member of staff and he will continue to receive full support of BA."

He also got a medal from BA.

Quoting Theginge (Reply 24): Where does it say anywhere it was training pilots, it says training managers, that could also mean cabin crew trainers as well. Bit of a catch all so who knows.

You are correct. I meant to write "managers". However, other newspapers mention "refresher courses" in which those allegations were made and I would find it somewhat surprising if cabin crew trainers would discuss these issues.

Anyway, here is a follow up from a local newspaper:

http://www.berrowsjournal.co.uk/news..._landed_stricken_plane_is_to_quit/

His wife
- said no new job
- denied reports he was quitting BA following a smear campaign

[Edited 2009-08-07 10:43:26]

A link from the Daily Mail indeed?
Them talking about smearing people, well they'd know all about that, including in this case.

Burkhill was treated badly, by elements of the media, including the Daily Vile , as part of their general we hate BA campaign.

That's the long and short of it.

If The Times is to be believed, he had considered quitting for some time:

"The pilot's row with his employers first came to light last year when Mr Burkill first spoke of his intention to leave the airline. Apart from the alleged smears, he was also angered that his salary had been cut from £120,000 to around £60,000 because he was losing out on flying bonuses while he was waiting for the completion of the report into the incident."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6740039.ece

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 23): Sometimes the money has been good enough to afford a long retirement, or start a completely different venture, and seeing how he has been at BA for 20 years, I'd say he's not desperate for a new cockpit job right now.

Perhaps he is going while BA still has a pension plan !

[quote=Babybus,reply=2]I don't know the full details of that incident but maybe it wasn't handled as expertly as we would like to believe.[/quote}

Isnt that exactly how these unfortunate rumours and whispers start? I dont know the full details. I do know that the detailed investigation has pinpointed the cause and RR are working on a fix. I do know that statistically this event was extremely unfortunate and (so far) a one off in terms of height and stage of final approach when both engines refused to respond.

I do know that nonetheless, the crew as a team did a fantastic job that I cant imagine myself having to confront let alone execute. I also appreciate it could have been catastrophic DESPITE the best efforts of the crew.

IIRC the timeline from non response to touchdown was 1 or 2 minutes?

I applaud Burkill and Coward