What's Next?

[cpdude]

We have seen the "Downward Bomb Burst" arrival and now the "Hammerhead" go-around. So what's next guy's? I'm rather concerned as I'm sure others are too.

....and pleeeeaaaase don't tell me it's an experience thing or a matter of fatigue.:*

[SMOC]

??? More info please.

[cpdude]

If you don't know what I mean, then you don't need to know!:ok:

[HotDog]

Then why bother to publish the question Canuck?:confused:

[cpdude]

...to get responses from Cathay Pilots only!:p

[SMOC]

It was a responce from a CX pilot I know about the MNL-HKG trip but nothing of the GA

[HotDog]

SMOC, I think that was a swipe at me from Canuck. Just a simple flight engineer I was for 33 years. Go Canuck, go.:yuk:

[bonajet]

Don't worry Hot Dog, the chances are that cpdude isn't a CX pilot otherwise he could talk internally rather than try and look clever on the internet. Probably a journo or wannabee.

[cpdude]

Yup...that's me...busted...a journo:ok:

[BusyB]

cpdude,
You should be applying to be management, you obviously have the uncanny ability to shaft people, and as management you don't even have to be perfect!

[shortly]

BusyB how consistent you are. Even when things are looking up in our neck of the woods you want to cause disruption. Get a life mate. The original post was, at least childish, at most ridiculously stupid. Sort of makes you wonder at the IQ level of the original poster. So, in my humble opinion he would be better suited to join the pit bulls in your gang rather than the quite liberal middle level managers we have in FOPS at the moment. Incidents such as those he/she has alluded to are good wake up calls for us all.

[cpdude]

Just friggin amazing...a simple concerning question and the insults fly around here. I have no idea who is a pilot and who is not here but people get insulted so easily. I am not trying to annoy anyone but to find out what others think about this rash of occurrences. I also don't want to discuss details here for the real journo's benefit and that is the reason for the cryptic message.

Is it simply just a mistake like we have all made in the past or will possibly make in the future? Or is this bigger than that? Is it being downplayed because they are mates or are people upset because I cracked open the old closet of skeletons? Which ever it is, live with it and deal with it professionally and responsibly and leave your emotional gaga in the locker room.:cool:

[shortly]

Your 'simple concerning question' was couched in a flippant and insensitive fashion. The incidents you mentioned have been very thoroughly investigated. There are lessons there for us all. No one is 'downplaying' the seriousness of these two, maybe three somewhat similar occurrences. And no one is brushing (sic) them under the carpet. Suffice it to say that the term "monitoring" is now high on the HF agenda at CX. By the by, when we make mistakes as aircrew and like men own up to the dread deed, all we ask for is understanding from our Bosses and a fair hearing. From our flying peers we expect understanding and a little loyalty.

[FlexibleResponse]

....and pleeeeaaaase don't tell me it's an experience thing or a matter of fatigue.Perhaps a consequence and reflection of management (in)competance over the last three years?

Shall we change the SOPS (or should we call it NPs) again?

[cpdude]

all we ask for is understanding from our Bosses and a fair hearing. From our flying peers we expect understanding and a little loyalty.

Last time I checked, were at the top of our profession and still making good money. We are paid to be professional and to make sound experienced judgments. This is not your first or second flying job...if it was...the pay would reflect so. We may make mistakes but gross errors in judgment can and should have a high price.

Loyalty and understanding is for a crew making a mistake due to fatigue or a lack of focus and having to go-around. It is not for a stall or other gross departures from normal flight. These gross errors need large reactions from the company to the individuals involved. Reductions in rank, re-training or termination can only be determined by a full review or hearing of the incident and the crews’ actions before, during and after the flight.

IMHO

[shortly]

So they should and so they do. Whilst I have not bothered to check all the 'penalties' dished out, I am aware of one termination of employment, two downgrades and a serious bout of re-education and checking. This seems serious enough and all followed the normal investigative process. I am not claiming the moral high ground here, only saying that I consider any of us could and probably have made blunders in the past and will again in the future. Not matter how close to the top of the professional tree we are. Sometimes good training, sound experience, reliable procedures and super flying skills can all be undone. IMHO.

[jtr]

To loosely quote what has been made public

"It was a stabilised approach which experienced a windshear warning at 1100"

-So fair to assume they were on speed or thereabouts, which would be in the vicinity of 150-160kts

"There was a degree of uncertainty as to whether the autopilot was controlling the manoeuvre"

-No comment

"Pitch attitude peaked briefly at about 10 degrees above target"

-So in the go around, the a/c pitched to 28 or so degrees nose up

[cpdude]

and just out of curiosity...what does it say about heading, altitude and airspeed variance from target after windshear was no longer a threat?:oh:

[BusyB]

Shortly,

Gosh, you do get yourself confused with quotes like:-

"quite liberal middle level managers we have in FOPS at the moment"

"all we ask for is understanding from our Bosses and a fair hearing"

I am seriously concerned by the lack of information to crews about incidents on the a/c which they fly. This paranoid secrecy is not acceptable for a major airline with a "safety" culture. The argument that "it gets in the papers" is not valid as the response should be that we all want/need to learn anything we can from these reports, or be warned of potential failures. The retribution for those that admit their mistakes to warn others will only cause an increasing reluctance to speak up. I am not just referring to errors but also mechanical failures which we should be more thoroughly informed of.

I'm sure if you asked around you'd find out who really are the "pitbulls"!!

[shortly]

BusyB, as usual you take two subjects and tenuously link them with no logical thought involved. Your first subject was, as usual, to attack me. I am strongly of the opinion that our middle level managers in FOPS are trying very hard to be liberal. I also find it difficult to understand what you object to in, "all we ask for is understanding from our Bosses and a fair hearing". Then in your second you launch into a rather confusing paragraph concerning communication, newspapers and the like. I do agree that when incidents have been thoroughly investigated the results should be made common knowledge to all aircrew in the company. I believe we have seen a large improvement in this area recently. As to paranoia? I let your fingers do the talking on that score. But let us get one thing clear for the readers. There have been NO KANGAROO COURTS. Do you seriously believe that a professional aviator would not expect to be punished after making a serious blunder? As to not telling anyone of the error - well thankfully those days are long past.

[BusyB]

Shortly,

Read my first post on this thread again, you weren't mentioned unless you are one of the managers you are so complimentary about!

My concerns are about the lack of immediate information to the crews concerning recent incidents ( particularly one with all flight instruments misreading due an ADC fault) which would help them to cope with the problem if they should suffer it.

The concern about the SCMP should be euther ignored or dealt with by making a public declaration that in the interests of safety all incidents are promulgated to promote a learning culture and therefore a safer operation.

[Five Livers]

I've always thought that following an incident, a large part of the Flight Safety bit was to let the rest of us know what happened, asap, so we could hopefully avoid ending up in the same situation.

Here we are a week or so after the event and ........... squat!

Regardless of the reasons for the silence, how stupid would it be if there was a reoccurence because the first incident hadn't been publicised?

[shortly]

BusyB,
Maybe you should re-read your post.

Shortly,

Gosh, you do get yourself confused with quotes like:-

"quite liberal middle level managers we have in FOPS at the moment"

"all we ask for is understanding from our Bosses and a fair hearing"

I agree though in that once incidents have been properly and thoroughly investigated then the results should be made accessible to all aircrew. As far as I can see this is what happens now. I don't agree that incidents should be made public at all until the normal processes have been completed. It is not fair to those involved.

[BusyB]

Shortly,
Try checking with the Air Safety department. I can assure you that they cannot release details that they'd like the crews to know.