Originally Posted by
TimmyTee
You work for Jetstar from memory yes?
What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.
I'm not sure why you're carrying on like a bit of a ********, but ill have a look at your post.
Originally Posted by Timmah
1. But once you establish that you have incorrect conditions on the ground, you sure as hell establish the correct ones.
2. Did the crew know if the tailwind was going to exceed their landing capability? If so, how?
1. How did they establish they had the wrong wind conditions? They had both written down the wind from the AWIS and believed it correct. The fact an AC50 took off the other direction is irrelevant to that fact. Ever bankrun mate? Landing 18 and T/O 36 with tailwind is common practice at every airport I ever flew the AC50, as it was for everyone else who operated it. The terminal is at the southern end of the field. Nobody taxis all the way to north to depart 18 unless they absolutely have to. If I believed the AWIS said 230/6 knots then it is hardly unexpected that the AC50 would do just that. Further, what was the wind? Did the AWIS record it correctly? Given that the recording wasn't available for the investigation, how do you know that the JQ crew both independently made a mistake in transcribing it?
2. They believed the wind to be 6-7 knots. They had run flysmart before arrival for 10kts of tailwind and it came back good, making the direction redundant. Thats how. Did you even read the report?
The other bloke made every call necessary (and even a non-required call). Both the Jetstar crew missed every single one of them.
JQ also made every necessary call. And what do you mean JQ missed "every single one of them". What evidence do you have for that?
06:31.53, UJS made its taxiing call. They heard it. So what, that doesn't affect them, they have right of way as the landing aircraft. They have made 3 inbound calls by this point. They continue.
06:32.24 - BN CEN tells UJS JQ is turning 8 mile final,
landing in less than 4 minutes. UJS is on the ground, not lined up, hears a 60 tonne jet is 4 minutes lined up on final opposite direction, and decides to line up and roll anyway. I can totally see how you're putting this on the JQ crew. Given that the Shrike hasn't reported any intention to depart, JQ continues believing he's holding short, as legally required.
06:33.30 - UJS makes a ROLLING call. Not an entering the runway call. He's rolling. With JQ now 2.5 minutes from landing, opposite direction.
AT THIS SAME INSTANT BN centre makes repeated attempts to call JQ, thus they didn't hear it. Nor would they have expected to hear an aircraft enter and start a takeoff roll when they are head to head.
06:34:35 - JQ reports 5 mile final, asks where UJS is.. He's airbourne. Now we have a conflict.
The report states UJS believed JQ was on approach from the south, and didn't even visually look to the north as he began his takeoff roll.
So why you've decided to go off laying this entire thing at the feet of the JQ crew is a mystery to me, further as to why you're abusing others for pointing out that culpability here is shared between both aircraft. I personally see a string of holes in the cheese lining up in a way that could have happened to nearly any of us, but I'm not such an arrogant twit that I behave as if it couldn't.
Originally Posted by Timmah
They then proceeded to have a near head on, and chose to then proceed to land on to a now know, non-into wind runway, with no valid or reasonable way of knowing the wind direction or strength.
The report addresses this, had you bothered to actually read it.
"The flight crew of VQG discussed conducting a missed approach as a result of the proximity event. However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft in the area that they had already de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind,
it was assessed as within tolerance"
As stated in the report, flysmart was conducted to assess landing performance in a 10 kt tailwind. You are talking entirely out of your ass.
But I guess it’s a small victory in avoiding a too low gear
Oh how I'd love to know what airline you fly for. There but for grace of etc etc.
So in summary,
What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.