I don't want to get into the specifics of max's comments. He's phrased the concerns in a very different manner to that which I would have chosen. He does however have a point about whether all of QF's additional costs in training are required if J* can do it so much more cheaply. It can't be that QF drivers are worse than others and therefore require additional training to make the grade because according to all posters to this thread, everyone is about the same standard.
International Trader, if you're not going to bother reading the report then don't try and draw assumptions. I'll give you a couple of examples.
Originally Posted by International Trader
The Pilot Flying was hand flying an approach when "experience" would have dictated the use of automation in poor weather. I heard that the man was demonstrating his abilities for someone in the cockpit
Reported wx conditions were above those required for the F/O to fly the approach. At the time the F/Os were required to disconnect at 1000' HAT when flying an ILS approach- don't ask me why, I always thought it was a daft policy but that in itself is a good example of poor policy and not accepting feedback by some quarters in QF management.
Originally Posted by International Trader
( after 911 though,I wonder if observers were allowed in).
You do realise that the prang was in September '99? Families on the flight deck were no problem back then. I don't recall entirely but I think it was the S/Os missus (or the Captains?) and not the F/Os so that could possibly blow your 'showing off' theory out of the water not with standing my previous comments on extant policy of the time. Personally, having had my family on the flight deck in previous times has made me more conservative, not less.. (I don't want to get engaged in a discussion about whether becoming more conservative posts it's own CRM problems, I'm a big boy and understand the issues here).
Originally Posted by International Trader
- The "Commander" took over control and attempted another landing after the go-around was commenced.
'Another' landing'? Not correct. Whilst the decision to cancel the go around was always one of the most significant errors in all of this, your comments imply that the aircraft was airborne again or that it never landed to start off with and the decision to not go around resulted in the long landing. It was not. The aircrafttouched down once only and that was as the thrust levers were moving forward to go around thrust.
Originally Posted by International Trader
- Were the auto brakes used?
These had disconnected when the aircraft touched down thrust levers in a position that caused the logic to disconnect them.
The other one you didn't mention was that the speed brakes were not up. This was due to one of the thrust levers not being caught by the crew and still being forward of idle to the extent that the spoilers did not rise.
it would be a wonderful CRM lesson for the company.I ask you, is it being used as an example in QF training?
I'll bet it isn't. I'll bet it has been buried,hasn't it?
As a bloke who I have a lot of respect for said recently on another forum:
Originally Posted by Good bloke
It's better to keep one's mouth closed and have people think you're a fool, rather than open it and confirm the fact....
QF1 @ BKK appeared in the QF CRM program over a couple of years for a few different reasons. It still gets a mention now and then these days although I haven't been involved in the CRM program at QF now for nearly two years. Buried? Hardly. Have the crews who were around at the time taken the lessons to heart? My estimation is that they have. Did those crew who joined since then who were part of the CRM courses that I facilitated also take the lessons to heart- most of them did although a few fail to see the organisational factors in the prang and see it simply as the one poor decision right at the end. Still, even they take THAT particular lesson from it.
About the only thing I agree with is your last statement. That being the case though, why are we happy to endorse an organisation in the group that does 'less' training than all the rest. This is the double standard that I don't get from many contributors to this forum. We're all too happy to say 'no one is better than anyone else' but no one wants to advocate that additional training makes us better (the prang rates can show this). People like IT are more than happy to point to the cock ups at QF as testimony to the fact that training doesn't help- or at least it didn't in QFs case- but don't actually contribute to the discussion on what level of training is appropriate.
DJ had a rumoured 50% failure rate for command training recently. Many contributors to various forums cited inadequate experience and inadequate training. QF had an equally horrendous rate in the mid '90s. Do we still think that 'we're all equal' or maybe, just maybe does the amount of training have something to do with it.
So, pissing contest aside between 'sky-gods' (what a highly offensive term) and others, what is an adequate training program for upgrade? Is QF over training by believing (stupidly) that the increased training gives a better product or is J* on a winner here by doing less training but still getting the required numbers? Is there pressure (inadvertent or otherwise) on the trainers at carriers where less training is done to get the people through? Is the standard being assessed the same or is there a difference?
The reality is that none of us know the answer to that with any degree of surety although I suspect there are a few in QF and probably J* who do through having been involved in both training regimes- HC is across at J* isn't he GB? I'd bet money that none of them actually post here on PPRUNE though.