PDA

View Full Version : Another Qantas incident


Ken Borough
3rd Nov 2009, 06:35
Will air safety in Australia be reformed promptly, or after a disaster?
November 3, 2009 – 5:11 pm, by Ben Sandilands

Two safety critical issues arose today, in Crikey reports about a Qantas 767 descending too low with its wheels up as it approached Sydney last Monday, and about the informal relationship between Qantas and CASA and shoddy foreign maintenance.

They raise again the question as to whether the public administration of air safety in Australia is going to be reformed promptly, or after a major crash?

The Cityflyer incident , which occurred on a Melbourne-Sydney 767 appears to be unprecedented in a modern jet airliner in terms of triggering a Ground Proximity Warning System alert telling the pilots, who have been stood down, that they were flying the jet too close to the ground without the wheels down.

The pilots realised what was happening before the warning went off, and had firewalled the throttles and commanded flap changes in a go-around procedure, but at 700 feet and dropping, the jet continued to descend before responding to their inputs.

Just how low it descended will be determined by the ATSB, which is investigating the event as a ’serious incident.’

There is an interesting clue about the sequence of events in this statement issued by Qantas this morning:

This was an extremely rare occurrence but one we have taken seriously. The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown. They responded quickly to the situation and instigated a go around. The cockpit alert coincided with their actions. There was no flight safety issue.

The incident was reported to the ATSB and the pilots were stood down. We are supporting the ATSB’s investigation and our own investigations will determine what further action might be warranted.

The reference to a ‘brief communications breakdown’ in intriguing. What the hell was going on in the cockpit of a 254 seat jet flying the premier domestic route in Australia to cause it to end up sinking toward the tarmac, wheels up and engines screaming, seconds from what could have been an extremely ugly crash?

Qantas is responsible for the flying standards and culture of the airline. No ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’. Why has this failure of standards occurred? Was it mechanical, or was it in the piloting? Qantas management and its directors are responsible for both.

It can be argued that standards at Qantas, and the degradation of its once unquestionable safety culture, became apparent in 1999 when the QF 1 service to London ploughed into a golf course off the end of a runway at Bangkok.

The use of full reverse thrust had been ‘trained out of’ pilots in order to save money through reduced wear and tear on the braking systems and wasted fuel. It was insanely stupid. Not even the lowliest carriers in the Asia Pacific hemisphere did such a wilfully dumb thing. The jet flew a crappy approach in bad visibility to the shorter runway at the Don Muang airport then in use, the captain told the co-pilot to go around, but then reached over and retarded three of the four engine throttles without telling him, resulting in a jet that didn’t know if it was landing or going around hurtling off the end of the runway at 89 knots.

What happened inside the jet in the next half hour was also a dismal farce, culminating in the appearance of the then CEO of Qantas, James Strong, on the Channel 9 Today show assuring the viewers that this was ‘a safety enhancing experience.’

It can be argued that since then Qantas has just been dead lucky, as necessary changes in work place practices and the emphasis on efficiency created a management culture that unfortunately seems to have also assigned lesser value to safety and standards.

Yes, the safety rhetoric remained. And CASA’s oversight of the airline deteriorated into the sort of informal relationships touched on by licensed engineers union federal secretary Steve Purvinas in the other Crikey story today.

Is there any room for informal reporting of safety matters between any airline and CASA? Given that there are formal procedures related to its obligations and processes, perhaps it is time to end the corporate capture of the safety regulator and enforce the rules, to the letter.

Has Flight Training suffered cuts along with the rest of the Airline? I wonder why is the mainline media so silent? Are they more concerned about "boat people" and the Melbourne Cup? Shocking.:ok:

At least the Qantas spin doctor/s don't appear to have claimed that the crew were not integral to the safe landing of the aircraft. :E:E

Transition Layer
3rd Nov 2009, 06:56
What the hell was going on in the cockpit of a 254 seat jet flying the premier domestic route in Australia to cause it to end up sinking toward the tarmac, wheels up and engines screaming, seconds from what could have been an extremely ugly crash?

Can someone take Mr. Sandilands up for a jumpseat ride and show him exactly "what the hell is going on".

Whilst I enjoy a lot of his articles which question airline management, service standards and other issues, I'd love to know what his flying background is, if any. His Plane Talking website doesn't give too much away.

The communications breakdown could have been anything, ATC, crew mis-hearing "gear" for "flap" (it has happened) or any number of things. They went round, the warning sounded, aircraft landed safely.

The system worked...didn't it?

Ken Borough
3rd Nov 2009, 07:04
TL,

Yes, "the system" ultimately did work but I think the world needs to know why these drivers got themselves into the situation they did. Why should that not be questioned as well as what may appear to be a cosy arrangement between the airline and the regulator? One does not require to be a pilot to pose these questions - no wonder a lot of you have the scant respect of many in the airline industry. Do you think you are deities and therefore enjoy infallibility?

Cheers, Ken

Arnold E
3rd Nov 2009, 07:09
NO T.L. the system didnt work, the backup did, to not question why the "system" failed in the first place is irresponible

Transition Layer
3rd Nov 2009, 07:13
Ken,

Yes the question can and should be posed by anyone, the same way I would question what happens in the Emergency Department of the local Hospital.

However, by asking "What the hell is going on", to me it smacks of disrespect and lack of understanding of the unique operating environment it is.


Arnold,

"To err is human..." It all depends what your own concept of the "system" is.

TL

Ken Borough
3rd Nov 2009, 07:17
TL,

Please don't be so precious.:ok: I am sure that what Ben asked is a milder version of what the CP or Fleet Manager uttered when they were told about it.:}:}

KB

Transition Layer
3rd Nov 2009, 07:21
Yep...true

All will be revealed in good time when a more comprehensive report is finalised.

Remark810
3rd Nov 2009, 07:32
How many more reports do we need!!??

bushy
3rd Nov 2009, 08:12
Just like GA, but with protection.

engine out
3rd Nov 2009, 08:17
I think that some people miss the point. It's not a matter of whether it was Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin, Emirates or any other airline, these things DO happen. Should they happen? No. This is why there are always back-up procedures. The question should always be WHY did it happen, and HOW can we avoid this in the future. Witch hunts and sniggering at individual airlines doesn't really help anybody, most professional pilots would breathe a sigh of relief and thank god it wasn't them this time and wait to see what they can learn. Everybody makes mistakes.

Capt Fathom
3rd Nov 2009, 08:42
Oh no!

Imperfect humans!

What is the world coming to?

Striving for 100% safety is mandatory. Achieving 100% safety is unrealistic!

The flying public will just have to be happy with us pilot's getting it 99.9% right, 99.9% of the time!

The backups will just have to cover the rest!

Bye

division1
3rd Nov 2009, 09:23
crikey,
767
firewalled throttles,
awesome.

blueloo
3rd Nov 2009, 09:40
I cant recall exactly (and they have taken out the very specific mode/warning triggers from the 767 ops manuals)



this is unlikely given QFs stable approach criteria,

...but could it have been no landing flaps (ie they had forgotten to select flap 30) so they commenced a go around, during the go around as gear was retracted the gpws was activated. (I know sometimes in the sim you can get the spurious warnings as things take their time to retract).

SeldomFixit
3rd Nov 2009, 10:16
I always have a chuckle when the M:rolleyes:asons put their funny hats on here.

flying-spike
3rd Nov 2009, 10:34
"Yes, the safety rhetoric remained. And CASA’s oversight of the airline deteriorated into the sort of informal relationships touched on by licensed engineers union federal secretary Steve Purvinas in the other Crikey story today."

"Is there any room for informal reporting of safety matters between any airline and CASA? Given that there are formal procedures related to its obligations and processes, perhaps it is time to end the corporate capture of the safety regulator and enforce the rules, to the letter."

One sensationalist reporting on another sensationalist reporting on a rumour whispered to him by unionist.

Now there's a sound basis for a witch hunt. What next Mr Sandilands, "How speed cameras are ripping off motorists", "Top 100 hundred suburbs for your real estate dollar", "Do beauty creams really work".

You really are a hack

Bo777
3rd Nov 2009, 11:21
Cjack
More like Ken and Ben.

blueloo
Agreed.

ozineurope
3rd Nov 2009, 12:32
Skip - 'Let alone on an RPT flight full of unsuspecting punters fat, dumb and happy coz they believe buying a QF ticket assures they'll arrive in one piece.'

Isn't that what happened? It was because of the crew's ability to react in a timely and efficient manner that led to this occurrence being successfully resolved. What the details are that led to the aircraft and crew being in less than optimum landing configuration is yet to be determined.

I dont particularly like QF as an airline but I do have respect for their flight crews and the safety attitudes of the crews. What went wrong? I dont know but I do not think that we should hang people to out to dry just because they fly for QF and before the FACTS are known.

It is easy to judge, blame and convict sitting here at a keyboard. I am unaware of any positive lessons being learnt by doing so though.

Travelair
3rd Nov 2009, 13:15
Didn´t know the 767 has a firewall!!! Maybe they meant pressure bulkhead but got confused...is it a Cessna or a Boeing?....ah what the hell... Plus on a normal go around the autothrottle commands for a 2000fpm climb, seldom requiring full EPR. Someday they will get it right? :bored:

Tair:D

denabol
3rd Nov 2009, 17:03
Steve Creedy has a big story on the incident in the Australian too. Sounds like there is something to be worried about.

Qantas pilots forgot to lower wheels | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26302353-601,00.html)

chookcooker
3rd Nov 2009, 17:17
Wow, crew should be commended for both
"firewalling"
"throttles"
Neither of which exist on a 767.
Did they push the pitch lever up as well?

skol
3rd Nov 2009, 17:36
Big deal.
Hands up all pilots who have forgotten to select the gear down at least once in their career.

That's settled that then.

av8trflying
3rd Nov 2009, 19:50
QANTAS has stood down two pilots after a Boeing 767 landing in Sydney came within 700ft of the ground before the flight crew realised they had not lowered the plane's undercarriage.

The airline and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau have launched investigations into the October 26 incident. The pilots are due to be interviewed by authorities on Friday.

The crew on the Melbourne-Sydney CityFlyer (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=5014090&as=news&ac=travel&r=seealso&q=Melbourne-Sydney CityFlyer)service apparently recognised the problem and had started go-around procedures when they received a "gear too low" aural warning from the aircraft's enhanced ground proximity warning system.

It is understood investigators are looking at possible human error and a communication breakdown between the first officer and captain about who was lowering the landing gear.

According to a former Boeing 767 pilot, a crew on an instrument approach would normally start lowering the undercarriage when the plane was between 2000ft and 1500ft in order to ensure that it met requirements that the aircraft was stable and configured to land at 1000ft.

In visual conditions, the aircraft needed to be stable by 500ft, but lowering the gear at 700ft or even at 1000ft was still far too late, the pilot said.

Landing gear problems or gear-up situations were involved in 15 per cent of airline hull-loss accidents last year, according to an analysis by the International Air Transport Association.

But Qantas said yesterday that a crew failing to lower the undercarriage was extremely rare and it was taking the incident seriously. "The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown," a spokeswoman said.

"They responded quickly to the situation and instigated a go-around. The cockpit alert coincided with their actions. There was no flight safety issue.

"The incident was reported to the ATSB and the pilots were stood down. We are supporting the ATSB's investigation and our own investigations will determine what further action might be warranted."

Keg
3rd Nov 2009, 19:59
"throttles"
Neither of which exist on a 767.

Then why do we have an 'authothrottle'? Most of Boeing's terminology refers to them as throttles also. :p

I wonder how current the crew was. Thoughts are with you lads.

Altimeters
3rd Nov 2009, 20:20
See here....http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/394483-another-qantas-incident.html

lowerlobe
3rd Nov 2009, 20:30
It looks like some here are very precious questioning terminology or the phraseology used by the journalists...

Are those here arguing about semantics upset that the incident happened or that it is being questioned in the media....?
"throttles"
Neither of which exist on a 767....
Then why do we have an 'authothrottle'? Most of Boeing's terminology refers to them as throttles also
I wonder how current the crew was. Thoughts are with you lads.
I agree with Keg....

regitaekilthgiwt
3rd Nov 2009, 20:39
but at 700 feet

cause it to end up sinking toward the tarmac, wheels up and engines screaming, seconds from what could have been an extremely ugly crash?

FFS, how many seconds away Ben like 55?! Thats more like a minute u twit.

Oh, theres not that much to say about that story except the crew made what would have been an honest and embarrassing mistake but then did the correct thing and resolved the situation and landed safely. It was reported, correct channels alerted, it will be reviewed, reasons for the occurrence identified, then if deemed necessary a change to the system/procedure may take place. So shit, I need more to write about at I couldn't sensationalise that enough. I know...role in QF1 again...:rolleyes::ugh::yuk:

I used to read your stuff and even agree with some of it Ben but if your articles on the flying operations side of things are so bad and off the mark it begs the question how accurate your other articles are and as such I won't bother reading any again.

Good Day.

frigatebird
3rd Nov 2009, 20:54
I'll get my post count up too.. and just to prove I go looking at different levels to see reactions.. Whats a wibble mean? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif

Tempo
3rd Nov 2009, 20:56
What's more dangerous.....a crew error resulting in a safe G/A from 700ft or a journalist armed with a LITTLE bit of knowledge about the industry writing an article full of bullsh*t and sensationalism.

What about a recent incident over in the states Ben of a carrier landing on a taxiway???? Or the other incident of the crew overflying the destination. Surely they are more aviation newsworthy that this crap.

3 Holer
3rd Nov 2009, 21:01
This thread is a waste of bandwidth :E

lowerlobe
3rd Nov 2009, 21:22
Whats a wibble mean?
I think it means when some people are more upset about something being reported than it happening in the first place....

What's the phrase...."You're only doing something wrong if others find out about it.."

Mr. Hat
3rd Nov 2009, 21:34
Mistakes happen we're human. It would be a terrible time for the guys up the front. Glad to hear it turned out okay. We all remember the Ansett 74 accident in the early 90's. I still cringe thinking about it now.

I don't think there is any need to go off at Ben Sandilands. He writes better articles than most who really write only aviaton infomercials (a future selling abmasters on Kerri Ann).

Tempo
3rd Nov 2009, 21:44
It would be a terrible time for the guys up the front. Glad to hear it turned out okay.

Assuming there were NO other problems leading to this situation (arriving at 700ft without the gear down) then it is quite simply a stuff up. It was always going to 'turn out OK' as I would seriously doubt ANY pilot working for ANY airline in Australia would attempt to land from this situation (putting the gear down first of course). Whilst not knowing SOPs for other airlines, it's a no brainer for QF ops....go around (must be stable and configured etc by 500' in VMC). So, it was always going to result in a missed approach which remember is in the NORMAL section of the FCOM.

People make mistakes. We have all done it. This crew will go away...eat some humble pie and accept responsibility for probably falling victim to becoming complacent on the old CitiFlyer route.

rmcdonal
3rd Nov 2009, 21:45
Dam these sorts of things always lead to another procedure change and an exercise in the next sim session. :ugh:
Where is that GPWS inhibit button….. :E

SPEEDI
3rd Nov 2009, 21:51
Sorry im jsut a simple flight instructor and dont understand the workings of an airline, but is it fair or standard practice to stand down pilots pending an investigation? Just like the people have said on this forum to Err is human and therefore a simple error like this surely doesnt constitute such actions? Sure if the aircraft continued and landed there could be a cause for concern, however due to practices in place and the actions of these pilots they completed the correct actions to stop all the holes lining up.
Anyways im jsut venting feel free to criticise the simpleton:)

zube
3rd Nov 2009, 21:51
Yep.
Knowing how the lawyers run the show you'll be flying around with the gear locked down soon.

av8trflying
3rd Nov 2009, 21:57
Capt Fathom,

Thats why I didnt make a comment, just passing on news. I wasnt aware that a thread had already started. My bad.

Keg
3rd Nov 2009, 22:03
Speedi, QF put out a burst recently to their crew articulating the methodology utilised in the aftermath of an incident such as this. The stand down is not a punitive action in the first instance but it does facilitate the investigation being completed in a timely manner and without the crew being subsequently distracted by having this hang over the heads.

Anyone recall what the weather was doing last Monday? Breezy IIRC? Rainy too? Wasn't that the day that we had a bunch of storms and such through Sydney? Anyone got a TAF for the day? If the weather was pretty ordinary I can see a particular chain of events that could lead to this.

Lodown
3rd Nov 2009, 22:12
About now, I'm glad I don't fly for an airline. Long periods of time with little to do but sit in a chair monitoring systems with brief periods at each end of the flight where you're supposed to be infallible and at the top of your game and under surveillance for performance the entire time. One little misstep and it's a week or two off with knuckle-rapping, paperwork and retraining.

Mr.Buzzy
3rd Nov 2009, 22:16
At least there is some support being demonstrated by peers. An encouraging sign.

Good luck to the crew concerned, this sort of thing can happen to anyone.:ok:

Pi55 off journos and be grateful that systems created by the same pilot group were robust enough to acknowledge and cater for human fallibility and give you something, no matter how menial, to blab about!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Mr. Hat
3rd Nov 2009, 22:31
It was always going to 'turn out OK'

Not always more things can go wrong. I'm just glad noone was hurt and no metal was bent.

Unfortunately now the regulator will have to go away and dream up something that will make them look like they're doing something.

Gobetter
3rd Nov 2009, 23:05
I refer every person here who has bagged out Qantas. Each and everyone of you probably fly for other carriers and take these opportunities to have a go at a company you probably got rejected from.

To these people, I would like to refer you to post number 8 on this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/393826-jetstar-plane-evacuated-after-engine-fire.html

One day, page 3 already.

The incident I am sure is not the first, nor will it be the last. I hope the crew don't get too stressed out about this, as these things happen. They will be back in the air again soon displaying the professionalism the White Roo carries with it.

Keg
3rd Nov 2009, 23:23
Each and everyone of you probably fly for other carriers and take these opportunities to have a go at a company you probably got rejected from.

That's really not very helpful. :ugh:

Capt_SNAFU
3rd Nov 2009, 23:38
Gobetter you made a good point ref the media jumping on QF. BUT you have got to be FUKCING KIDDING ME with:

Each and everyone of you probably fly for other carriers and take these opportunities to have a go at a company you probably got rejected from.

Neil Armstrong, Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, Eric Brown etc must have nothing on you.

Wake up! QF is a good airline and I'm proud to work for it but it is not the be all and end all of flying.

By George
4th Nov 2009, 00:00
Nice to see at least one QF pilot without the 'airs'. Thanks 'SNAFU' and sorry to see the guys caught out, can happen to anyone. I still think of the "PUFF" checks when landing even though I've been on Jets for a long time. Strange the Tower didn't notice it, assuming it was visual.

Keg
4th Nov 2009, 00:15
Hmmm. The weather report by the BOM (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/200910/html/IDCJDW2124.200910.shtml) shows it was windy, cloudy and rainy all day with 73mm for the day. Anyone with TTFs from the day?

Groaner
4th Nov 2009, 00:16
Y'know, the thing that gets me is the Qantas auto-response "There was no risk" and "There was no flight safety issue".

That's the same as saying "There are no holes in my Swiss cheese." When there clearly were in this case.

The implication is that Qantas at some level might not take this seriously enough.

In safety management, this doesn't bode well.

breakfastburrito
4th Nov 2009, 00:29
Keg, I think this may be the page your looking for: YSSY history 26 October 2009 (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/YSSY/2009/10/26/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA)

Douglas Mcdonnell
4th Nov 2009, 00:30
Captn Snafu you I got a good laugh out of your post!. Gobetter probably doesn't know who chuck Yeager and Bob hoover are. There but for the grace of god go most of us, unless of course you are Gobetter.

Good luck to those involved.

DM

fury
4th Nov 2009, 00:52
Capt SNAFU....... you da man!!!!!

priapism
4th Nov 2009, 00:55
Bloody hell , the gods of the sky working for the centre of aviation excellence in the world have stuffed up - what is the world coming to!!

Flight Detent
4th Nov 2009, 01:25
For the greater part of my flying career, I ALWAYS used the acronym

"FUC" Check complete as a final safeguard against exactly this happenning.

F - flaps
U - undercarriage
C - clearance

With these three points covered, not much can go wrong!

I repeated this at each and every final approach, after all else was complete, especially in the sim, and was not caught out, thank God (at least in this area of operations).

Also, I always thought the EGPWS warning went "too low gear" not as quoted in the Australian article.

And yes, 767s do have firewalls, just not in the flight deck.

What happened to the, 1/ uncancellable gear warning with more than flaps 10 selected (at least it's that on the 737) and, 2/ the landing checklist!

Cheers...FD...:confused:

ampclamp
4th Nov 2009, 01:44
If it was the day I am thinking it was the weather in Sydney was horizontal.
Mistakes were likely made and the drivers will be feeling very poorly right now.

Not sure it was grd prox warning alone, maybe config/landing warning coming on at 800'.Its been a while but fairly sure.

Harbison tends to editorialise these days not report.That is a sign of the times.Balanced reporting does not rate a mention in many places.

abc1
4th Nov 2009, 02:09
Give the crew the professional courtesy they deserve, and lets wait for the official report before resorting to airmaship pointers!(as that demonstrates the complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the demands required in today's airline flying)

I wouldn't be surprised after a double Melbourne, few days in a row, with consecutive early's and minimum rest, and no doubt a host of other issues, that when the config warning should have done its job it didn't.

Interestingly how incidents/accidents have skyrocketed internationally over the last two years. They have been increasing proportionately with no other than with the mentality of today's management practices. This has been highlighted by the US Airways Pilot- but all is falling on deaf ears!

Joyce's mentor has had the same proportionate run of incidents over in Europe, but O'leary will of-course dismiss that and instead lay it all at the feet of the ''overpaid under-worked primadona's''(his words)pilots.
The bankers gave us the financial crisis, now its the turn of airline management.

frigatebird
4th Nov 2009, 02:20
Thanks lowerlobe for the discription.. I had reasoned it out as a cross between 'wobble' and 'scribble' - which I thought was appropriate for this reporting. Agree with tl in posts # 2 & 5, and fathom in # 11. The time long ago when coming into the circuit I got distracted by close proximity traffic for normal gear extension has been with me since. Caught it on base, well before the final 'Rich, Fine, Green' checks, but is something you remember. and stress when flying with co-pilots - Don't Allow Yourself To Be Distracted At Critical Times. The reporting, unfortunately, we will just have to put up with, as it is a sign of the sensationalist Hollywood and T.V. time mentality, just as we have no power to threaten polititians with, for sensible decision making, until an election is imminent. Once they're in, they're in until voted out !

Gunger
4th Nov 2009, 02:30
Probably too busy trying to find another annoying light to turn on for their taxi into the bay :rolleyes:

framer
4th Nov 2009, 02:37
It's easy to do man, real easy. It just requires the right combo of distractions, workload, fatigue, and experience. Workload and distractions can be effectively managed if you have experience and are not fatigued.
Fatigue can be managed if you have minimal distractions and workload. Experience is not required if you have none of the above :}

rockarpee
4th Nov 2009, 02:58
To be part of this aviation brother/sisterhood, it gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling. Or is that a feeling of total disgust at some of these posts. You pack of wolves are a disgrace to the pilot community.:yuk:

zube
4th Nov 2009, 03:10
There's got to be more to this than meets the eye. It is a very rare event in modern RPT aircraft due to the aircraft systems design and SOP's.

QF SOP's require Landing config by 1000' RA in IMC. Can you have landing flap without gear, without a bloody great horn going off? That's before considering the EGWPS at 700 ft. Keg you're the man who'd know, being on the 767.

Gunger
4th Nov 2009, 03:19
Sure I wasn't there and all the stuff about 'it can happen to anyone... bla bla bla' but...

I don't care about how many distractions there were going on at the time. If the crew were so distracted about something else that they simply forgot to extend the gear they shouldn't have been continuing the approach anyway. Go around sort out all the issues that are preventing you from operating to the SOP's and start again.

Two pretty serious incidents in recent times if you ask me. The first being the 'almost' fuel deprived flight from PER to SYD (see ATSB report). Now this. :sad:

Mr Whippy
4th Nov 2009, 04:12
See ATSB report here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-066.aspx)

Nowhere is it stated that the crew forgot to select gear down. Pure speculation - maybe the journos have concluded that from the egpws warning.

Wait for the final report before writing the crew off.

Keg
4th Nov 2009, 04:48
Can you have landing flap without gear, without a bloody great horn going off?

Nope. Given the ATSB report is thin on the actual details it's not exactly clear what the config was.

blow.n.gasket
4th Nov 2009, 05:11
I'm also wondering if continual worrying about the future, continual assigned leave,continual fear campaigns by managment to destabilise the pilot's resolve, the continual changes in procedures, all in the name of cost reductions and apparently change for changes sake had anything to do with this?:eek:

John Citizen
4th Nov 2009, 05:25
There might be some truth in the rumour that you need to do a wheels up landing of some sort to get into Qantas. It looks like the practice still continues amongst the pilots even when in Qantas. :eek:

I am sure many off you have seen the GA monopoly board with the square "wheels up landing, straight to the Qantas hold file". :ok:

Before you all start having a go at me, I am not the one who designed this monopoly board. I am only pointing something out.

Now sorry if offended anyone, :{ just a bit of humour.

I admit I make mistakes just like any other pilot and I aware this can can happen to anyone and any airline, including me :eek:

Best wishes to the pilots involved and I hope we can all learn something from this. :ok:

Manuel Reversion
4th Nov 2009, 05:55
Well Blown ,welcome to the real world of aviation and NONE of us are immuned and that includes the mighty red tail.

FFG 02
4th Nov 2009, 05:56
As I read these posts an ad for tonights "7pm Project has come on to discuss the growing pilot error epidemic....grrh.

What about when the media get their facts wrong - Journalist error epidemic.

Lifer01
4th Nov 2009, 06:15
Can you have landing flap without gear, without a bloody great horn going off?
As has been said, not a chance. With flaps in the landing range and the gear not down and locked you'll generate a full landing config warning.

My guess is the flaps were in a different position (and the gear not down), so the config warning only happened at 800 ft - but that is just a guess :)

Time will tell. I've always thought Ben's writings exposed himself to abuse from knowledgeable people.

flying-spike
4th Nov 2009, 06:39
Don't forget Kingair rolling through the holding point!

Bo777
4th Nov 2009, 06:59
I wonder if Ben has read the journalism code of ethics by the AJA? It might do him some good. Code of ethics and journalism in the same sentence ... what an oxymoron!:}

For all those professional pilots (not the QF or pilot bashers) on here, time will tell. Don't jump to conclusions without the facts. "Discretion is the better part of valour".

7378FE
4th Nov 2009, 07:08
QANTAS really should have better functions to invite journo's to.
It will keep them off thier back. :)

Hugh Jarse
4th Nov 2009, 07:15
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i6/HugeArse/GAMonopoly-1.jpg

John Citizen, do you mean this? :}

Obie
4th Nov 2009, 07:57
When I joined an Australian airline as a very junior F/O some 46 yrs ago, a wise old DC3 Captain and ex WW2 Spitfire pilot said to me..." Son, let me tell you three things you should never forget if you want to have a successful airline career "...

1. Never forget to put the wheels down!
2. Never run out of fuel!
3. Never forget that the airline is NOT here to service the pax, rather, the pax are here to service the airline!

I can still feel his big hand on my puny shoulder all those years ago. How a big bugger like him fitted into a Spit I'll never know. He died a couple of weeks ago!

Keep his advice in mind and you should have a successful career!

GaryGnu
4th Nov 2009, 08:45
Groaner,

Y'know, the thing that gets me is the Qantas auto-response "There was no risk" and "There was no flight safety issue".

That's the same as saying "There are no holes in my Swiss cheese." When there clearly were in this case.


May I suggest, that if you want to talk in terms of the Reason model, the Qantas spin doctor response was really saying that the holes in the swiss cheese didn't line up.

For whatever reason a go-around was performed followed by a safe landing. One of the defences in place prevented an attempted landing in an unsafe configuration.

A37575
4th Nov 2009, 10:00
unsuspecting punters fat, dumb and happy coz they b

Watch the language. You can be sued for using sterotyping in terms of medical disabilities. Thank your lucky stars religion of the punters wasn't mentioned lest fatwa's issued:=

Dragun
4th Nov 2009, 10:52
Well the ATSB report states that they commenced the go-around due to being incorrectly configured and DURING the go-around, the EGPWS alert of 'too low gear' sounded. As far as I'm aware the EGPWS alert 4A only goes off below 500'AGL and at a speed of less than about 160kts. As the report states that this alert sounded, they must have ducked below these qualifiers during the go around and not commenced the go around due to the EGPWS gear alert. From memory though, a 'too low terrain' alert should have sounded before the 'too low gear' alert somewhere between 1000-500AGL (dependent on their IAS)?

Hard luck lads, thoughts are with you. Hope the report shows it to be favourable in your direction as any of us could be caught in this situation with the right combination of factors.

Cheers

Greek God
4th Nov 2009, 11:10
Perhaps they were too engrossed with crewing issues on their laptops?

Seriously, chin up chaps not exactly a non-event but not quite the disaster the media would have you believe. I hope the media circus doesn't influence the outcome.

Fratemate
4th Nov 2009, 11:29
There seems to be quite a few "how could this type of thing ever happen in an RPT airline", written by Disgusted Of Microsoft. Let me paint a picture and see if we're al impervious:

767 coming down the slope at Flap 5, Vref+40 and the speed's beginning to go a bit high due lack of headwind (or whatever). Okay, let's select Flap 20. I know, all you perfectionists; don't use the flaps for drag :rolleyes: but I'm flying in the real world. Now, we all know how we are programmed to do certain things. The normal call is 'gear down, flap 20', so you can see where I'm going here. When not sitting in a comfortable armchair, where evrything is surrealy perfect, the mindest of a normal pilot would be that Flap 20 normally means he has has the gear down, so the bells are not ringing in his head telling him something's wrong. The other thing is the checklist; well that always comes with 'gear down, flap 20' doesn't it? So, once again, cranial alarm bells are silent.

It doesn't take a lot for something like this to happen because we do so many 'actions' so ofetn that we become programmed to know that when such-and-such has been done, then something else must have been done (one reason I always write silly notes-to-self when doing a Flap 15 take-off, for example).

Having got into an undesireable situation the crew did the correct thing, they went around. Yes, Mr Journalist, amazingly the aircraft did continue its descent for a short period. If you look up Mr Newton and 'Gravity' you'll find a few clues as to the reason.

Qantas have done the right thing, I believe, by suspending the pilots while they investigate the incident, This protects the pilots and the airline and allows far easier 'probing' by the relevant parties. The reasons for the ommission will be established and hopefully published in order to educate those who might do exactly the same one day. The pilots, IF REQUIRED, will undergo additional training to prevent it ever happening to them again and you can bet your arse it won't.

So, yes, we are all human and things like this will always happen because, as has already been pointed out, we are not 100% perfect. Those who think they are are in far a big fall but I'm yet to meet one of those pilots. It's what we do when we get into an imperfect situation that's important and these guys did the right thing.

LetsGoRated
4th Nov 2009, 12:41
No facts. Lets hang the crew!! Any real pro flight deck crew would empathize with these guys!! This is our operating environment and we always go out of our way to screw things up!!! Talk about trial by media!! I cannot think of any other profession that goes out of their way to fix and resolve percieved/actual inadequacies to the betterment of public safety. Before anyone says "medicine". Think again!! Give these people the professional courtesy that they deserve. In all likelyhood, you, your family or friends, may have been in their hands domestically or around the world without incident for years! That goes for you Ben!!!!

FFRATS
4th Nov 2009, 12:56
Normal SOP Con Fig. Sequence and Calls:-
“Flap 1”-“Flap 5”-“ GearDown -F20”-“ Flap30 -LND C’list”
These calls reduce the “Speed Bug” 20Kts each call in a 4 step configuration.
However the Flap settings avail are:- 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30. ( 6 step/settings possible)
15 / 20 and 25/ 30 have same “Bug” settings on ASI to fly.
If on APP at “Flap 5” and you’re a bit fast for F20 you called for “Flap15” to configure(help slow down), the PNF would set the same ASI “Bug” as Flap 20 but the gear would not be down, as per the normal sequence of configuration. As PF you could forget the Bug setting is for F15 not "Gear Down-F20" so your next call is “Flaps30-LND C’list” DOH..... now your below 1500-1300' without even Gear or Flap 20.

FFRATS

bushy
4th Nov 2009, 12:58
I remember once listening to a talk by a psycologist from Farnborough who had been involved in aviation accident investigation. He told a story of one crew that did land wheels up, and the captain commented "there's something wrong with the brakes"
He(the psycologist) apparently investigated a number of wheels up incidents, and remarked that in almost every occasion the crew had gone through the checklist and called "gear down three greens" and then landed with no wheels.
I can remember scaring myself a couple of times,but always got them down. I bet most pilots can too.
I made a strict rule for myself and my pilots."when you see a runway ahead check wheels." This was a double check, independent of checklists, automatics etc.

There are those who have, and those who will. I sympathise with these pilots.

Lodown
4th Nov 2009, 13:37
To be fair, we've been speculating only about the crew. How about a little speculation on Ben Sandilands? Perhaps he'd been taking a break for a few days with a fishing pole, some adult beverages and sunscreen. Upon his return to the keyboard, he was aghast to realize that needed a topic FAST to fill up space and make his deadline and there wasn't a lot on his desk to choose from. Voila!!! The item that was the simplest and fastest to elaborate upon with 250 words was really a non-event, but it filled a space. Journos have been making mountains out of molehills since pencils were invented.

blueloo
4th Nov 2009, 14:11
He(the psycologist) apparently investigated a number of wheels up incidents, and remarked that in almost every occasion the crew had gone through the checklist and called "gear down three greens" and then landed with no wheels.

And now we mindlessly (obviously not meant to be mindlessly) say "CHECKED" to every mode annunciation change. We do so much unnecessary yabbering that it is easy to see why stuff is missed.

Farrell
4th Nov 2009, 15:57
"There was no flight safety issue.

The incident was reported to the ATSB and the pilots were stood down."

Why stand them down then?

Shark Patrol
4th Nov 2009, 17:52
Farrell,

There has already been a lot of specualtion and trial by media about this incident. With an investigation pending (or underway), if you were one of the pilots involved, would you really feel on top of your game and ready to go to work??

Tempo
4th Nov 2009, 18:59
Loved the media spin last night in response to the companies statement of a 'brief communication breakdown'. Sandra Sully seemed to enjoy stating that both pilots thought the other pilot had put the wheels down. This is so absurd and so frustrating. Sure I understand that the company needs to give a statement to the media in terms that the public can understand, but surely they could have given something a little more concise (obviously with the investigation underway they cannot reveal too much).

denabol
4th Nov 2009, 19:30
Seems to me as a travelling bystander with family that work in an airline that pilots think the media is at fault for reporting that the A.T.S.B is doing an investigation.

If they weren't doing that, then their wouldn't be any reporters writing stories. Right. So the question is should these pilots be investigated. Not how stupid the reporters are. It seems to me this is about how stupid the pilots were unless there is some other explanation for what happened, and whatever it was, dont the SLF have the right to be told about it. I'm sick of the crap in public life, even out here, where everything that goes wrong in local government is the fault of The Land or the Highlands Times for reporting that the councillors lost tens of millions of rate payer funds. Its the fcking fault of the idiots running the show, not the papers. If someone flies badly, its the fault of the pilot, not the dumb bimbo on television.

Should this be done in secret. If something goes wrong in an airline I want to know what it was, not have it hidden away. When the fire fighters screwed up, and people died in the Canberra fires down the road from here everyone who was threatened by the risk of bushfires wanted to know all about the clowns that did squat while everything went out of control for half a day of stuffing around and it all went up in flames. Same with pilots who apparently forget what they are doing. Who fkd up and how is the only thing that matters.

2csonTriple7
4th Nov 2009, 20:04
They were probably too busy working out their new crew schedules on their laptops to even notice that the gear wasn't down........ yeah right.

The safety backups worked and they reacted accordingly.

Sunfish
4th Nov 2009, 20:37
To those who say that this incident is a non event, I beg to differ.

The holes in the Swiss cheese almost lined up. The GPWS went off.

Now suppose that the GPWS had failed due to inadequate maintenance, or the crew were busy dealing with some other issue caused by inadequate maintenance and ignored the warning?

Qantas obviously does not subscribe to the "holes in the cheese" theory of accident prevention because they have not done their utmost to close all the holes.

YoDawg
4th Nov 2009, 20:53
The holes in the Swiss cheese

I wonder how the Swiss feel about being associated with so many air disasters. Not very PC always blaming the Swiss.

Maybe the should call it Chinese Cheese. The Chinese crash a lot more than the Swiss.

Bo777
4th Nov 2009, 21:15
Denabol et al.
First of all the investigation is pending, so making misleading or ill-informed malicious statements (which, at times, the media and others do on here) without the full facts is borderline defamation.
Secondly there appears to be unwarranted prejudice against QF. When a simple and necessary diversion is required it makes front page news. However, when other carriers have had major incidents, the other day where an aircraft landed on a taxiway and earlier this year in melbourne a tail strike, little to no information is reported. Why?

blueloo
4th Nov 2009, 21:17
I wonder how the Swiss feel about being associated with so many air disasters.

Maybe the Swiss should stop making cheese with holes in it. :}


It seems to me this is about how stupid the pilots were unless there is some other explanation for what happened

Well maybe, but for stupid people, they did manage to get a fairly complicated jet from A to B. They did have a problem - self induced although maybe chinese cheese was involved :} - recovered safely and made it to the destination safely. Not bad for stupid people...... :ugh:

zube
4th Nov 2009, 21:18
Fratemate.

Well put. I think all pilots are interested to see how the chain of events occured so they can learn something. This is how aviation is.

The journos and Hate Qantas push are just here for a bit of sensation on a slow news week, ( and by hell it IS a slow news week) and a snigger.

regitaekilthgiwt
4th Nov 2009, 21:25
Sunfish,

To quote the ATSB report:

"During the commencement of the missed approach the "too low gear" GPWS warning activated." (my bold)

So the GPWS did not cause them to do the go around they were already doing it.

Come back when you know what you are talking about and stop bashing Qantas crews with comments like:

Now suppose....crew were busy dealing with some other issue caused by inadequate maintenance and ignored the warning?

GIVE ME STRENGTH!! Yeah, just ignore warnings.. are you serious?

This incident is not a non event, a mistake was made, corrected, and an investigation will follow to determine reasons in order to help the said mistake not happen again and life will go on. Building straw men won't help anyone.

carbonneutral
4th Nov 2009, 21:27
Denabol,

I dont think any of us have any issue with the facts being reported. Problem is that at this stage the only facts out are that a 767 did a missed approach because of a configuration warning, and that its being investigated.
So when it's reported on the news that the pilots thought the other one had put the gear down, that the plane wasn't responding to inputs after setting go around thrust, that the pilots had been fired etc etc, you can see why we'd have a go at the media. Until the ATSB report is out its a best purely speculative and shows the media not only don't know what happened, but also have no idea about the operation or the investigative process. Why not wait until the ATSB report is out before we lump the guys in with the clowns in local government :P

GaryGnu
4th Nov 2009, 21:28
Debanol,


Seems to me as a travelling bystander with family that work in an airline that pilots think the media is at fault for reporting that the A.T.S.B is doing an investigation.

If they weren't doing that, then their wouldn't be any reporters writing stories. Right. So the question is should these pilots be investigated. Not how stupid the reporters are.

No pilot worth his/her salt would object to the press reporting of an ATSB investigation. What is objectionable is the inuendo and sensationalism that goes with it. If the press just stuck to the facts all they would have to work with is the ATSB extract (linked above) and any possible response by Qantas. The problem with that is it would be a little five line filler story or 5 second read by the presenter before moving onto other things. To be "newsworthy" an incident has to be much more sensational than that.

The incident is being investigated, not the pilots. The crew have been stood down as per normal procedure in these cases. There is a proven process to follow when these things happen, it is not very exciting but the problem is when reported accurately it does not make very good copy.

regitaekilthgiwt
4th Nov 2009, 21:45
um sorry carbonneutral,

Problem is that at this stage the only facts out are that a 767 did a missed approach because of a configuration warning, and that its being investigated.


Unless you have some inside facts which you may well have, the only facts in public that I am aware of at the moment are off the ATSB website which state:

Passing 700 ft on approach into Sydney, the crew commenced a missed approach due to the aircraft being incorrectly configured for landing. During the commencement of the missed approach the "too low gear" GPWS warning activated.

From that report there is no mention of the crew reacting to a warning and initiating a go around. The warning was "TOO LOW GEAR" this is very different to the "GEAR NOT DOWN" warning that is received when landing flaps are selected and any of the landing gear is not down and locked.


I agree with the rest of your post Carbonn. and also wish the media would just report the facts -dreaming-. I don't think everyones speculation on this site does any good on that side of things, but it will always happen and can't be helped.



To others..

I didn't even know the Chinese made cheese

Sonny Hammond
4th Nov 2009, 21:59
Whatever the cause, if crew are screwing up and there are factors relating to the way airlines are being run these days, the only way things will change is if a bit if dirty laundry gets aired.

The public have to know what they are getting with this era of modern airline management.. only then will management skip to the popular beat.

Or blame the pilots, either way.

carbonneutral
4th Nov 2009, 22:26
regitaekilthgiwt,

Yep, sorry, no inside info, just a poor choice of words:\ I'd fit in pretty well with these reporters... :p

regitaekilthgiwt
4th Nov 2009, 22:34
Haha, yeah now worries, wasn't meant to be a nasty reply, just trying to keep the facts staight! You are much more humble than any reporter in admitting poor choice of words:} Cheers mate

Socket
4th Nov 2009, 22:51
I think its pretty obvious that SOMETHING went wrong in that cockpit, the ATSB investigation will determine what it was, end of story.

My concern is the statement from QANTAS that it wasnt a safety issue. YES IT WAS. This is very indicative of the culture that has become so embedded in Qantas managment and should be of concern to everyone.

I couldnt give a toss who wrote the story, or what their aviation background is, but when they quote Qantas stating an obvious falsehood I will sit up, take notice and wonder why CASA and/or the ATSB arent correcting the public record.

framer
4th Nov 2009, 23:11
If someone flies badly, its the fault of the pilot,

Ummmmm, stick to being a travelling bystander
mate, you obviously don't understand anything about how aviation became as safe as it is.

stubby jumbo
4th Nov 2009, 23:28
....'just caught the morning news.

Latest "revelation" :eek::eek:

"There are now reports that the pilots were having an argument"

"Reports"........what reports, who said it , when to who, when,where????

I can smell another Today Tonight "expose" brewing.

campdoag
5th Nov 2009, 00:34
Nah mate not arguing, I heard they were laughing too hard they ran out of time to configure.

Laughing so hard about what a bunch FARKWITS all these ill informed, under qualified, plane spotting, private pilot, know it all, tryhard, has been corksuckers that post on this forum are.

Please can someone start a non company specific forum where the membership is vetted to only allow professional aviators to post. Only then will we be able to constructively discuss these matters. The rest of you idiots may in turn learn something by just simply reading........ Instead of berating us with your bullshut and drivel!!!! :D

indamiddle
5th Nov 2009, 00:48
heard a rumor that the reason they forgot to lower the gear was an intense discussion that the chinese are lacto intolerant and if they do make cheese does it have holes in it?

Icarus2001
5th Nov 2009, 01:01
Please can someone start a non company specific forum where the membership is vetted to only allow professional aviators to post. Only then will we be able to constructively discuss these matters. The rest of you idiots may in turn learn something by just simply reading........ Instead of berating us with your bullshut and drivel!!!! Here here. I have been wondering about this for along time. It will do at least two things. Firstly cut out more than 50% of the drivel that we have to trawl through to get to useful posts, thereby lifting the overall quality of the posts.

Pprune is/was set up as a professional pilots forum, engineers and cabin crew can have there own forum or at least be identified as such, same for ATCers but listening to a 100 hour private pliots thoughts on what SHOULD have happened in the cockpit is getting very boring.

spirax
5th Nov 2009, 01:10
I am no longer associated with the empire, so things may have changed but somehow I don't think so.

Back in the days when Ken Lewis was in charge of safety, QF published an excellent safety magazine. That got dumped about the same time he left QF and there was a 'restructure' of the then Group Safety Dept. I understand that there has been yet another 'restructure' and more experienced staff have been shown the door. Try asking any line pilots of FAs who their safety person is these days..... I would bet not many would know.

Part of any sound safety management system is a process for feedback to the troops. From what I gather this has not occurred for a number of years now.

The reason I am told that it got killed was that the PR people did not want any "dirty washing" in the public domain and this included safety material from which the staff might learn from. Maybe this lack of communication on safety matters for such a large organisation is a contributiong factor to some of the occurrences of late??? Having a safety magazne/newsletter is an essential part of having a sound safety culture. Where that culture sits now is anybody's guess!
:(:(

Viagra
5th Nov 2009, 01:33
Has Flight Training suffered cuts along with the rest of the Airline?

Gday KB,

I doubt it has any relevance to this incident, but (about 6mths ago?) as part of a cost cutting measure, the QF pilot training department finally came full circle.

Several years ago there was a department called FlightOps Training, as in Flight Ops training their own pilots and running the sim building etc..

Some time back then a decision was made to form "Group Flight Training", who ran and managed the simulators and their availability. They managed it as a resource and "sold" simulator sessions to the various departments, including FltOps, as well as outside sales (other airline companies/entities).

It was all a corporate beancounting exercise for various managers to claim they'd turned a profit/efficency , or somesuch.

The actual pilot training and checking department remained as is (some argue there is no training dept).

Following various productivity reports and efficency reviews, it was decided that , (probably 'coz there was no training) to close Group Flt Training and go back to the original system, where FltOps Training run the show and they've all moved back into the sim building again.

In a few years it will probably change again, with a different name. Something about deckchairs on submarines comes to mind..
Sorry about any thread drift, but thats the short and ill-informed version of what happened.
Cheers

Groaner
5th Nov 2009, 01:54
...doesn't mean no risk. There was at least one large hole in the cheese (the gear was not down), how do we know there wasn't another hole just lining up? Perhaps an equipment failure? (just an example, I'm not saying there was any such thing).

Not trying to start a flame war, but comments like "there was no risk" mean that someone (perhaps inadvertently) might not prioritise fixing the underlying cause high enough. Why would you if there was "no risk"?

Of course, probably the spin doctor was trying to say "backup systems prevented an accident" (there was still plenty of cheese in between the holes). But from long experience I get a much better degree of comfort from someone admitting there was a problem no matter how minor and that it was going to be fixed, than someone saying there was no problem at all.

boardpig
5th Nov 2009, 02:22
So start one then, why wait on someone else to do it?
This is an open internet forum, what the heck do you expect.
Maybe the crew room is the place to go for the kind of opinions you are after.
This argument has been done over a thousand times on proone and whilst I understand it, every opinion should be welcome, even if they are somewhat off track. :)

RedTBar
5th Nov 2009, 02:36
The incident is being investigated, not the pilots
Pull the other one because it plays jingle bells.....who else was flying the aircraft?

Until the report comes out everything we say is speculation....but to say the pilots and their actions are not being investigated is sheer rubbish.

Also the Chinese cheese with holes in it comes from yak milk in Northern China....:E

Shot Nancy
5th Nov 2009, 03:05
Chinese cheese looks like normal cheese yet is cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same and has a high melamine content.

While we are waiting for a further official report why dont we move on to more important things.

RedTBar
5th Nov 2009, 03:16
Chinese cheese looks like normal cheese yet is cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same and has a high melamine content.
Shot Nancy,but melamine is what a good communist uses to fill in the holes in the cheese so that nothing like this happens.
The taste is irrelevant to the party and any good socialist.:E

denabol
5th Nov 2009, 03:54
On second thoughts I regret comparing anything that goes wrong on an airline flight to the activities of councillors in local govt. That was down right rude.

I didn't see the offensive stuff on the tv either. Putting the fact that there is an investigation going on in the papers and the net is right I think. I found some comments from pilots including the Qantas union bloke a bit thought provoking since you do get the impression a whole set of things that should have been done by the pilots weren't done until very late in the peace.

Kangaroo Court
5th Nov 2009, 04:34
I don't think they were at peace at any time during the latter stages of the piece either.

Flying standards aren't the only thing "going down" in Australia.

framer
5th Nov 2009, 05:29
I found some comments from pilots including the Qantas union bloke a bit thought provoking since you do get the impression a whole set of things that should have been done by the pilots weren't done until very late in the peace.
Fair enough....if that turns out to be the case the question should be , and will be , 'why?'
Equipment failure?
Poorly designed SOP's?
Communication problems ?
Medical issues?
CRM issues?
Fatigue?
A combination of all/any of the above?
For all we know the crew were working through a NNC which required a different configuration for the approach and made a good call to go-round when things were looking less than 100% stable.
Maybe the flaps didn't run when selected and they asessed it, discussed it, initiated the MAP and then got the warning in the process.
Maybe they had selected the gear down and there was a micro-switch problem which gave them a config warning?
There are a thousand and one things that could have happened. I'm not suggesting any of the above occurred but can anyone say they didn't?
Framer

Capt Kremin
5th Nov 2009, 05:34
The aircraft was obviously not configured by 1000', the IFR stable approach point, or possibly not going to be properly configured by the visual stable approach point of 500'.

I don't know if they were in cloud at 1000' feet or in VMC and simply made the judgement that they weren't going to be stable by 500', but a lot of people on this thread are going to look very silly if this crew was simply going around as per SOP due to the stable approach criteria.

GaryGnu
5th Nov 2009, 06:56
RedTBar,

Until the report comes out everything we say is speculation....but to say the pilots and their actions are not being investigated is sheer rubbish.


The first part I agree with.

If second part is how you interpreted my comment then I am guilty of a clunky turn of phrase. Of course the pilots actions will be investigated, as will every other facet surrounding it.

That comment was a response to a post that concluded Who fkd up and how is the only thing that matters. That is self evidently a point of view that requires rebuttal (where was the why?). It is also a view prevalent throughout society that aviation, in particular, will have to resist if it is to maintain its mature, highly effective and informative safety investigation culture.

Everyone always wants someone to blame when something goes wrong. This is manifesting itself in any new regulation that we in aviation deal with these days, for every rule there must be someone responsible if it is not complied with. The lawyers just want someone to hang. The (now overturned) flight deck access rules were a case in point. The lawyers wrote it so the PIC was striclty liable if a flight deck door was left open/unlocked.

Spirax,

The media may have changed but I suspect you will find some airlines now do that sort of thing (crash comics/safety digest) online with secured websites.

Groaner,

I still disagree with your characterisation of the Qantas corporate communications response as quoted in the Sandilands article. The statement was:there was no flight safety issue There was never any mention of "no risk". A go around was conducted followed by a safe landing. The rest will have to wait till the report comes out.

YoDawg
5th Nov 2009, 09:12
The pilots realised what was happening before the warning went off, and had firewalled the throttles and commanded flap changes in a go-around procedure, but at 700 feet and dropping, the jet continued to descend before responding to their inputs.


As a warning to the readers, Ben Sandilands' editor should force him to sign off ALL of his reports with his initials.

BS makes it sound like the pilots looked around and suddenly realised they were in an airplane, not in the pub or on the couch like they thought.

"Dropping?" An excellent choice of wording considering your initials, BS.

BS, my training manual states it can be expected that a wide-body will descend another 30ft following initiation of a go-around. This means touch-down might even occur. I can't imagine how excited a go-around followed by a brief touchdown would make you. "Seconds From Death?"

"Fire-walling" the thrust levers is what you do when you're about to die, not when you initiate a go-around. Thanks, BS, for continuing to feed the ignorant public yet more "BS" to keep them properly uninformed about aviation.

Stabilisation requirements: They weren't stable and fully-configured by the cut-off point (in fact before it) so they conducted a go-around. And now BS and some plonkers on pprune are making it a federal case.

PLovett
5th Nov 2009, 09:57
I don't know if it has already been mentioned as I lost patience with the drivel after page 3 but there are circumstances where such an incident can happen.

I recall an internet article by John Deakin where he 'fessed up to almost landing a 744 wheels up at San Francisco. He described the whole approach and how everyone one on the flight deck (there were supernummary crew on board) missed the one little item on the checklist. It makes an interesting read. Can't be fecked providing a link.

RedTBar
5th Nov 2009, 09:59
Cactusjack,Thats the problem with the swiss cheese model.Anything can slide through those holes,even Danish Butter.Slippery little suckers:E

Ultergra
5th Nov 2009, 10:02
Talk about drift thread...

This is rediculous mods, seriously.

Butter...

It's the butt(er) of all jokes... and all the threads.

Investigation pending. Case closed, get over it everyone.

radnav
5th Nov 2009, 15:21
Must have been something in the air...... just read of a very similar gear oversight, go-around occurring on an A330 on almost the same day at another large well known carrier....go figure!!!:eek:

Bullethead
5th Nov 2009, 18:54
Swiss cheese doesn't have holes in it, it has bubbles! :}

Regards,
BH.

maxwt
5th Nov 2009, 19:04
I always knew that Flt Engineers should never have been taken off the flight deck. Without that extra pair of trained eyes incidents like this are bound to happen.

lowerlobe
5th Nov 2009, 19:24
Some people posting here are getting very sensitive so I thought I'd lighten things up with a CRM joke......
The scene is sometime in the early years of post World War Two when cockpits had round dials plus flight engineers and navigators. The crusty ex Lancaster Captain is breaking in a brand new navigator.

The Captain opens his briefcase, pulls out a .38 and rests it on the glare panel. He asks the navigator, "Know what this is for?" "No, Captain," replies the newbie. "I use it on navigators who get us lost," explains the Captain, winking at his first officer.

The navigator then opens his briefcase, pulls out a colt .45 and sets it on his chart table. "What's THAT for?" yells the very surprised Captain.

"Well, Captain," replies the Navigator, "I'll know we're lost before you do."

Sunfish
5th Nov 2009, 19:56
Campy:

Nah mate not arguing, I heard they were laughing too hard they ran out of time to configure.

Laughing so hard about what a bunch FARKWITS all these ill informed, under qualified, plane spotting, private pilot, know it all, tryhard, has been corksuckers that post on this forum are.

Please can someone start a non company specific forum where the membership is vetted to only allow professional aviators to post. Only then will we be able to constructively discuss these matters. The rest of you idiots may in turn learn something by just simply reading........ Instead of berating us with your bullshut and drivel!!!!

It appears obvious that someone's amoure propre has been upset by the demonstration that professionals can fall victim to exactly the same errors as amateurs can.


The correct way to tell if QF safety is going to the dogs is to calculate the averages and standard deviations by fleet, ATA chapter etc. etc. for incidents and failures. Should take about Ten minutes these days to see if there is any statistically significant upswing.