Qantas jet baggage door opens inflight?

[629bus]

Just had this pop up on the news in HK. Cant see anything online yet. Anyone got the info?

[breakfastburrito]

Qantas aircraft makes emergency landing in Darwin
By Jane Bardon
Posted October 21, 2011 10:51:43

A Qantas aircraft has made an emergency landing in Darwin following a mid-air incident on a flight from the Northern Territory capital to Alice Springs.

Territory MLA Adam Giles texted the ABC and his advisers to say he is on the plane that departed from Darwin at about 7.30am.

He says the cargo door of the plane popped open mid-flight.
The pilot returned to Darwin and landed the plane safely at about 8.30am.

The aircraft remains on the Darwin tarmac surrounded by emergency vehicles.
Mr Giles says he was sitting in the front row of the plane with the Minister for Central Australia Karl Hampton.

Country Liberals MLAs Robyn Lambley and Matt Conlan were also on board.

It is believed there were more than 110 passengers on board the aircraft.
ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/20111021-qantas-aircraft-emergency-landing/3591858)

[MACH082]

Wasn't the bent 717 was it?

[Capn Bloggs]

If it was a 717, the "cargo" doors pop in, not open (if things that open inward could be described as popping in).

Good load factor. :} :ok:

[RENURPP]

Rubbish again.
Hopeless media relying on information from a politician, who by the way, should be charged for not following crew instructions (not following a lawful instruction) and using his phone in flight after receiving specific instructions to the contrary.

Rules obviously don't apply to NT politicians?

It was a gear door issue, not a cargo door. No emergency was declared it was simply burn some fuel and land so engineers can inspect.

I'm not sure if its protocol or some over excited ATCer made his own mind up that emergency services were required. If its the later, you would think they would rely on the aircraft Captain advising if such action was necessary and simply look after the separation, let the crew look after the rest.

[ohallen]

A Qantas spokeswoman said a hydraulic fault caused the incident.
"There is no safety risk whatsoever ... it is a mechanical issue," she said.


See now we have the new spin, probably right but it just doesn't have the right feel when Qantas say it.



That just about sums up their current position which they refuse to acknowledge on matters that six months ago, would never have even rated a mention.


One day they might get it that the public are worried.

[david1300]

And from Qantas passengers mad after mid-air mishap | Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/qantas-passengers-mad-after-mid-air-mishap/story-e6freonf-1226173085973):
Another man seemed more concerned with his thirst as he waited for Qantas to find a replacement plane.
He berated Qantas staff because an airport bar had not been opened early while the passengers were waiting.
"A man's not a bloody camel," he was overheard telling one staff member.

@ohallen: The public are worried, but far more about the staff than the management. Aren't these aircraft maintained in Australia by Australian technicians? To me and others I speak to in my social circles who fly reasonably regularly, Q staff are rapidly gaining the reputation of being unreliable and intransigent, and seemingly hell bent on the destruction of the airline.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Could have been worse for him:

Air India passengers left stranded on plane at Gatwick for 9 hours | TERMINAL U | Travel News (http://www.terminalu.com/travel-news/air-india-passengers-left-stranded-at-gatwick-for-9-hours/17703/)

[ohallen]

David I am not sure about that and if it does exist I suspect it is a result of the Rat spin.

Do we know for a fact that staff are overpaid? There seems to be major doubt that they are paid $170k as alleged by AJ or someone. The truth is that no one knows the truth because the Rat is spinning and the union doesn't seem to want to put out a clear and concise response in a way that some "alleged " staff do on this site.

Then we need to go back to the cause if it does exist. There is a legitimate EBA process that both management and union have participated in and agreed an outcome for many years. Now it seems that the Rat has said hold on...you guys are paid too much and we wont budge an inch (as in 15% over three years plus job security issues).

Surely there must be some room for compromise here because all parties are here because of what they have previously agreed and now the Rat says no more we are going offshore and to hell with you guys.

The Rat places no value on its safety record and has shown that it has advanced its ethos from "safety at any cost" to "safety at an affordable cost".

They have also redefined what a safety issue is and I suspect that will only be when there is a smoking hole and it wont be the current excess who have to explain that one because they will be gone with their greedy bonus driven culture.

I understand both sides but until the Rat agrees to go to the table and both sides stop the swinging dick syndrome, nothing is going to be sorted.The outcome of that is the rat is gone overseas, a lot of people will lose their jobs and customers will abandon the brand because their brand differentiation is gone.

Then again I could be wrong yet again.

[Captain Gidday]

It's not a Qantas aircraft. It's a Qantas Link aircraft operated by National Jet. Read the fine print.

[JohnMcGhie]

It's a Qantas jet. It's got a rat on the tail, that means it is "Qantas".

Anything else is simply variations of tax-evasion.

I am perfectly well aware that the Qantas bean-counters pay some other bunch of bean-counters to fiddle the taxes on these aircraft; but while they paint the flying kangaroo on the tail, it's Qantas, and if its maintenance is not so good, that's Qantas' fault.

I fly on these things up to four times a month. The 717 is a nice aircraft to fly on. But the flight number is a QF flight number, the welcome aboard announcement says "Qantas", the flight attendants are dressed in Qantas uniforms, and the ground-handlers' uniforms are all Qantas.

What concerns "me" is that the reliability of this operation appears to be following the trend established by Qantas Mainline. Which gets one's attention when you're about to strap your bum into one...

[RATpin]

I believe your correct JM,all the punters see is the Red Rat on the tail and the main stream Media are not interested in semantics,just sensation.
Thats the trouble with abrogating your responsibility as upper management and empowering accountants to run your business when they generally are not equipped to do so.Im sure Sunfish has greater knowledge in this area.

[airdualbleedfault]

FWIW, It's a white rat

[206greaser]

Wow John you fly on the 717 up to 4 times a month?!?! Congrats! As a passenger I presume? That certainly qualifies as an "expert" opinion these days. The a/c in question is operated, staffed and engineered by COBHAM. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS. the fact that it has a QF flight number means nothing. Ever heard of jetconnect?

Geez!

Cheers,
greaser.

[Turbine Overheat]

206
I think you need to reread John's post. He's well aware that Qantas have subcontracted. What he is saying is that the subcontract does not allow Qantas to wash its hands of its contractual oversight. If Qantas want the good publicity of painting a contractors aircraft into the brand/group colours then they also accept the bad publicity and the responsibility.

[ernestkgann]

For the traveling public, it's a QF aircraft. Virgin is flirting with the same relationship should they have any incidents with their ATR operation. It's exactly the style of operation Joyce is pursuing, where it's a QF group operation but with a workforce priced according to profitability.

[YAASB]

It was a gear door issue, not a cargo door. No emergency was declared it was simply burn some fuel and land so engineers can inspect.

I'm not sure if its protocol or some over excited ATCer made his own mind up that emergency services were required. If its the later, you would think they would rely on the aircraft Captain advising if such action was necessary and simply look after the separation, let the crew look after the rest.

Renurpp,
If as the thread intimates, it was a nose gear door problem then it would be absolutely acceptable that the controllers have local services on standby.
It is called a precaution.
What if it is more than a door problem? What if steering is also affected.
I know it is a slim chance, but how do you think ATC would be portrayed if nothing was done, and the aircraft speared off the runway.
Either way, if there is any hint of hydraulic fluid, a runway inspection would be needed to make sure that nothing was left on the runway. You know, for those other aircraft that might want to use the runway after you.;)

[RENURPP]

Yaasb,
That is a non sensical argument. Organizing emergency services on a guess?
The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers.
If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase.
It wasn't the nose wheel or nosewhel door, there was no hydraulic leak, there was no fire, the thing returned because it wouldn't get repaired in alice(it destination) and hat would be a huge inconvenience to every one. That is about it, you guys are as bad as the media you complain about.

By the way, who would inspect the runway, the ambulance or the fire brigade?

[Capt Claret]

And the next incident of all-Australian-airways will go something like:

Capt Ok Bloggs, don't worry about that QRH, it's the PPRuNe Gurus we've got to consider.

Bloggs Ok Skip, I'll just pull out the iPad and post our dilemma, and see what the Gurus say, for sure they'll have a better handle on it than us. :E

[Capn Bloggs]

A lot of wotifs, there, YAASB. ATC wouldn't have a clue about the intricacies of aircraft systems. The pilots should decide what is required, nobody else.

Further, any unneeded escalation of the alleged "drama" merely scares the travelling public unnecessarily.

I assume you are not a two-crew operator similar to the subject flight. How would you feel in this situation? I'd be a bit miffed.

It is also pretty poor that the NT News (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2011/10/21/267745_ntnews.html) hasn't corrected the "baggage door" theory.

[peuce]

I think you'll find that Controllers are REQUIRED to err on the side of safety if there is ANY hint of uncertainty about the safety of a flight.

Correct, they are not engineers ... that's why they err on the side of safety.

Controllers don't wait till they see a plane crash before calling the cavalry, they must make a judgement call beforehand.

With all due respect, I think you'll find that many pilots tend to, how can I put this ...under report many situations. You just have to read some of the communications transcripts in the crash comics to see this.

I'm sure most Controllers would rather be called "over enthusiastic" ... than to have done nothing ... because the Pilot said everything was OK.

[Turbine Overheat]

So what if atc put the services on standby.
I don't see what the problem is. Sure they weren't asked for but we all know the armchair experts would have hoe'd in if an incident occurred and they hadn't been put on standby.
You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash.

[Capn Bloggs]

You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash.
These are two completely different scenarios.

Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact.

[peuce]

Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact

My answer to that is ... you have two options:


Lie ... so that you won't be embarrased by a possible overaction by those entrusted with ensuring your safety. Worst case scenario is that YOU under-estimate the problem, and there's no one there to help you and your passengers when the proverbial hits the fan.
Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... with the worst case scenario being that someone on the ground over-reacts and the firies have to interrupt their game of volleyball. But you, and your passengers will always get to live and fight another day.


CASA and Airservices are continually encouraging pilots to contact Air Traffic Services at the first sign of a problem. If it doesn't develop into something nasty, that's great. But if it does, forewarned is forearmed.

P.S. I've never heard of any plane crashing or passengers dying because ATS provided too much service. However, I have heard of the opposite happening ... and it's usually because ATS weren't FULLY informed of a developing situation.

[airdualbleedfault]

. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS.

Incorrect. Yes crewed and fixed by cobham, everything else is QF : check-in, cleaning, baggage, catering, ticketing, etc.

[flyingfox]

Annoying aspect of any report to ATC about a return due technical issue is the questions they then immediately become obliged to ask. When you are deep in thought about alternative options, revised clearance, fuel burn, landing weight, approach plates, descent profile, checklists, contacting company, reprogramming FMS, etc; ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions.

[The Voice]

sorry airdualbleedfault - wrong again .. at least catering and (cough) cleaning are not completed by QF paid staff but by those of other ground service companies located in DRW.

And .. depending upon the advice given by the crew when they would have requested a diversion of some sort, whatever happened to the polite question of "expecting a normal approach and landing?" followed up by a "do you require emergency services on arrival?"

by the by : The NT news and their intelligent readers/FB followers sunk to a new low "as it was happening" ...

[Algie]

It was a Qantas flight from the point of view of liability anyway.

If things ever come to court the precedent has been well and truly set, morally and legally:

"Federal Jury Finds American Eagle Liable for the Crash of One of Its Commuter Planes

February 6, 1998
Late yesterday afternoon, a federal jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, found that AMR Eagle, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp. and the commuter arm of American Airlines, is responsible for the December 13, 1994, crash of one of its commuter airplanes in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. AMR Eagle, Inc. has continuously denied responsibility for the crash, which killed 15 and injured 5, according to Michael K. Demetrio of Chicago's Corboy & Demetrio, who had been appointed by the Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as lead counsel for plaintiffs and was lead trial attorney.

Michael K. Demetrio, along with Thomas A. Demetrio and Robert A. Clifford, represent six of the nine victims whose cases were partially tried in North Carolina this week. Michael Demetrio stated: "Throughout the three years since the crash, AMR Eagle, Inc. has used every tactic it could imagine to avoid responsibility for the crash of this plane. In the final analysis, the jury found precisely what we've been saying all along: AMR Eagle should and will be held accountable for this crash."

Until yesterday, AMR Eagle had been promoting the position that its regional carrier, Flagship Airlines, was the only entity which should answer for the crash. AMR Eagle, Inc. operates small commuter aircraft all over the country under the American Airlines trademark name "American Eagle." "Nobody has ever heard of these small regional outfits owned and operated by AMR Eagle, and that's done on purpose," Demetrio added. "AMR Eagle makes its money by convincing travelers that American is operating the aircraft - and in fact it does. AMR Eagle's surprising position - saying 'it's not our plane' - was disingenuous, and the jury recognized that."

[RENURPP]

My understanding is that the captain told aTC three times they did not require emergency services. He outlined their requirements and e was 100% correct.

Not only did they have emergency services but "some one" had TV, newspapers the works there all for a minor fault. Do people get paid a spotters fee?

If same had happended at a non controlled airport it would not have been an issue and certainly no compromise in safety.

I don't expect some sprog straight from RAAF ATC school with no technical knowledge to decide on my behalf. No.

The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available.

The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?

Answer, the flight crew, plain and simple.


The sort of behaviour displayed simply discourages pilots advising of issues until they become major, its unhealthy, unhelpful and of no benefit to anyone.

ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions.and the response should "standby"!

[peuce]

The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available.

The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?

Although I understand where you're coming from, unfortunately, you don't have the power to decide who can make that decision .

The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah.

Until you have that responsibility removed/amended/better defined ... you will have to live with it... and I daresay, in order to protect their arses, Controllers will continue to err on the side of safety.

Put yourself in the shoes of that "sprog".
Will I do nothing and trust that the pilot is 100% aware of the full implications of his situation?
Or, will I call out the troops ... just in case he's got it wrong ... or doesn't have the full picture?

Which scenario will keep me out of jail?

[RENURPP]

The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah.

I'd be interested in reading he whole text if some with access to MATs would be kind enough to provide it.

[Showa Cho]

RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcome.

Reminds me of a time a Metro driver told me he would be a little slower on descent - no worries, thanks for telling me. When he landed, turns out only one of the engines was turning and burning (can't remember the exact nature of the shut down)! "Didn't want to make a fuss" he told us later. FFS, what if things had gotten worse all of a sudden? Or I had slowed/turned him enough that it caused a controllability problem?

I understand it isn't the job of ATC to second guess the crew when it comes to malfunctions, but equally it isn't the role of aircrew to second guess an ATC action that does not put your flight into harms way, but in fact enhances safety.

With regards to the questioning by ATCs, a phrase that is often used is 'report situation stabilised with intentions' which gives the crew time to work out what they want and get back to us.

Here's your reference (MATS 4-15-220):

"The ATS Officer first becoming aware of an aircraft operating in
other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning
the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase
appropriate to the emergency situation"

The phases they are talking about are ATC internal coordination phases that indicates the degree of apprehension we have about the safety of the flight. It is up to the ATC with the facts in hand to determine the level of the phase.

Would like to hear why aircrew are upset about the firies being called out. You pay for the service anyway, might as well make use of it!

Arigato,

Showa Cho.

[RENURPP]

RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcomeJust in case of what?
You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why. Go back and read my previous. If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know.

There was no problem, they were not needed.

With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case!there is doubt concerning the aircraftʹs safety, "
Thanks for the quote.

This is the contncious part isn't it?
The crew had no doubt there was no doubt concerning the aircrafts safety, they advised ATC likewise.

[Showa Cho]

You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why.

"The ATS Officer first becoming aware of an aircraft operating in
other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning
the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase
appropriate to the emergency situation"

There's your reason.

It's not excitement mate, believe me. It's that one hair on the back of the neck that stands up and makes you think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of safety.

With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case!

No. Totally ridiculous comment. Not all aircraft tell ATC they have a problem with a gear door and are burning off fuel and returning for a landing.

If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know.

If that is on short final when the situation has deteriorated unexpectedly, would you rather have the firies there already or have to jump in the trucks and get out there to help you?

I really can't believe we are debating about someone in aviation leaning on the side of safety.

Just in case of what?

Ever put more fuel in the jet on an occasion, just in case?

[The Voice]

WRT the phrases "declaration of the phase appropriate to the emergency situation" surely that means a declaration of one of the three options, or are there more these days?

Is it mandatory for RFFS to roll out if one of the higher priority phases are declared?

[Checkboard]

The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers.

Rubbish, The Commander decides what is appropriate on the aircraft, the ATC service decides what is appropriate for the airport.

If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase.

We do. :hmm: As an international airport, Darwin would be RFF cat 8 or so. :rolleyes:


... besides, rolling the tenders every now and then is good training for the Rescue and Fire Fighting crew.

[RENURPP]

We do. As an international airport, Darwin would be RFF cat 8 or so.
In the context of this post, we are discussing available as being parked on the taxiway hoses in hand. They don't do that regularly anywhere I've Been, certainly not Darwin.

[RENURPP]

No. Totally ridiculous comment. Not all aircraft tell ATC they have a problem with a gear door and are burning off fuel and returning for a landing.
Do you understand why thEy burn off fuel, at leat do you understand why in this instance?

Do you understand why they were returning to land?
think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of
Rediculous, that is just as likely to happen on every landing. You have watched flying high a couple to many times I suspect. I don't think it was meant to be a documentary.

[Capn Bloggs]

Perhaps this is a case of ideas getting legs for no valid reason. What are the examples of injury (or potential injury) that have occurred because pilots did not request appropriate services?

As for the moron on one engine in his Metro not declaring it, that should not be used to justify having everything on tenderhooks whenever an aircraft returns. And, Showa Cho, you may be an ATC but I'm hardly going to slow down, under orders, so that I stall! Although I wouldn't be so sure with our Metro ace... :E

[peuce]

Capn ... the most obvious, and most widely publicised one,that comes to mind is Avianca Flight 52.

The NTSB's report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per International Air Transport Association (IATA) guidelines.... for a number of reasons.

And those reasons aren't particularly important in this discussion. The point is, for whatever reason, the pilot did not convey the full extent of the issue to ATC. That's why ATS has a responsibility to:


be another set of ears, eyes and brains
consider the bigger picture ... such as the affect on other users or facilities
take heed of the "hairs on the back of their neck" signals


And, do I really have to point this out? ... but, as people are really pushing this issue ... one must also consider situations where the pilot may not be in a situation where he is able to communicate the full story.(not saying this is the case at Darwin)

ATC can sit there, fat, dumb and stupid ... or they can use initiative, consider all the signals and undertake actions ( which, of course, sometimes may later prove to have been unnecessary ... big deal) and possibly save your arse.

You can't expect ATC to turn off their initiative when you want it off. It's either on or it's off. And at the moment, it's mandated as ON.

[Capn Bloggs]

be another set of ears, eyes and brains
consider the bigger picture ... such as the affect on other users or facilities
take heed of the "hairs on the back of their neck" signals
Pilots who don't say they are running out of fuel can't be saved; more appropriate would be 767s with no wheels down at 500ft comes to mind! ;)

[Showa Cho]

Do you understand why they burn off fuel, at leat do you understand why in this instance? Do you understand why they were returning to land?

Yes. Of course. Let's not get smart about things hey?

You still haven't answered the questions:

Why is it such a big deal, from an operational perspective, that the firies were there?

Have you ever put more fuel on than was totally necessary just in case?

You have watched flying high a couple to many times I suspect. I don't think it was meant to be a documentary.

Very funny.

Remember the Ansett B747 that returned with an engine shut down to YSSY? The firies were not called out for that one either, but the nose wheel was not down and it ended up kissing the runway and the firies deployed 'cold' after the crash alarm was sounded. There was some smouldering underneath according to the BASI report, so it could have escalated, although in this case it didn't.

Some things are not evident or expected, but what is harm in cutting off a hole in the Swiss Cheese? (With apologies to Dr James Reason.....)

Bloggsy, I thought I might get picked up on the Metro speed thing - fair call. I know the PIC would not allow it to stall, but there may have been some limitations on the performance that I was not aware of (speed, turns etc) that could impact on my ability to control the arrivals sequence. Regardless, I was very surprised that ATC was not informed.

Arigato,

Showa Cho.

[RENURPP]

Yes. Of course. Let's not get smart about things hey?
I wasn't attempting to be smart and I would like an answer.
I recall attending the Darwin/ATC chief pilots forum some years back and the ATC standards person in discussion criticized pilots for using different descent profiles. He commented that some aircraft like the 402 chieftain start their descent from 10,000 at around 60 nm whilst king airs and other aircraft use 30 miles! He saw that as an issue for ATC. He didn't understand how pressurization affected a descent.
My experience with "some" ATC is that technical knowledge is not so good.

If I believed all ATC were technically savvy I wouldn't be as critical. This leads to why is it important?
Where do you draw the line?

I have returned to my departure point on several occasions over 30 years, with no emergency services provided.
Was it because this crew used the word "undercarriage" this time?
I am aware of people who are very hesitant about what information they pass on to ATC. That's not healthy.
On this occasion the pilots advised ATC three times that they did not require any emergency services. The ensuing media coverage hasn't been helpful.

Whether you like it or not, (and being public servants you probably don't care) bad publicity is not some thing a pilot seeks for their company.

If emergency services are required and not sought, there would be severe consequences for the crew.


By the way, it's not that important to me. I first posted to indicate that all that was published was non sense, it wasn't a cargo door, they didn't dump fuel, hey didn't declare an emergency and finally it was a minor problem that was lown out of all proportion.

[ohallen]

Yes and that is perhaps the real issue with this whole event, how the media were alerted and the story that was fed to them.

If you take them out of play, then is there any issue at all??

[Showa Cho]

ohellen is on the money. Media have VHF scanners and people who feed them do also. I think that's the issue - firies = bad publicity.

[RENURPP]

Of. Course bad media is the issue. Making an issue out of a non issue simply feeds the monkeys.

[peuce]

Of. Course bad media is the issue

I can understand your reluctance to attract bad publicity to your Company, however, ATC safety decisions will never be made, or be allowed to be made ... based on whether that decision might bring unwanted publicity on an operator.

Making an issue out of a non issue simply feeds the monkeys.

Perhaps, but an issue is never deemed a non-issue until all the dice have been rolled ... that is, the aircraft is safely back on the ground and all the passengers and crew are safe.

Once again, ATC can never make a decision based on hindsight.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that, in the interests of maintaining a multi-layered safety system, operators will sometimes have to wear the effects of a media circus.

[Capn Bloggs]

operators will sometimes have to wear the effects of a media circus.
Why the operators? How about Airservices Australia? Our names get sullied because of unilateral decisions made by ATC/AsA.

[ohallen]

It is basically wrong if someone uses radio exchanges to form their own views with incomplete knowledge and then uses that in a way to impact operators reputations.

I seem to recall there was an inference in all this that someone tipped off the media rather than some monitoring of scanners, if so there you have the problem.

If that was not the case then apologies.

[RENURPP]

Peuce, I agree with the concept, that if anybody becomes aware of a safety issue they report it immediately.
What I have trouble with is people with little to no technical knowledge, making decisions that effectively over rule the Captain and create an unwanted drama. That doesn't increase safety. You have to reasonably recognize a safety issue?

Where is the line, that's the real question.

My experience with Darwin ATC is that they still have trouble recognizing an aircraft. I understand it's a training base and therefore lots of inexperienced guys licking the tower window wishing they were on the other side, but maybe they should pay more attention to the input from the experienced people they deal with.

If every time I thought an ATC instruction was doubtful, I decided to take upon myself to take action in the name of safety, it would create havoc and certainly wouldn't be appreciated by any one.

I thinks it's fair to say, once a crew are flying larger turbo props, Dash8 s and larger through jets, there has to be enough experience on board to expect them to make appropriate decisions. Listen to them. If they indicate there maybe a problem then sure go for it, call the cavalry.

[forever flying]

Why should this even be given a second thought? Whether the emergency services were required or not, it was the ATC on the line if it indeed became a much larger problem and they took the initiative of having some vehicles on standby. Of course we can expect the media will publicise it "...emergency vehicles surrounded the aircraft", but if that's what happened I'm sure everyone walked away not have to feel responsible for a major accident.

IMHO, much better to say "ah well" than "what if?".