Qantas jets in near collision
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas checks aborted landing
Mon "The Australian"
Qantas checks aborted landing
By Steve Creedy and Scott Emerson
February 16, 2004
QANTAS is investigating why a flight crew told passengers it was aborting a landing because an aircraft was on the runway when authorities say this was not the case.
The pilots executed a "go-around" as the Boeing 737 from Sydney came in to land at Brisbane airport about 6pm on Friday after they were unable to get final clearance to land from air traffic control. Authorities say the plane was in no danger of hitting another plane and the event is not being investigated as an incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
But the pilot announcement led to headlines that the aircraft was only seconds away from a collision.
"There was a PA announcement which did go to passengers indicating the reason for the go-around was another aircraft on the runway," said Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton. "And we're investigating the circumstances surrounding that announcement to passengers."
Asked why the crew would think there was another aircraft on the runway, Mr Rushton said: "That's what we're investigating."
Federal Opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan, who was on the flight, confirmed the pilot had told passengers he had aborted the landing because of another plane.
"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified and I don't believe that those on the plane were, but it was obviously a serious incident."
But ATSB deputy director Alan Stray said the bureau had determined there was no incident based on information supplied by Airservices Australia and the Qantas safety department.
"The pilot followed appropriate standard operating procedures and exercised his discretion to go around because of a delay in receiving a landing clearance," Mr Stray said.
"There was no incident."
An Airservices Australia spokesman said a communications problem on landing prompted the go-around.
"The pilot did not get clearance to land and he made the decision to do a go-around," he said. "There were no aircraft separation problems and in the circumstances this was the standard operating procedure."
========================================
Qantas checks aborted landing
By Steve Creedy and Scott Emerson
February 16, 2004
QANTAS is investigating why a flight crew told passengers it was aborting a landing because an aircraft was on the runway when authorities say this was not the case.
The pilots executed a "go-around" as the Boeing 737 from Sydney came in to land at Brisbane airport about 6pm on Friday after they were unable to get final clearance to land from air traffic control. Authorities say the plane was in no danger of hitting another plane and the event is not being investigated as an incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
But the pilot announcement led to headlines that the aircraft was only seconds away from a collision.
"There was a PA announcement which did go to passengers indicating the reason for the go-around was another aircraft on the runway," said Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton. "And we're investigating the circumstances surrounding that announcement to passengers."
Asked why the crew would think there was another aircraft on the runway, Mr Rushton said: "That's what we're investigating."
Federal Opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan, who was on the flight, confirmed the pilot had told passengers he had aborted the landing because of another plane.
"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified and I don't believe that those on the plane were, but it was obviously a serious incident."
But ATSB deputy director Alan Stray said the bureau had determined there was no incident based on information supplied by Airservices Australia and the Qantas safety department.
"The pilot followed appropriate standard operating procedures and exercised his discretion to go around because of a delay in receiving a landing clearance," Mr Stray said.
"There was no incident."
An Airservices Australia spokesman said a communications problem on landing prompted the go-around.
"The pilot did not get clearance to land and he made the decision to do a go-around," he said. "There were no aircraft separation problems and in the circumstances this was the standard operating procedure."
========================================
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the crew is going to get into trouble for telling a porky? Lots of crews are in trouble now then.......wish I had a dollar for every "delay caused by ATC".
Seriously; two pollies carry on like pork chops, the media run with some sensationalistic garbage, yet it turns into 'pilot error'.
Love this industry
Seriously; two pollies carry on like pork chops, the media run with some sensationalistic garbage, yet it turns into 'pilot error'.
Love this industry
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"...it was obviously a serious incident., said Federal Opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan (alias Wayne Ker) sitting in the passenger cabin, staring at the forward bulkhead.
"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified"
"*but I felt that I REALLY HAD TO contact the media, (because I'm such a no-one the rest of the time, and this was my big chance to get some free air time*)!!"
*My interpretation as to why Wayne would voluntarily make a d!ckhead of himself.
"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified"
"*but I felt that I REALLY HAD TO contact the media, (because I'm such a no-one the rest of the time, and this was my big chance to get some free air time*)!!"*My interpretation as to why Wayne would voluntarily make a d!ckhead of himself.
Aptly put Kaptin.
Gallah aka Swan used to be my local member.
Before the last election l challenged him as to his position and conviction to the recently out of work Ansett employees.
l am still waiting for an answer. (start date was '96)
Blisfully ignorant of his media charade until now, l am always amused by this lap dog of whoever is leader Beazley/Crean/Latham. Goes to show his true conviction and stamina when all he has to bleat/crow/shrill about is a flight on good 'ol QF.
If he was paying for the ticket himself l may have listened.
Anyway l have to agree what a balls up CDG is. That place is disaster waiting to happen.
Mumbai the other day... "Go Around" from tower at 500'. Once safely on the ground, blood circulation returning to knuckles, and not due to procedure but due to the dozens of multi-clearances by ATC to get back, an explanation was saught. "Dogs on RWY"
In the murk there you are lucky to see the PAPI let alone a RWY coloured mutt!
A clearance is just that, and without a clearance there is no clearance. Brave man/woman who crosses that line - Florence or anywhere. Just think of the insurance ramifications IF something went wrong.
halas
Gallah aka Swan used to be my local member.
Before the last election l challenged him as to his position and conviction to the recently out of work Ansett employees.
l am still waiting for an answer. (start date was '96)
Blisfully ignorant of his media charade until now, l am always amused by this lap dog of whoever is leader Beazley/Crean/Latham. Goes to show his true conviction and stamina when all he has to bleat/crow/shrill about is a flight on good 'ol QF.
If he was paying for the ticket himself l may have listened.
Anyway l have to agree what a balls up CDG is. That place is disaster waiting to happen.
Mumbai the other day... "Go Around" from tower at 500'. Once safely on the ground, blood circulation returning to knuckles, and not due to procedure but due to the dozens of multi-clearances by ATC to get back, an explanation was saught. "Dogs on RWY"
In the murk there you are lucky to see the PAPI let alone a RWY coloured mutt!
A clearance is just that, and without a clearance there is no clearance. Brave man/woman who crosses that line - Florence or anywhere. Just think of the insurance ramifications IF something went wrong.
halas
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from the Sunday Herald Sun
No wonder they had difficulty with the aborted landing with more than 200 passengers on a 737.
I hope Bob Katter never goes out in the sun as his shadow might give him a heart attack but thankfully we have leaders like him that "Don't scare easy".
Finally how, just how, is this in anyway related to the new airspace arguments.
Geoff Thomas if your out there perhaps you might write to these bozos and explain just how pathetic they make journalists look, perhaps they may listen to one of their own.
NEAR MISS PROMPTS INVESTIGATION
An investigation has begun into a near miss involving two Qantas jets.
A Boeing 737, with more than 200 passengers, had to abort a landing to avoid crashing into another plane sitting on the Brisbane Airport runway at 6pm Friday.
One of the frightened passengers was Queensland federal independent MP Bob Katter.
"I was scared for my life and I don't scare easy," he said,"Something is terribly wrong."
............................
The incident will escalate concerns over the new air traffic control regulations...........................
An investigation has begun into a near miss involving two Qantas jets.
A Boeing 737, with more than 200 passengers, had to abort a landing to avoid crashing into another plane sitting on the Brisbane Airport runway at 6pm Friday.
One of the frightened passengers was Queensland federal independent MP Bob Katter.
"I was scared for my life and I don't scare easy," he said,"Something is terribly wrong."
............................
The incident will escalate concerns over the new air traffic control regulations...........................
I hope Bob Katter never goes out in the sun as his shadow might give him a heart attack but thankfully we have leaders like him that "Don't scare easy".
Finally how, just how, is this in anyway related to the new airspace arguments.
Geoff Thomas if your out there perhaps you might write to these bozos and explain just how pathetic they make journalists look, perhaps they may listen to one of their own.
Bottums Up
The dreaded we climbed vertically an' I thought I was gunna die manoeuvre.
In fairness to Wayne Swann, in the interview I saw on the Sunday program, Swann was asked about the incident. There was no obvious sign that he had prompted the Lawrie Oakes to ask the question, and his answer seemed reasonable to me.
It's interesting that AsA and QF say there was no other aircraft on the RWY, yet Ausatco's post quite positively contradicts this. Additionally there is also a contradiction in types 747 v 737.
For the land anyhow brigade. Imagine how silly one would look if one did so and an aircraft cleared to cross the runway got T-boned.
If one lived that is.
In fairness to Wayne Swann, in the interview I saw on the Sunday program, Swann was asked about the incident. There was no obvious sign that he had prompted the Lawrie Oakes to ask the question, and his answer seemed reasonable to me.
It's interesting that AsA and QF say there was no other aircraft on the RWY, yet Ausatco's post quite positively contradicts this. Additionally there is also a contradiction in types 747 v 737.
For the land anyhow brigade. Imagine how silly one would look if one did so and an aircraft cleared to cross the runway got T-boned.
If one lived that is.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and there was more Katter Nutter Klatter when I checked my smh.com.au this morning. Me thinks he should give up politics and become an aviation journo (respect to Geoff Thomas of course). Now I see why the politicians super issue is topical..we are getting monkeys so why not pay peanuts.
Aborted landing put lives at risk, says MP
February 16, 2004
The lives of more than 100 passengers were put in danger when a Qantas pilot aborted a landing at Brisbane Airport at the last minute, federal MP Bob Katter said today.
The Queensland independent MP was one of about 150 passengers aboard the 737 aircraft flying from Sydney to Brisbane on Friday which aborted its landing.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) denied reports the jet was forced to apply power and abandon the landing because another plane was on the runway.
But Mr Katter said he thought that was the most likely explanation.
He blasted officials for failing to give passengers a satisfactory explanation of what occurred.
"He (the pilot) was almost landing and the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner," Mr Katter told the Nine Network.
"There was no doubt, to anyone on that aeroplane, ... the rubber was just about to touch the tarmac.
"If you make a decision to go around again when you're at 1,000 feet or something that's alright.
"But when you're making it when you're only a second or two seconds away from putting the rubber on the tarmac, no, that is a decision of entirely different time.
"That's the point at which you're open to wind shears and to continue that danger period by another four or five or 10 seconds (and that) is a very bad decision to make."
Mr Katter said there had to be a good reason why the pilot aborted the landing and it was likely because there was danger ahead.
"There had to be some greater danger out there and we're not getting any answers to that," he said.
"Either the pilot was given wrong information or the pilot acted incorrectly, the cockpit staff acted incorrectly, or the most likely event was there was something out there."
Aborted landing put lives at risk, says MP
February 16, 2004
The lives of more than 100 passengers were put in danger when a Qantas pilot aborted a landing at Brisbane Airport at the last minute, federal MP Bob Katter said today.
The Queensland independent MP was one of about 150 passengers aboard the 737 aircraft flying from Sydney to Brisbane on Friday which aborted its landing.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) denied reports the jet was forced to apply power and abandon the landing because another plane was on the runway.
But Mr Katter said he thought that was the most likely explanation.
He blasted officials for failing to give passengers a satisfactory explanation of what occurred.
"He (the pilot) was almost landing and the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner," Mr Katter told the Nine Network.
"There was no doubt, to anyone on that aeroplane, ... the rubber was just about to touch the tarmac.
"If you make a decision to go around again when you're at 1,000 feet or something that's alright.
"But when you're making it when you're only a second or two seconds away from putting the rubber on the tarmac, no, that is a decision of entirely different time.
"That's the point at which you're open to wind shears and to continue that danger period by another four or five or 10 seconds (and that) is a very bad decision to make."
Mr Katter said there had to be a good reason why the pilot aborted the landing and it was likely because there was danger ahead.
"There had to be some greater danger out there and we're not getting any answers to that," he said.
"Either the pilot was given wrong information or the pilot acted incorrectly, the cockpit staff acted incorrectly, or the most likely event was there was something out there."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret, I think the issue of another a/c crossing is covered by Binoculars' post. Great to hear a realistic ATC point of view. I'm certainly not saying that pilots should go about landing willy nilly without a clearance - my initial point was that in the situation covered by Binocs (VMC, monitoring frequency, and unable to get a word in), surely a low level go 'round (below 50') is not the most practical/safe option - yes we know that a go around is no big deal, but lets exercise a bit of common sense (in NZ when training we require a specific 'low approach and overshoot' clearance to descend below 50' on the business side of the threshold - as I understand it, the same seperation is required for the overshoot as for landing with respect to aircraft on rwy, crossing etc).
Another point that has not been covered is the ability of ATC to overide a/c trasmissions - I have recieved more than one landing clearance on short final over the top of a poor student trying to stumble through a joining request, are Ozzie towers not able to do this, or were they blissfully unaware of the 737 about to cross the threshold? Of course as mentioned, the green light is also an option.
Getting back to topic, as for this pratt Katter....
Who the hell does he think he is? I thought some kiwi polies were full of s%#t, but this is rediculous, how can he get away with comments like this?
Another point that has not been covered is the ability of ATC to overide a/c trasmissions - I have recieved more than one landing clearance on short final over the top of a poor student trying to stumble through a joining request, are Ozzie towers not able to do this, or were they blissfully unaware of the 737 about to cross the threshold? Of course as mentioned, the green light is also an option.
Getting back to topic, as for this pratt Katter....
"That's the point at which you're open to wind shears and to continue that danger period by another four or five or 10 seconds (and that) is a very bad decision to make."
Last edited by Cloud Cutter; 16th Feb 2004 at 08:10.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ausatco and others. I will try again to ram home the point of common sense. The conditions you mentioned are not a consideration. No one in their right mind would land off that sort of approach in those conditions without a clearance. I assumed some would get emotional but god almighty this is unreal! Low vis, a/c crossing rwys, a school bus full of kids. Yes go around. What about the following.
It's a CAVOK day unlimited VIS, at 500 feet you can see the rwy and all taxi ways are clear but you can't get a word in or have a radio failure. Why on earth complicate everything with a go around? Some of you are saying that in an emergency it is fine to continue and land. Of course it is. Are you any less liable in an emergency than you are on a normal approach?
I am not having a go at any of you people. I just think we could engage in a bit of constructive dialogue and actively persue some healthy debate about some of our procedures. I don't for one second condone many of the practices o/s. However that said, some places do have some very good procedures and I think we are burying our head in the sand if we think we do it better than everyone else. Whether we like it or not we are far too ANALY RETENTIVE and politically correct for our own good.
Lets keep the debate constructive. If you want to have a sledge I will down at the breaky creek hotel on Fri afternoon so we can discuss it over a beer. Slainte.
It's a CAVOK day unlimited VIS, at 500 feet you can see the rwy and all taxi ways are clear but you can't get a word in or have a radio failure. Why on earth complicate everything with a go around? Some of you are saying that in an emergency it is fine to continue and land. Of course it is. Are you any less liable in an emergency than you are on a normal approach?
I am not having a go at any of you people. I just think we could engage in a bit of constructive dialogue and actively persue some healthy debate about some of our procedures. I don't for one second condone many of the practices o/s. However that said, some places do have some very good procedures and I think we are burying our head in the sand if we think we do it better than everyone else. Whether we like it or not we are far too ANALY RETENTIVE and politically correct for our own good.
Lets keep the debate constructive. If you want to have a sledge I will down at the breaky creek hotel on Fri afternoon so we can discuss it over a beer. Slainte.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That used to be the most interesting thing about Mumbai - taxiing around with stray dogs everywhere . Always used to wonder about the response to a "dogstrike". It would make some interesting paperwork!
Bottums Up
Agent86,
Ooops, missed the significance of the word this in Ausatcos intro. On first reading I took "this" to refer to the incident under discussion, not a separate incident.
I'd delete what I wrote but that would make some subsequent posts (like yours) redundant. Please accept my retraction. 
Cloud Cutter
I understand the scenario Binos was painting, I just don't think one can rely on knowing no other aircraft has been cleared to enter (or cross) the runway. Especially as a clearance to cross is often given by SMC and unless the pilots are listening to both frequencies they wouldn't know about said clearance to cross.
Paul
I believe a sound reason for executing a missed approach if not issued with a landing clearance is simply the fact that this is what ATC would expect.
Ooops, missed the significance of the word this in Ausatcos intro. On first reading I took "this" to refer to the incident under discussion, not a separate incident.
I'd delete what I wrote but that would make some subsequent posts (like yours) redundant. Please accept my retraction. Cloud Cutter
I understand the scenario Binos was painting, I just don't think one can rely on knowing no other aircraft has been cleared to enter (or cross) the runway. Especially as a clearance to cross is often given by SMC and unless the pilots are listening to both frequencies they wouldn't know about said clearance to cross.
Paul
I believe a sound reason for executing a missed approach if not issued with a landing clearance is simply the fact that this is what ATC would expect.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret, these are reasonable points - As Paul said, other aircraft could be taken into account using some of the four class 1 eyeballs up front - common sense would dictate that an aircraft taxiing near the rwy, or lined up on a crossing vector would swing the balance somewhat.
Once again, this is just my opinion and you offer a well backed-up argument.
Once again, this is just my opinion and you offer a well backed-up argument.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting topic, one that there is no real clear answer for.
A COMMAND decision was made by the captain and that is that.
I have been in exactly the same predicament on a number of ocassions (3 that i can remember) and have landed without being cleared to do so, at the time i made an assesment, (you do have a very good veiw from 50ft on final) and opted to land instead of going around, as PIC I beleive it was the best thing to do. Each time I was cleared to land as or after the wheels were on.
A go round is always an option but not always the best one, obviously a 737 will have plenty of get up and go even with everyting hanging out. But a light twin on a hot day at gross weight could be a recipy for disaster, as has happened before with catatrophic results.
As for Bob Katter, i wouldn't waste my piss on the bastard if he was on fire.
Cheers
A COMMAND decision was made by the captain and that is that.
I have been in exactly the same predicament on a number of ocassions (3 that i can remember) and have landed without being cleared to do so, at the time i made an assesment, (you do have a very good veiw from 50ft on final) and opted to land instead of going around, as PIC I beleive it was the best thing to do. Each time I was cleared to land as or after the wheels were on.
A go round is always an option but not always the best one, obviously a 737 will have plenty of get up and go even with everyting hanging out. But a light twin on a hot day at gross weight could be a recipy for disaster, as has happened before with catatrophic results.
As for Bob Katter, i wouldn't waste my piss on the bastard if he was on fire.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most disappointing aspect of the whole event is the lack of appropriate comment from the QF PR people. Yet again they have failed to reassure the travelling public that the crew acted safely. They could have supported the pilots, but failed to say a word. Not the first time...won't be the last. 
head Katter...... does anyone have an email address fro Wayne Swan? Would like to give him a serving as well.Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 27.27.3S 153.02.2E
Age: 58
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Adams - arvo announcer at Brisbanes 4BC wants to cover this story - and get it right.
Wanna have your say onair, call his producer Brenden Wood on 0417 407 851 - The show goes to air Today (Monday) from 3pm EST (Brisbane Time)
Tell them about Bob's sensationalism and the of the papers too.
www.4bc.com.au
Wanna have your say onair, call his producer Brenden Wood on 0417 407 851 - The show goes to air Today (Monday) from 3pm EST (Brisbane Time)
Tell them about Bob's sensationalism and the of the papers too.
www.4bc.com.au
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Watch and others
Email addresses below:
Wayne Swan [email protected]
Bob Katter [email protected]
Yes, it is quite pathetic. There is another report on the SMH website quoting Katter as saying:
"... the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner"
What ... the authorities aren't agreeing with Mr Katter (who has already shown his aviation expertise....not)?!
Perhaps, Mr Katter, "going round" is not such a big deal after all!
Email addresses below:
Wayne Swan [email protected]
Bob Katter [email protected]
Yes, it is quite pathetic. There is another report on the SMH website quoting Katter as saying:
"... the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner"
What ... the authorities aren't agreeing with Mr Katter (who has already shown his aviation expertise....not)?!
Perhaps, Mr Katter, "going round" is not such a big deal after all!