QF 737 AKL-SYD Turn Back (Insufficient Gas)
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Well, like every good RUMOUR, the FACTS will emerge s-l-o-w-l-y - directly in-proportional to the RUMOURS!!
But in the interim...amidst all of the speculation...a lot of pertinent, good discussion will evolve - even if NOT directly related to the topic!
So T_C_O_B, the crew suddenly came to the realisation that they had uplifted fuel for a sector that would experience jetstream headwinds, instead of jetstream tailwinds - at altitude - making a severe difference in the TRIP fuel
............at altitude!!
Of course, once airborne, the "on ground calcs" NOW become subject to "inflight calculations" - something cunning operators take advantage of regularly!
BUT, Winter jetstreams across Oz/N.Z. are notoriously extreme! So one can only ASSUME that this crew must have given it their BEST shot (with their recalculations) before deciding on a SAFE return.
Let's NEVER understate/underestimate THAT!!
A SAFE return for ALL involved.
THAT is what the job of a PROFESSIONAL pilot is ALL about, imo.
Accountable - by all means - REGARDLESS of cost!
Care to cast any more light on the PH incident, T_C_O_B?? This is the first time that I have heard it was a 74 (and not a 76).
Apparently - according to RUMOUR - the pax all had their life jackets on, in readiness for a swim.
But in the interim...amidst all of the speculation...a lot of pertinent, good discussion will evolve - even if NOT directly related to the topic!
So T_C_O_B, the crew suddenly came to the realisation that they had uplifted fuel for a sector that would experience jetstream headwinds, instead of jetstream tailwinds - at altitude - making a severe difference in the TRIP fuel
............at altitude!!Of course, once airborne, the "on ground calcs" NOW become subject to "inflight calculations" - something cunning operators take advantage of regularly!
BUT, Winter jetstreams across Oz/N.Z. are notoriously extreme! So one can only ASSUME that this crew must have given it their BEST shot (with their recalculations) before deciding on a SAFE return.
Let's NEVER understate/underestimate THAT!!
A SAFE return for ALL involved.
THAT is what the job of a PROFESSIONAL pilot is ALL about, imo.
Accountable - by all means - REGARDLESS of cost!
Care to cast any more light on the PH incident, T_C_O_B?? This is the first time that I have heard it was a 74 (and not a 76).
Apparently - according to RUMOUR - the pax all had their life jackets on, in readiness for a swim.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yonder
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I hadn't been watching the thread ice. But now I am, I can tell you that I have never, and nor has Pete to my knowledge, claimed that we are 'superior beings'. Your own paranoia simply interprets it that way. Dont blame us for your own psychological shortcomings.
Kapt, I don't know much about the 747 / 767 ??? incident, but the fact that YOU can't even describe what the aircraft type is means that YOU really haven't a clue, have YOU?
But I have heard that the 737 crew are embarrassed, as you would be. But no one has suggested that in an airline as big as QF that mistakes don't happen. They do. And your point is?
All that I can say is that the point that you are trying to prove is not valid simply due to two incidents. If you have the tumerity to critisise me with regards to my campaign against Jetstar, then you turn around and begin your own against QF, then you must wear your own critisism.
What little respect I had for you is now gone.
Kapt, I don't know much about the 747 / 767 ??? incident, but the fact that YOU can't even describe what the aircraft type is means that YOU really haven't a clue, have YOU?
But I have heard that the 737 crew are embarrassed, as you would be. But no one has suggested that in an airline as big as QF that mistakes don't happen. They do. And your point is?
All that I can say is that the point that you are trying to prove is not valid simply due to two incidents. If you have the tumerity to critisise me with regards to my campaign against Jetstar, then you turn around and begin your own against QF, then you must wear your own critisism.
What little respect I had for you is now gone.
Yorik,
So you"re NOT better than Jetstar pilots. Is that what you're saying?
But that would make you.... ARRR Now I understand...
Oh, dear, not again..............
Woomera
I have never, and nor has Pete to my knowledge, claimed that we are 'superior beings'.
But that would make you.... ARRR Now I understand...
Oh, dear, not again..............
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 3rd Jul 2004 at 22:45.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Please clue me up then, Yorik 
The "guts" of the Perth event are - I believe - as described. The story doing the rounds at the time, and it came from QF pilots 
was that the aircraft that almost ditched due to fog, was a 767.
An event such as that one would have to be common knowledge within QANTAS pilot ranks, and is generally known about outside.
If it was a 747 instead of a 767, who gives a flying f
k - the moral of the story is, that in the long run the crew made a GOOD decision!
But Yorik, J* is a QANTAS Group company. Let's hope that your superiors don't find out who you really are, running a campaign against your own Company!
And contrary to your perceived opinion, I am NOT running any "campaign" against QANTAS, nor QF pilots. In actual fact, I am a QF FF, which means that QANTAS is my preferred choice whenever I and my family travel as full fare pax!
(And quite frankly, I don't give a rat's @rse whether I have your respect or not, if telling a few basic FACTS upsets you.)
The "guts" of the Perth event are - I believe - as described. The story doing the rounds at the time, and it came from QF pilots was that the aircraft that almost ditched due to fog, was a 767.An event such as that one would have to be common knowledge within QANTAS pilot ranks, and is generally known about outside.
If it was a 747 instead of a 767, who gives a flying f
k - the moral of the story is, that in the long run the crew made a GOOD decision!
...my campaign against Jetstar
And contrary to your perceived opinion, I am NOT running any "campaign" against QANTAS, nor QF pilots. In actual fact, I am a QF FF, which means that QANTAS is my preferred choice whenever I and my family travel as full fare pax!
(And quite frankly, I don't give a rat's @rse whether I have your respect or not, if telling a few basic FACTS upsets you.)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yonder
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banging my head against a brick wall would be easier than attempting to discuss anything with you, Kapt. Shall I cite emergency exits as an example? You just won't understand, despite the facts being under your nose.
Firstly, I'm not aware of the facts of the 'Perth'
incident. Nor are you as far as I can tell. But it sure as hell seems that you are attempting to say something about QF pilots and using this as an example. Don't even bother telling me you aren't, because you aren't that clever. If you think they made a good decision, then why bring it up? It doen't gell with your story?
My campaign with Jetstar seems quite well documented on these threads. I'm absolutely certain that the company (read QF GROUP) is well aware of the feelings of 100% of QF pilots with regards to Jetstar. And that is that they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another, and that this renders their operation dubious. I will guarantee you that ALL QF mainline pilots feel this way. Whether they feel constrained in saying so, or whether they will take it to the degree that I do is doubtful.
But know this - the company is aware of my feelings already - because I reflect the views of many.
Kapt? Where exactly are your facts from your previous posts? They are simply rumours - you can't even name the ac type. If you aren't running any campaign against QF, then shut up. Your contributions count for zero. You seem a bitter twisted individual who still lives in '89.
Wiz. A very sad post from you. I haven't stated I'm better. Unlike adama who has stated that they in fact ARE! But try this on for size - have any pilots from Jetstar been rejected by QF? If so how many? And for what reason?
Firstly, I'm not aware of the facts of the 'Perth'
incident. Nor are you as far as I can tell. But it sure as hell seems that you are attempting to say something about QF pilots and using this as an example. Don't even bother telling me you aren't, because you aren't that clever. If you think they made a good decision, then why bring it up? It doen't gell with your story?My campaign with Jetstar seems quite well documented on these threads. I'm absolutely certain that the company (read QF GROUP) is well aware of the feelings of 100% of QF pilots with regards to Jetstar. And that is that they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another, and that this renders their operation dubious. I will guarantee you that ALL QF mainline pilots feel this way. Whether they feel constrained in saying so, or whether they will take it to the degree that I do is doubtful.
But know this - the company is aware of my feelings already - because I reflect the views of many.
telling a few basic FACTS
Wiz. A very sad post from you. I haven't stated I'm better. Unlike adama who has stated that they in fact ARE! But try this on for size - have any pilots from Jetstar been rejected by QF? If so how many? And for what reason?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
My campaign with Jetstar seems quite well documented on these threads.....they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another
If you think they made a good decision, then why bring it up?
That the incident happened was no great secret at the time, so perhaps you should do a little research, and show a bit more interest in your Company, and that way you might then be able to speak with a little bit of knowledge (a very little) on which to base your arguments!
Where anything to do with 1989 EVER entered into this discussion, I have no idea - you seem to be clutching at straws, Yousillik Hunt that bear no relativatity to the discussion to date.
...have any pilots from Jetstar been rejected by QF?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yonder
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you say clutching at straws, Kraptin M, you seem to be grabbing at a few yourself. '89 has everything to do with every comment YOU put on this forum. You clearly still have the screaming sh1ts with QF for their role (or lack thereof) in '89. And YOU will go to impossible lengths to put them down, won't you?
You fool. You don't even know what aircraft type it was. Surely YOU should follow your own advice before commencing an argument!
YOU are a sad, sad person.
that way you might then be able to speak with a little bit of knowledge (a very little) on which to base your arguments!
YOU are a sad, sad person.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
You clearly still have the screaming sh1ts with QF for their role (or lack thereof) in '89.
And YOU will go to impossible lengths to put them down, won't you?
But you make quite a good job of making a fool of yourself............regularly, and unassisted.
Any more straws you want to grasp at?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yonder
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear. It just goes on, doesn't it.
In every post where you have decided to critisise an airline, it is QF. You clearly have a problem with them. You are clearly bitter and twisted about '89. Don't deny either. 2+2=4.
Oh and don't bother replying. You are a very boring animal.
Go back to arguing about emergency exits. It suits you better.
Woomera
In every post where you have decided to critisise an airline, it is QF. You clearly have a problem with them. You are clearly bitter and twisted about '89. Don't deny either. 2+2=4.
Oh and don't bother replying. You are a very boring animal.
Go back to arguing about emergency exits. It suits you better.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 4th Jul 2004 at 09:27.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
So using the Yousillik Hunt theory of, "And that is that they are being paid too little for what they are doing, that they are acceptable on one pay level and not another, and that this renders their operation dubious.", pilots who are paid more than other pilots are safer 
On around USD20k per month + bonuses, the Sillik Hunt's formula must put JAS, ANA and JAL mainline pilots almost at the top of the tree, on a world basis.
Somewhere after them would come some of the US airline pilots, and then CX A-scalers.
You, Yorik, must be an awfully long way down the list, using YOUR philosophy.
You appear to have some nagging hang up about 1989 on this thread, Yousillik. I suggest you have the man in the white coat give you a Bex, a cup of tea, and that you have a lie down in that padded room again.
At least we know that while you're on the keyboard, the skies are a SAFER place!
On around USD20k per month + bonuses, the Sillik Hunt's formula must put JAS, ANA and JAL mainline pilots almost at the top of the tree, on a world basis.
Somewhere after them would come some of the US airline pilots, and then CX A-scalers.
You, Yorik, must be an awfully long way down the list, using YOUR philosophy.
You appear to have some nagging hang up about 1989 on this thread, Yousillik. I suggest you have the man in the white coat give you a Bex, a cup of tea, and that you have a lie down in that padded room again.
At least we know that while you're on the keyboard, the skies are a SAFER place!
I have had the Perth story related as well. However as told to me the fog was completely unforecast and the AC being a 763 is a little streched on the NRT-PER route payload/range wise ie with a fullish load you don't have alot of fuel to play with on a 9.5 hr sector, especially when planning for alternates from Perth. Does anyone recall a story in the old crash comics about a Cathay 707 that wound up in Meekertharra due to PH fog back in the 70s ? And of course there is the MMA F28 that flamed out on the landing roll in Fitzroy Crossing in 68.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be one of the most childish exchanges that I have witnessed yet on PPRUNE. You are as bad as one another. In fact Krappin M, we are aware of Yorik's capabilities as a stirrer, or Magutzup as some have suggested, but why do you feel it necessary to sink to his level....
For all of our sanity, cut it out.
For all of our sanity, cut it out.
amos2,
Impossible? No! This also happened at CX many years ago on a Convair 880 if I remember correctly.
I have also had a crew member recommend a burnoff only figure to me at the planning stage on at least three occasions as well.
Be careful!
Impossible? No! This also happened at CX many years ago on a Convair 880 if I remember correctly.
I have also had a crew member recommend a burnoff only figure to me at the planning stage on at least three occasions as well.
Be careful!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icebreaker...? whats there to be superior about? I'd shut your trap if I was you. The person who speaks holier than thou can just as easily have an incident himself one day. You, as a human being have never made a mistake have you?
Kap...you have to take a chill pill dude, seriously, you'll end up vapour locking the way your going.
Kap...you have to take a chill pill dude, seriously, you'll end up vapour locking the way your going.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QF incident was Sin-Per 747 classic. unforecast fog at Perth. Proceeded to DPA (essentially a PNR) based on Learmonth which equated to about Top of descent Perth. Returned to Learmonth with not a lot of fuel and ditch headings were definitely discussed. The complicating factor was that the pilot was undergoing command training so under the circumstances could not really proceed to Perth "illegally". The non - precision approach minima at YPLM was significantly infringed. Ask on mahogany row for more details...