Qantas Incident????????
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From ABC
WTF has dick got to do with anything? Why do you need to make comments on this dick?
Last week it was the Benalla crash, now this.
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith says the flight should not have been taken off central radar control, which detects any approaching danger.
"An alarm would go off and tell the air traffic controller to tell the captain of the plane to climb immediately," he said.
"Then if the air traffic controller fails to give the message the automatic equipment in the plane goes off.
"That's what happened by the look of it, that's the only thing that saved these people from being killed."
"An alarm would go off and tell the air traffic controller to tell the captain of the plane to climb immediately," he said.
"Then if the air traffic controller fails to give the message the automatic equipment in the plane goes off.
"That's what happened by the look of it, that's the only thing that saved these people from being killed."
Last week it was the Benalla crash, now this.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think ****su-Tonka said it best Dick: STFU
Your grasp of ATC and how it works is tenuous at best - why the media actively seek you out for uninformed comment makes me despair - mainly at the competence and initiative of the media itself. No doubt a result of the McEducation system we have been delivered, and the sensationalist pop-idol stature of our media outlets. Even the ABC is falling in to the trap.
You might like to qualify your comment on 'central radar control' and exactly how accurate the ATC Minimum Safe Altitiude Warning would initiate Dick. EGPWS will be doing a better job than the terrain model built in to the TAAATS system.
Of course, I am sure you already know that with your self-declared expert status.
Your grasp of ATC and how it works is tenuous at best - why the media actively seek you out for uninformed comment makes me despair - mainly at the competence and initiative of the media itself. No doubt a result of the McEducation system we have been delivered, and the sensationalist pop-idol stature of our media outlets. Even the ABC is falling in to the trap.
You might like to qualify your comment on 'central radar control' and exactly how accurate the ATC Minimum Safe Altitiude Warning would initiate Dick. EGPWS will be doing a better job than the terrain model built in to the TAAATS system.
Of course, I am sure you already know that with your self-declared expert status.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Dick Smith says the flight should not have been taken off central radar control"
What the ???? What the hell does that mean?
He gets pi$$ed at not being allowed into CTA and then expects an aircraft to be kept in CTA against its wishes???
"ABC, clearance to leave on descent not available, remain in CTA".
Spare me.
RS
What the ???? What the hell does that mean?
He gets pi$$ed at not being allowed into CTA and then expects an aircraft to be kept in CTA against its wishes???
"ABC, clearance to leave on descent not available, remain in CTA".
Spare me.
RS
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith on ABC talk back has, barely 10 minutes ago, told Perth travellers that they should NOT travel on any QF flight to Canberra at night, until the Airservices issues are addressed.
And there was the usual discursive polemic about how "I am being prevented from saving the world, by everyone else."
And there was the usual discursive polemic about how "I am being prevented from saving the world, by everyone else."
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The World Today
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...4/s1204732.htm
Wednesday, 22 September , 2004 12:50:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
DAVID HARDAKER: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident involving a Qantas jet over Canberra in July, where it's believed the crew incorrectly programmed the jet's holding pattern.
Newspaper reports this morning claimed the passenger jet was just seconds from disaster, when its ground proximity warning system was activated.
The incident happened just before 5am, when the Qantas jet from Perth was ordered into a holding pattern over Canberra.
As Alison Caldwell reports, a professional pilots' website first detailed the incident late last week, and claimed that the jet's warning system saved the lives of everyone on board.
ALISON CALDWELL: Qantas flight 720 left Perth soon after midnight on July the 24th, with 155 passengers on board.
On it's approach to Canberra just before 5am, the Boeing 737 was placed in a holding pattern near a mountain range some 40 kilometres south of the national capital.
The World Today understands that the pilots on board incorrectly programmed the plane's coordinates and soon after, its warning system was activated.
Today's newspaper reports claim the jet came within 80 metres of hitting a mountain peak.
The incident was reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. A preliminary report will be released later today.
Peter Gibson is a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
PETER GIBSON: There was some problems with the programming of the holding pattern by the flight crew at the time, and that has been reported as an incident by Qantas, quite properly to us and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and that's being investigated right now.
ALISON CALDWELL: Details of the incident are contained on a professional pilots website.
It claims the crew and passengers were just seconds from disaster when the plane's warning system was activated.
Alan Stray is with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, he says the website has grossly exaggerated the incident.
ALAN STRAY: It's quite inappropriate and in many ways irresponsible for people to be putting out anecdotal information on rumour networks, and until we've had a chance to analyse the facts and come up with some concrete evidence and some findings, it is inappropriate to make such comments, and so we've been working on this for some weeks gathering sufficient information to be able to put something meaningful out to the public, and we hope to be in a position to do that in the next 24 to 48 hours.
ALISON CALDWELL: Neither the ATSB or CASA will provide any further information about the incident.
CASA's Peter Gibson says the website doesn't tell the whole story.
PETER GIBSON: The website is known as the pilots rumour network, and some of the information there is spot on and some of the information is just that, rumours.
Now, some of the information on this particular incident I think is probably reasonably close to the mark. Some of the other information is suggesting that the aircraft was only metres away from the mountaintops at the Tinderry Ranges I think is a bit exaggerated.
ALISON CALDWELL: The Qantas jet was one of airline's new 737 800's. With it's fully computerised cockpit, it allows the crew to manually change the aircraft's coordinates.
Richard Woodward is with the Australian International Pilots Association. He says the aircraft's terrain warning system gave the pilots enough time to take action.
RICHARD WOODWARD: The ground proximity warning system in the modern aircraft has a multiple layer of protection and the terrain warning indicates a closure rate with terrain that's not yet critical, you know for instance if the ground's climbing under the aeroplane and it's flying level it would give a terrain warning in the form of terrain terrain, whereas if the aircraft was ascending in very close proximity to the ground, that would be followed by a pull up call to the crew to take action.
The crew, I gather the crew reported the situation through the normal process and there was normal internal investigation in the company and appropriate actions in the company's eyes were taken and this just is a subsequent follow up by the ATSB.
ALISON CALDWELL: The Professional pilots website says that the jet's last line of defence against hitting the ground was its, you know being its ground proximity warning system, or GPWS was the only thing which saved the lives of the 155 passengers on board.
RICHARD WOODWARD: Um, well I think that's a long bow to draw on this case, because as I said I don't believe in this instance and I can't really speculate too much, but I don't think the actual closure rate with this terrain in this situation was that critical.
DAVID HARDAKER: Richard Woodward of the Australian International Pilots Association with Alison Caldwell.
Wednesday, 22 September , 2004 12:50:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
DAVID HARDAKER: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident involving a Qantas jet over Canberra in July, where it's believed the crew incorrectly programmed the jet's holding pattern.
Newspaper reports this morning claimed the passenger jet was just seconds from disaster, when its ground proximity warning system was activated.
The incident happened just before 5am, when the Qantas jet from Perth was ordered into a holding pattern over Canberra.
As Alison Caldwell reports, a professional pilots' website first detailed the incident late last week, and claimed that the jet's warning system saved the lives of everyone on board.
ALISON CALDWELL: Qantas flight 720 left Perth soon after midnight on July the 24th, with 155 passengers on board.
On it's approach to Canberra just before 5am, the Boeing 737 was placed in a holding pattern near a mountain range some 40 kilometres south of the national capital.
The World Today understands that the pilots on board incorrectly programmed the plane's coordinates and soon after, its warning system was activated.
Today's newspaper reports claim the jet came within 80 metres of hitting a mountain peak.
The incident was reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. A preliminary report will be released later today.
Peter Gibson is a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
PETER GIBSON: There was some problems with the programming of the holding pattern by the flight crew at the time, and that has been reported as an incident by Qantas, quite properly to us and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and that's being investigated right now.
ALISON CALDWELL: Details of the incident are contained on a professional pilots website.
It claims the crew and passengers were just seconds from disaster when the plane's warning system was activated.
Alan Stray is with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, he says the website has grossly exaggerated the incident.
ALAN STRAY: It's quite inappropriate and in many ways irresponsible for people to be putting out anecdotal information on rumour networks, and until we've had a chance to analyse the facts and come up with some concrete evidence and some findings, it is inappropriate to make such comments, and so we've been working on this for some weeks gathering sufficient information to be able to put something meaningful out to the public, and we hope to be in a position to do that in the next 24 to 48 hours.
ALISON CALDWELL: Neither the ATSB or CASA will provide any further information about the incident.
CASA's Peter Gibson says the website doesn't tell the whole story.
PETER GIBSON: The website is known as the pilots rumour network, and some of the information there is spot on and some of the information is just that, rumours.
Now, some of the information on this particular incident I think is probably reasonably close to the mark. Some of the other information is suggesting that the aircraft was only metres away from the mountaintops at the Tinderry Ranges I think is a bit exaggerated.
ALISON CALDWELL: The Qantas jet was one of airline's new 737 800's. With it's fully computerised cockpit, it allows the crew to manually change the aircraft's coordinates.
Richard Woodward is with the Australian International Pilots Association. He says the aircraft's terrain warning system gave the pilots enough time to take action.
RICHARD WOODWARD: The ground proximity warning system in the modern aircraft has a multiple layer of protection and the terrain warning indicates a closure rate with terrain that's not yet critical, you know for instance if the ground's climbing under the aeroplane and it's flying level it would give a terrain warning in the form of terrain terrain, whereas if the aircraft was ascending in very close proximity to the ground, that would be followed by a pull up call to the crew to take action.
The crew, I gather the crew reported the situation through the normal process and there was normal internal investigation in the company and appropriate actions in the company's eyes were taken and this just is a subsequent follow up by the ATSB.
ALISON CALDWELL: The Professional pilots website says that the jet's last line of defence against hitting the ground was its, you know being its ground proximity warning system, or GPWS was the only thing which saved the lives of the 155 passengers on board.
RICHARD WOODWARD: Um, well I think that's a long bow to draw on this case, because as I said I don't believe in this instance and I can't really speculate too much, but I don't think the actual closure rate with this terrain in this situation was that critical.
DAVID HARDAKER: Richard Woodward of the Australian International Pilots Association with Alison Caldwell.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how they keep losing/gaining 20 or so passengers..... 
Hell, if I was QF, I'd have my lawyer at Dick's doorstep right now... perhaps someone should get on the news and tell it like it really is, re; DS.... oh, wait, I forgot, he might sue.....
Sky
Hell, if I was QF, I'd have my lawyer at Dick's doorstep right now... perhaps someone should get on the news and tell it like it really is, re; DS.... oh, wait, I forgot, he might sue.....
Sky
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: At lunch
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Said
I thought the most serious near accident we've had in nearly 30 years was at Launy on Xmas eve, when Dick-space nearly welded the VB B737 and TB10.
Dick your a xxxx disgrace.
What we have got here is the most serious near-accident we've had in nearly 30 years," Mr Smith said.
Dick your a xxxx disgrace.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The most recent near CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) that I can recall, was in the very early 1990's, when 1 (and possibly 2) Ansett A320, crewed by a non-Australian, was making a DME arrival into Cairns from the south.
It was only an alert ATC'er who observed on radar (that the AFAP had been pushing for, for years prior) that the Airbus had descended WELL below the lowest altitude permitted, and advised the crew to climb.
You were wrong with the facts yet again, Dick!
It was only an alert ATC'er who observed on radar (that the AFAP had been pushing for, for years prior) that the Airbus had descended WELL below the lowest altitude permitted, and advised the crew to climb.
You were wrong with the facts yet again, Dick!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of the world through Dick Coloured Glasses.
The conspiracy theories keep growing in Dicks mind.
It just never occurs to him that maybe everybody else is right about this and he is the one that just might be wrong.
Just what does complete self belief become at the abandonment of all else?
Delusion?
The Avweb Article on Dicks day in court
Perhaps when Airservices Australia, CASA, ATSB, Qantas, Virgin all eventually are called to defend their position to the various courts at Dicks behest they could continue the theatrics, and conduct their press conference 'door stop' with a 'blindfolded Dick Smith?' - Oh, thats right. We've already got one of those.
There must be enough out on the table now for QANTAS to take Smith to court with his accusations against them, and pleading with the public not to fly into Canberra with QANTAS because it is not safe. Smith might be wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of a rich mans legal system (I won't call it a justice system!), but QANTAS has a deeper war chest. (As seen here - this would be a better reason not to plan a QF trip over Xmas surely?)
The conspiracy theories keep growing in Dicks mind.
It just never occurs to him that maybe everybody else is right about this and he is the one that just might be wrong.
Just what does complete self belief become at the abandonment of all else?
Delusion?
The Avweb Article on Dicks day in court
Perhaps when Airservices Australia, CASA, ATSB, Qantas, Virgin all eventually are called to defend their position to the various courts at Dicks behest they could continue the theatrics, and conduct their press conference 'door stop' with a 'blindfolded Dick Smith?' - Oh, thats right. We've already got one of those.
There must be enough out on the table now for QANTAS to take Smith to court with his accusations against them, and pleading with the public not to fly into Canberra with QANTAS because it is not safe. Smith might be wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of a rich mans legal system (I won't call it a justice system!), but QANTAS has a deeper war chest. (As seen here - this would be a better reason not to plan a QF trip over Xmas surely?)
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 24th Aug 2005 at 10:03.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To shed a little more light on the subject, here's some facts.
Red eye to CBR spot on. Company policy apparently states that if ATC services available, crew should hold until active (1935z in CBR). On the FMC hold page, a leg distance can be input. This alters the holding pattern in order to fly the distance specified as the inbound leg. The crew entered 14nm as a leg distance, possible misinterpreting this as a 14 DME limit. The holding pattern is at CCK as someone rightly mentioned before, and, unless my geography is poor, 14nm from CCK would put you pretty close to Kosiosko.
Hope this clarifies some misconceptions for you all
Red eye to CBR spot on. Company policy apparently states that if ATC services available, crew should hold until active (1935z in CBR). On the FMC hold page, a leg distance can be input. This alters the holding pattern in order to fly the distance specified as the inbound leg. The crew entered 14nm as a leg distance, possible misinterpreting this as a 14 DME limit. The holding pattern is at CCK as someone rightly mentioned before, and, unless my geography is poor, 14nm from CCK would put you pretty close to Kosiosko.
Hope this clarifies some misconceptions for you all
Kaptin M,
CNS 33 now has a nice shiny LLZ, but the bureaucrat dickwits didn't bother putting a DME on the threshold on probably the most difficult approach for heavies in Oz! No wonder crews not conversant with non-precision wiffodills have trouble with it, having to apply a minus 800ft profile correction to have any idea about what they're doing.
Dick should be ranting about that and therefore make a positive contribution to air safety here.
CNS 33 now has a nice shiny LLZ, but the bureaucrat dickwits didn't bother putting a DME on the threshold on probably the most difficult approach for heavies in Oz! No wonder crews not conversant with non-precision wiffodills have trouble with it, having to apply a minus 800ft profile correction to have any idea about what they're doing.
Dick should be ranting about that and therefore make a positive contribution to air safety here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just wonder how much Dick does know about aviation. Well actually I think I know the answer.
I routinely tell my (Asian) F/Os that I am old and grey and fallible and that if they wish to be my best friend they will scream like a stuck pig when I do something stupid. As do most expats I know. And the F/Os, perhaps being a little sick of arrogance etc, listen.
Pride, arrogance, infallibility, myopia, introspection, etc etc are killers in aviation. We are all the product of the accidents or near accidents that some other poor bugg@rs had at some time in the past.
Preaching about how "I have a dream" worked for Martin Luther King...he at least invested his life's work in that dream. Not as an interested bystander. To hear Dick's "I have an airspace dream" is to discourage me from ever going to sleep again.
Why do we listen to him?
I routinely tell my (Asian) F/Os that I am old and grey and fallible and that if they wish to be my best friend they will scream like a stuck pig when I do something stupid. As do most expats I know. And the F/Os, perhaps being a little sick of arrogance etc, listen.
Pride, arrogance, infallibility, myopia, introspection, etc etc are killers in aviation. We are all the product of the accidents or near accidents that some other poor bugg@rs had at some time in the past.
Preaching about how "I have a dream" worked for Martin Luther King...he at least invested his life's work in that dream. Not as an interested bystander. To hear Dick's "I have an airspace dream" is to discourage me from ever going to sleep again.
Why do we listen to him?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I can't understand is why they didn't hold higher. I haven't had a look at the charts but apart from terrain clearance it would likely have two additional benefits. That is controlled airspace, and reduced fuel burn.
So why did they do this? Was it late notification that CBR would not be active perhaps?
So why did they do this? Was it late notification that CBR would not be active perhaps?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance, the difference in fuel burn @ 5000 feet and 20,000 feet is negligible. @ 60T @ 5000 approx 2160 kh/hr. @ 60T @ 20,000 approx 2040 kg/hr. Just over 100 kg/hr diff. At that time of the morning you just want to get in and land. The guys made an error in the FMC and did an excellent job recovering from the resulting GPWS...end of story. All the training paid off in spades in this particular case. I would hazard a guess this particular crew will never make the same mistake again, and in the process have provided the rest of us with a friendly reminder that it can and will go wrong from time to time.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you suggest is quite probably true, spermy. I'd hope not though. "Get-home-itis" is known to have caused many an accident.
I don't know what happened, and I don't profess to. But I would like to know why they didn't hold higher. FF might only be a small consideration, but the others are considerable.
There but for the grace of God go I......
I don't know what happened, and I don't profess to. But I would like to know why they didn't hold higher. FF might only be a small consideration, but the others are considerable.
There but for the grace of God go I......
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One logical and probable reason for holding low would be that the tower may have been just about to open hence there may only have been a requirement of 1 pattern, not 100% sure.
Still, holding was carried out at 5000' which means a maximum of 170KIAS, requiring Flap 5 to be extended. At 6000', no speed restrictions imposed (including ICAO speeds) mean holding with flap extended. The basic fact of the matter remains, as mentioned in a previous post, for whatever reason the event occured, it dod occur and the crew were sufficiently trained to react to the warning and did so correctly, averting a more sinister outcome.
Still, holding was carried out at 5000' which means a maximum of 170KIAS, requiring Flap 5 to be extended. At 6000', no speed restrictions imposed (including ICAO speeds) mean holding with flap extended. The basic fact of the matter remains, as mentioned in a previous post, for whatever reason the event occured, it dod occur and the crew were sufficiently trained to react to the warning and did so correctly, averting a more sinister outcome.
