Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Another Qantas incident

Old 4th Nov 2009, 23:28
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
brace brace brace

....'just caught the morning news.

Latest "revelation"

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

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

I can smell another Today Tonight "expose" brewing.
stubby jumbo is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 00:34
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: eca
Posts: 73
Ohhh My God

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

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

Please can someone start a non company specific forum where the membership is vetted to only allow professional aviators to post. Only then will we be able to constructively discuss these matters. The rest of you idiots may in turn learn something by just simply reading........ Instead of berating us with your bullshut and drivel!!!!
campdoag is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 00:48
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 55
Posts: 424
heard a rumor that the reason they forgot to lower the gear was an intense discussion that the chinese are lacto intolerant and if they do make cheese does it have holes in it?
indamiddle is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 01:01
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
Please can someone start a non company specific forum where the membership is vetted to only allow professional aviators to post. Only then will we be able to constructively discuss these matters. The rest of you idiots may in turn learn something by just simply reading........ Instead of berating us with your bullshut and drivel!!!!
Here here. I have been wondering about this for along time. It will do at least two things. Firstly cut out more than 50% of the drivel that we have to trawl through to get to useful posts, thereby lifting the overall quality of the posts.

PPRuNe is/was set up as a professional pilots forum, engineers and cabin crew can have there own forum or at least be identified as such, same for ATCers but listening to a 100 hour private pliots thoughts on what SHOULD have happened in the cockpit is getting very boring.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 01:10
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
I am no longer associated with the empire, so things may have changed but somehow I don't think so.

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

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

The reason I am told that it got killed was that the PR people did not want any "dirty washing" in the public domain and this included safety material from which the staff might learn from. Maybe this lack of communication on safety matters for such a large organisation is a contributiong factor to some of the occurrences of late??? Having a safety magazne/newsletter is an essential part of having a sound safety culture. Where that culture sits now is anybody's guess!
spirax is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 01:33
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: I stap nambaut lo sampela hap
Posts: 10
answering the opening posters question

Has Flight Training suffered cuts along with the rest of the Airline?
Gday KB,

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a few years it will probably change again, with a different name. Something about deckchairs on submarines comes to mind..
Sorry about any thread drift, but thats the short and ill-informed version of what happened.
Cheers
Viagra is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 01:54
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
Cheese holes not lining up....

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

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

Of course, probably the spin doctor was trying to say "backup systems prevented an accident" (there was still plenty of cheese in between the holes). But from long experience I get a much better degree of comfort from someone admitting there was a problem no matter how minor and that it was going to be fixed, than someone saying there was no problem at all.
Groaner is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 02:22
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
and....

So start one then, why wait on someone else to do it?
This is an open internet forum, what the heck do you expect.
Maybe the crew room is the place to go for the kind of opinions you are after.
This argument has been done over a thousand times on PPRuNe and whilst I understand it, every opinion should be welcome, even if they are somewhat off track.
boardpig is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 02:36
  #109 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
The incident is being investigated, not the pilots
Pull the other one because it plays jingle bells.....who else was flying the aircraft?

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

Also the Chinese cheese with holes in it comes from yak milk in Northern China....
RedTBar is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 03:05
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Extreme
Posts: 308
Chinese cheese looks like normal cheese yet is cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same and has a high melamine content.

While we are waiting for a further official report why dont we move on to more important things.
Shot Nancy is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 03:16
  #111 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Chinese cheese looks like normal cheese yet is cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same and has a high melamine content.
Shot Nancy,but melamine is what a good communist uses to fill in the holes in the cheese so that nothing like this happens.
The taste is irrelevant to the party and any good socialist.
RedTBar is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 03:54
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
On second thoughts I regret comparing anything that goes wrong on an airline flight to the activities of councillors in local govt. That was down right rude.

I didn't see the offensive stuff on the tv either. Putting the fact that there is an investigation going on in the papers and the net is right I think. I found some comments from pilots including the Qantas union bloke a bit thought provoking since you do get the impression a whole set of things that should have been done by the pilots weren't done until very late in the peace.
denabol is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 04:34
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
I don't think they were at peace at any time during the latter stages of the piece either.

Flying standards aren't the only thing "going down" in Australia.
Kangaroo Court is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 05:29
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
I found some comments from pilots including the Qantas union bloke a bit thought provoking since you do get the impression a whole set of things that should have been done by the pilots weren't done until very late in the peace.
Fair enough....if that turns out to be the case the question should be , and will be , 'why?'
Equipment failure?
Poorly designed SOP's?
Communication problems ?
Medical issues?
CRM issues?
Fatigue?
A combination of all/any of the above?
For all we know the crew were working through a NNC which required a different configuration for the approach and made a good call to go-round when things were looking less than 100% stable.
Maybe the flaps didn't run when selected and they asessed it, discussed it, initiated the MAP and then got the warning in the process.
Maybe they had selected the gear down and there was a micro-switch problem which gave them a config warning?
There are a thousand and one things that could have happened. I'm not suggesting any of the above occurred but can anyone say they didn't?
Framer
framer is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 05:34
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,177
The aircraft was obviously not configured by 1000', the IFR stable approach point, or possibly not going to be properly configured by the visual stable approach point of 500'.

I don't know if they were in cloud at 1000' feet or in VMC and simply made the judgement that they weren't going to be stable by 500', but a lot of people on this thread are going to look very silly if this crew was simply going around as per SOP due to the stable approach criteria.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 06:56
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 130
RedTBar,

Until the report comes out everything we say is speculation....but to say the pilots and their actions are not being investigated is sheer rubbish.
The first part I agree with.

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

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

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

Spirax,

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

Groaner,

I still disagree with your characterisation of the Qantas corporate communications response as quoted in the Sandilands article. The statement was:
there was no flight safety issue
There was never any mention of "no risk". A go around was conducted followed by a safe landing. The rest will have to wait till the report comes out.
GaryGnu is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 09:12
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
The pilots realised what was happening before the warning went off, and had firewalled the throttles and commanded flap changes in a go-around procedure, but at 700 feet and dropping, the jet continued to descend before responding to their inputs.
As a warning to the readers, Ben Sandilands' editor should force him to sign off ALL of his reports with his initials.

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

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

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

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

Stabilisation requirements: They weren't stable and fully-configured by the cut-off point (in fact before it) so they conducted a go-around. And now BS and some plonkers on PPRuNe are making it a federal case.
YoDawg is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 09:57
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,784
I don't know if it has already been mentioned as I lost patience with the drivel after page 3 but there are circumstances where such an incident can happen.

I recall an internet article by John Deakin where he 'fessed up to almost landing a 744 wheels up at San Francisco. He described the whole approach and how everyone one on the flight deck (there were supernummary crew on board) missed the one little item on the checklist. It makes an interesting read. Can't be fecked providing a link.
PLovett is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 09:59
  #119 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Cactusjack,Thats the problem with the swiss cheese model.Anything can slide through those holes,even Danish Butter.Slippery little suckers
RedTBar is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2009, 10:02
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Talk about drift thread...

This is rediculous mods, seriously.

Butter...

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

Investigation pending. Case closed, get over it everyone.
Ultergra is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.