Qantas A380 Delayed:Pilot Unwell
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tightslot`s Place
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas A380 Delayed:Pilot Unwell
Around last tuesday or wednesday a QF A380 was delayed ex LAX.
Big deal you say.Situation normal.
Apparently one of the pilots to operate this aircraft was "unwell"
The "unwellness" was self induced.
LAX ground staff were a little(a lot) pissed (off)
Anyone verify/comment?
Big deal you say.Situation normal.
Apparently one of the pilots to operate this aircraft was "unwell"
The "unwellness" was self induced.
LAX ground staff were a little(a lot) pissed (off)
Anyone verify/comment?
By 'unwell' did you mean 'had been injured'...? Because according to Hallmark ground staff, apparently that was the case.
Perhaps the bigger question should be 'why weren't there any other F/O's available to operate the flight?' - which lead to the schedulers trying to shaft 2 F/O's that arrived on the morning of the delayed departure to operate back out again that night - a bare minimum 12 hours after touching down on arrival from SYD/MEL.
Perhaps the bigger question should be 'why weren't there any other F/O's available to operate the flight?' - which lead to the schedulers trying to shaft 2 F/O's that arrived on the morning of the delayed departure to operate back out again that night - a bare minimum 12 hours after touching down on arrival from SYD/MEL.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question Joyce will be asking is why his highly paid flt ops managers didn't have a proper recovery plan.
The days of relying on good will went out with the last few crap eba's and won't wash as a solution with the big boys.
I suspect those managers will be answering some tough questions and it will be their careers that are toast NOT the pilot who merely satisfied his legal responsibility.
The days of relying on good will went out with the last few crap eba's and won't wash as a solution with the big boys.
I suspect those managers will be answering some tough questions and it will be their careers that are toast NOT the pilot who merely satisfied his legal responsibility.
Perhaps the bigger question should be 'why weren't there any other F/O's available to operate the flight?' - which lead to the schedulers trying to shaft 2 F/O's that arrived on the morning of the delayed departure to operate back out again that night - a bare minimum 12 hours after touching down on arrival from SYD/MEL.
Get real guys - is this another example why pilots should stick to the flying?
----trying to shaft 2 F/O's that arrived on the morning of the delayed departure to operate back out again that night - a bare minimum 12 hours after touching down on arrival from SYD/MEL.
No airline can afford to have "formal" standby crews down the line, in this day and age.
Don't anybody forget, it is a criminal offense of strict liability to operate when unwell. Its happened to to me, both going sick at short notice down line ( food poisoning) and being turned around with min. rest.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tightslot`s Place
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps ?
He injured himself after he became "unwell"
Whatever the case the situation has certainly highlighted some operational shortcomings that need to be addressed
Whatever the case the situation has certainly highlighted some operational shortcomings that need to be addressed
[QUOTE][No airline can afford to have "formal" standby crews down the line, in this day and age.
/QUOTE]
Wrong.
For example airlines have, in europe, used the practice for years for some of their long haul destinations to provide an operational flexibility that can cover a scenario like this. What it requires is some common sense on both sides of the fence. Oh, hang on that may be construed as engagement,.
It's not rocket science either!
/QUOTE]
Wrong.
For example airlines have, in europe, used the practice for years for some of their long haul destinations to provide an operational flexibility that can cover a scenario like this. What it requires is some common sense on both sides of the fence. Oh, hang on that may be construed as engagement,.
It's not rocket science either!
Whatever the case the situation has certainly highlighted some operational shortcomings that need to be addressed
Nonsense, it does no such thing, the correct technical explanation for such problems is: "Sh1t happens".
Stick to MS Flight Sim.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
I know that and you know too but will Joyce?
He will just want to know why the whole operation relys on one guy (not even a capt).
Also, there are options for recovery if management and the union could get together.
Heard of a landing qualified s/o? Dispensations or blanket approval in the case of disruption, then operate 3 man? Wow! And all from a mere pilot.
It's not that difficult.
I know that and you know too but will Joyce?
He will just want to know why the whole operation relys on one guy (not even a capt).
Also, there are options for recovery if management and the union could get together.
Heard of a landing qualified s/o? Dispensations or blanket approval in the case of disruption, then operate 3 man? Wow! And all from a mere pilot.
It's not that difficult.
What a hopeless thread.
Labia, You are wrong, and posting slanderous comments on an anonymous forum does nothing for your credibility.
Crew going sick in a slip port and alternative crewing arrangements having to be made, unfortunately sometimes incurring an aircraft delay, are a normal part of international airline operations.
My guess, given the timeframe of your post and the delayed A380 flight you are referring to, is that you weren't even there, and I highly doubt LAX Hallmark staff would give the public specific details on the unwellness (sic) of an operating crew member.
Labia, You are wrong, and posting slanderous comments on an anonymous forum does nothing for your credibility.
Crew going sick in a slip port and alternative crewing arrangements having to be made, unfortunately sometimes incurring an aircraft delay, are a normal part of international airline operations.
My guess, given the timeframe of your post and the delayed A380 flight you are referring to, is that you weren't even there, and I highly doubt LAX Hallmark staff would give the public specific details on the unwellness (sic) of an operating crew member.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny Utah
If being asked to be flexible and work within legal flight and duty limits to:
- stop inconveniencing 500 passengers
- avoid the massive cost of an A380 delay ie accomodation for hundreds; and
-subsequent delays to the most lucrative route in the QF network
is a "shafting" then perhaps that type of attitude is why Joyce is by-passing mainline for other "industrial solutions".
AND there is sweet f#@k all you can do about it.
If being asked to be flexible and work within legal flight and duty limits to:
- stop inconveniencing 500 passengers
- avoid the massive cost of an A380 delay ie accomodation for hundreds; and
-subsequent delays to the most lucrative route in the QF network
is a "shafting" then perhaps that type of attitude is why Joyce is by-passing mainline for other "industrial solutions".
AND there is sweet f#@k all you can do about it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Geeeze. Since when did any airline have stand-by crew, or a recovery plan, at out-ports to cover the possibility of occasional illness and other adversities?
a bare minimum 12 hours after touching down on arrival from SYD/MEL.
Ka. Boom,
Since when does someone have to be named? Any pilot within Qantas could check who the F.O. was, it is not hard for that information to be found, also as you would be well aware, the crew on the flight would also know who it was. For Libel to be proven in the legal context the person does not have to be named if it is reasonable to expect that people can ascertain who it is that is being referred to.
Regardless, In the context of the post I am not trying to point to the legal aspect of libel but the willingness of someone to 'slag off' another professional pilot for no good reason (name known by all or not!).
Since when does someone have to be named? Any pilot within Qantas could check who the F.O. was, it is not hard for that information to be found, also as you would be well aware, the crew on the flight would also know who it was. For Libel to be proven in the legal context the person does not have to be named if it is reasonable to expect that people can ascertain who it is that is being referred to.
Regardless, In the context of the post I am not trying to point to the legal aspect of libel but the willingness of someone to 'slag off' another professional pilot for no good reason (name known by all or not!).