Is this a ridiculous over-reaction?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodward's quote on UE was a little disturbing (in respect of command decisions) especially as the fact remains that the real issue is the unkown variable. [Sorry Captain - not your call - Olivia said its OK to fly!!!!]
As acknowledged by BoM and VAC, this unkown largely stems from the different monitoring methodologies/systems used in AUS as opposed to the northern hemisphere.
Before we start the overkill chant here, we need to remember that under Dixon and Joyce, we have a business that has systematically and overtly raped the SMS and compromised what have been long standing, sensible safety procedures with commercially driven ammendments.
Given this, think I'd prefer to drop a few hours and let these decisions further predicate the "safety before schedule" cliche that has been so lovingly embraced by management. - we may need to quote it back to them in the not too distant future!
Interesting though that Joyce has been laying low since his foot in mouth exploit on the IATA stage in Singas. Guess he might have to say say something positive about Pilots otherwise - Nothing like the presence of inspiring leadership.
AT
A 'real' CEO would have at least done a few walk throughs checking on coal face staff and maybe even helping out talking to passengers for an hour or two. (Note Olivia: poss photo op ahead of the 30 June kicking)
As acknowledged by BoM and VAC, this unkown largely stems from the different monitoring methodologies/systems used in AUS as opposed to the northern hemisphere.
Before we start the overkill chant here, we need to remember that under Dixon and Joyce, we have a business that has systematically and overtly raped the SMS and compromised what have been long standing, sensible safety procedures with commercially driven ammendments.
Given this, think I'd prefer to drop a few hours and let these decisions further predicate the "safety before schedule" cliche that has been so lovingly embraced by management. - we may need to quote it back to them in the not too distant future!
Interesting though that Joyce has been laying low since his foot in mouth exploit on the IATA stage in Singas. Guess he might have to say say something positive about Pilots otherwise - Nothing like the presence of inspiring leadership.
AT
A 'real' CEO would have at least done a few walk throughs checking on coal face staff and maybe even helping out talking to passengers for an hour or two. (Note Olivia: poss photo op ahead of the 30 June kicking)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodward's quote on UE was a little disturbing (in respect of command decisions)
I don't profess to have bucket-loads of "international" experience as far as trotting to every corner of the globe, but I spend a lot of time operating between Oz & S/E Asia (DPS & HKT to be specific). Indonesia is one of the most volcanically active regions on Earth, & every second week there's a NOTAM concerning an ash cloud eruption somewhere in the region. If we were going to down tools every time one of those mountains started smoking, we'd simply never go.
At the end of the day, we have policies & procedures in place to mitigate the risk, we observe them, & unless it is an extreme case (& I don't think this is - unless we were operating in Chile & within a bee's dick of the volcano itself), we go. And when it's not safe to do so, we don't. However, we don't just apply a blanket suspension to ALL operations in the region, when there are still other options available. There is nothing disturbing about that; it's called RISK MANAGEMENT & COMMAND DECISION MAKING.
At the risk of being slaughtered, I have to ask what special training makes a pilot qualified to judge if the skies are free from volcanic ash and therefore that it's safe to fly? Is there no limit to their expertise?
That said, it’s about time the keyboard experts either shut up or put up. Qantas has developed a sophisticated system for the monitoring of volcanic eruptions and their impact on aviation. This goes back to the early 1980s when BA took a hammering over Indonesia. Everyone remembers that near catastrophe but how many recall that a Singapore Airlimes B747 (SQ222) flying from Singapore to Sydney unwittingly flew through volcanic ash shortly after the BA incident when everyone thought the skies were free from it? The SQ incident, while not as dramatic as BA’s, is largely forgotten but it did cause a lot of grief at the time. Perhaps the very wise decision-makers at Qantas do have some corporate memory after all! Also, if you think about it, why would any carrier want major disruption on a long week-end when loads are heavy?
That said, it’s about time the keyboard experts either shut up or put up. Qantas has developed a sophisticated system for the monitoring of volcanic eruptions and their impact on aviation. This goes back to the early 1980s when BA took a hammering over Indonesia. Everyone remembers that near catastrophe but how many recall that a Singapore Airlimes B747 (SQ222) flying from Singapore to Sydney unwittingly flew through volcanic ash shortly after the BA incident when everyone thought the skies were free from it? The SQ incident, while not as dramatic as BA’s, is largely forgotten but it did cause a lot of grief at the time. Perhaps the very wise decision-makers at Qantas do have some corporate memory after all! Also, if you think about it, why would any carrier want major disruption on a long week-end when loads are heavy?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would a major carrier want to cause major disruptions by alienating their workforce & forcing them to contemplate industrial action as well, Ken?
...But then what would I know. I'm just a dumb-ass aeroplane driver.
(Sorry for thread drift).
...But then what would I know. I'm just a dumb-ass aeroplane driver.
(Sorry for thread drift).
Ken, I hardly think that we are all "Keyboard Experts". As alluded to by many of us, we are "real plane" experts asking a few questions.
Also, my analysis of the ash cloud is based on the information we get from the "Volcano experts." I was under the impression that much of the "lower level" airspace was free from ash, as per the VAAC docs.
I am not questioning Qantas' decision in an antagonistic, churlish or industrial loaded barrage, but more as a general and genuine question of why.
How do I answer pax questions about our flights safety, if Qantas say it isn't. I am trying to see if I am being too dimissive or maybe even ignorant
As an aside, I must admit that I wasn't going to get actively involved in the discussion, but the invective and patronising attitude aimed at HIALS on the first page got me ****ty. I understood his general question, but not the negative passion of some of the replies.
Cheers
Also, my analysis of the ash cloud is based on the information we get from the "Volcano experts." I was under the impression that much of the "lower level" airspace was free from ash, as per the VAAC docs.
I am not questioning Qantas' decision in an antagonistic, churlish or industrial loaded barrage, but more as a general and genuine question of why.
How do I answer pax questions about our flights safety, if Qantas say it isn't. I am trying to see if I am being too dimissive or maybe even ignorant
As an aside, I must admit that I wasn't going to get actively involved in the discussion, but the invective and patronising attitude aimed at HIALS on the first page got me ****ty. I understood his general question, but not the negative passion of some of the replies.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with HIAL,
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.
That being said you know what opinions are like, everyone has one.
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.
That being said you know what opinions are like, everyone has one.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NZ
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat
At the end of the day, we have policies & procedures in place to mitigate the risk, we observe them, & unless it is an extreme case (& I don't think this is - unless we were operating in Chile & within a bee's dick of the volcano itself), we go
RISK MANAGEMENT & COMMAND DECISION MAKING.
If other airlines have a mandate to operate around, under, on top of etc; ash clouds we can only presume that their policies allow it.
I am sure once this situation has passed QF will look into those systems and see if indeed they were too excessive and need updating or changing. That though, is completely different to just making a decision to operate or not over the last couple of days.
Qantas, JetStar and Tiger are grounded because its unsafe to fly.
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly.
Someone needs to explain this!
Dr
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly.
Someone needs to explain this!
Dr
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is their Risk & Safety systems that have produced the 'do not operate' decision. How can they all a sudden change their decision without changing those policies?
The answer, it would appear, is YES, especially when the head of their own pilot union effectively disagrees with it.
How would you like to be faced with Forty CFM56's that all need new NGV's and First stage turbine blades by tomorrow afternoon?
...and only Four spares because you have outsourced all your engine overhaul to Asia?
...and only Four spares because you have outsourced all your engine overhaul to Asia?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone is denying the ash cloud is there; nor are they flying through it.
AirNZ is going around and under it, at the expense of some extra fuel (10%, they say).
Qantas and spawn are not.
AirNZ is not competing on lowest possible prices, and presumably has reasonable margins from captive government travellers at the front of the aeroplane. It is also looking after its core market.
Looks like a commercial decision, not a safety one.
AirNZ is going around and under it, at the expense of some extra fuel (10%, they say).
Qantas and spawn are not.
AirNZ is not competing on lowest possible prices, and presumably has reasonable margins from captive government travellers at the front of the aeroplane. It is also looking after its core market.
Looks like a commercial decision, not a safety one.
Last edited by FlightlessParrot; 14th Jun 2011 at 04:52. Reason: Typo
Qantas, JetStar and Tiger are grounded because its unsafe to fly.
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly
Do you ride a motorcycle? Is it safe?
Do you ride a motorcycle at night? In the rain? After two pints?
VB and the internationals flying in and out of ML have decided that it is SAFE ENOUGH to operate. QF has decided not to. Their call.
However, pretty hard to understand why ML to SY flights could not operate at low FL, in VMC by day for example.
Perhaps it has more to do with how QF are perceived by the market. QF are trying to "take the high moral ground" as it were by being ultra conservative.
A little like when ATC had closed some approach sectors and gone TIBA. I heard the QF CP on the radio selling the line that QF WILL NOT FLY in UNCONTROLLED airspace. Someone should tell him about Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland etc
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with HIAL,
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.
You will suffer from higher fuel burns, but surely the cost of doing this is less than all the adminstration and overtime costs involved in sorting the mess out during the following days?
Perhaps some airline operations staff and management have become a little excited that something like this has happened in their neck of the woods, resulting in a massive over-reaction? I'm not for one minute suggesting flying through it, but surely some better decisions could have been made!
I agree - a ridiculous over reaction....
......................by a lot of Bogans who can't understand why Qantas and Jetstar won't risk a few hundred million in additional engine costs, not to mention loss of earnings, just so they can spend a dirty weekend in Hobart or wherever.
......................by a lot of Bogans who can't understand why Qantas and Jetstar won't risk a few hundred million in additional engine costs, not to mention loss of earnings, just so they can spend a dirty weekend in Hobart or wherever.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, QF did exactly the same thing in the eighties. It was one of the combies, (747/200)half pax, half freight, or often racehorses. It came back home with completely crazed windows, severe damage to the leading edge of both wings and tail plane, and four totally stuffed JT9's (I think the RB211's came later) a excellent bit of flying from the lads got her back, and I put it in the same category as the A380 for airmanship, at least Richard could see where he was going. She was in the hangar for 8 weeks required four new donks, a new leading edge and new windows. A mate of mine took her out to HNL for her first flight and he was not a happy camper, four new donks and over water did not do it for him, and a couple of the engineers were not all that enthralled either, but all went well.
Hcmclown:
Both components are full of very fine cooling air channels. if ash gets in there and melts, you lose cooling and the blades and vanes overtemp and erode faster.
The permissible limit for contamination is measured in micrograms per cubic metre of air, a lethal dose for an engine is apparently not even very visible in CAVOK conditions, let alone at night.
I don't understand. What type of damage can be caused to NGV's and 1st stage turbine blades by an ash cloud?
The permissible limit for contamination is measured in micrograms per cubic metre of air, a lethal dose for an engine is apparently not even very visible in CAVOK conditions, let alone at night.
four new donks and over water did not do it for him, and a couple of the engineers were not all that enthralled either, but all went well.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volcanic Ash Graphics 5
Presumably this is a very cautious presentation by meteorlogical experts.
I think airlines applying their own margins of care would be justified in operating.
Presumably this is a very cautious presentation by meteorlogical experts.
I think airlines applying their own margins of care would be justified in operating.