Is this a ridiculous over-reaction?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
So lot's of talk about how dangerous it is and in the other camp how it is an over reaction by QF but why is not anyone saying VB is operating dangerously? Just a thought with no opinion either way. I'll bet my 2nd leg Virgin does not have any major engine problems because the decisions there have not been taken over by 20's something UNI graduates in risk assesment aka lawyers!
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We in Europe would be interested to know the procedures in place, as Europe is trying to implement an “operators’ discretion” system.
What’s happening down there is a very specific situation – normally the job of charting the ash contamination should be the responsibility of the VAAC in whose region the eruption occurred (Buenos Aires). But trans-Tasman flights transit between two other VAAC regions (Darwin and Wellington). An earlier poster said that Darwin was providing advice to the Aus carriers. Could there be three – or more – ash dispersal models circulating, all showing different results?
What’s happening down there is a very specific situation – normally the job of charting the ash contamination should be the responsibility of the VAAC in whose region the eruption occurred (Buenos Aires). But trans-Tasman flights transit between two other VAAC regions (Darwin and Wellington). An earlier poster said that Darwin was providing advice to the Aus carriers. Could there be three – or more – ash dispersal models circulating, all showing different results?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East Coast Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different prospective from an eye in the sky BN CTR...
There is one thing I don't understand about QF not flying. I don't begrudge QF for taking the safer (or by policy default) option for not flying, however what strikes me as odd is the fact that nearly all major international airlines continue to fly to AUS/NZ, in some cases outside of controlled airspace (see and be seen!). We are talking Singapore 777's, Emirates A380's flying to Auckland at 20,000ft, Malaysian 777's, then there is the airlines just transiting Australian airspace... I could go on...
But it does strike me as odd that an airline like Emirates will fly to NZ and back in their flagship A380, with only a fraction on their journey being controlled by ATC, usually a massive no-no in Regular Public Transport operations, while QF plays the procedures card over and over again...
There is one thing I don't understand about QF not flying. I don't begrudge QF for taking the safer (or by policy default) option for not flying, however what strikes me as odd is the fact that nearly all major international airlines continue to fly to AUS/NZ, in some cases outside of controlled airspace (see and be seen!). We are talking Singapore 777's, Emirates A380's flying to Auckland at 20,000ft, Malaysian 777's, then there is the airlines just transiting Australian airspace... I could go on...
But it does strike me as odd that an airline like Emirates will fly to NZ and back in their flagship A380, with only a fraction on their journey being controlled by ATC, usually a massive no-no in Regular Public Transport operations, while QF plays the procedures card over and over again...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I haven't met a QF Pilot yet that makes any claim to being an absolute expert on all matters.
Pilots make their assessments and decisions based on the evidence on hand, as well as consulting with subject matter experts. At the end of the day a Pilot WILL make the final call over a specific matter as it is his/her a#s that is responsible for hundreds of lives in a pressurised tube. The Execs will be sitting at home sipping bubbly, listening to clasical music , counting their bonuses while having their strudels massaged, all within a nice safe comfortable environment.
If a Pilot feels that in the name of safety he is not going to move his/her aircraft an inch off the ground then that is his/her perogative, whether they are an absolute expert or not.
Ken, go and grab 3 kilo's of volcanic ash, stuff it in a makeshift bong and inhale the entire amount in one momentous drag. Be gone....
I'll bet my 2nd leg Virgin does not have any major engine problems because the decisions there have not been taken over by 20's something UNI graduates in risk assesment aka lawyers!
The have rolled the dice on a situation that would be devastating financially to them, they don't have the same options QF do financially.
They are about to announce a loss that would have probably increased by $X,000,000 if they took the same drastic actions.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure you will find it Ken in the engineering history, I think the A/C was VH ECC. As for the pilot,some pilots don't like flying a A/C over water at night with a couple of new donks, four new donks was over the top for him. We all have our little oddities.
The have rolled the dice on a situation that would be devastating financially to them, they don't have the same options QF do financially.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't patronise me.
I have worked for airlines on 4 continents. I have 35 years of global experience.
I understand the effects of volcanic ash on aircraft.
Avoidance of volcanic plume is normally associated a cloud of sufficient pumice density to actually do some abrasive damage to the aircraft.
I see no evidence of such a thing.
I see no evidence of such a thing.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry kaboy, but that's horse****. Va are flying because it is possible to do so safely using the information and procedures developed for such contingencies, as contained in the companies operations manual. Which, I might add specifically states that the pic has the final say in these circumstances. Are you suggesting that VA tech crews are bigger risk takers than QF or JQ? Like maybe emirates or anz crews?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Fly or Not to Fly
It seems pretty simple to me. Qantas/JetStar have determined not to fly whilst they perceive any risk at all of damage to aircraft as a result of volcanic ash encounters. Virgin, the RAAF and all the International airlines mentioned as still operating have determined the risk is not evident. It surely goes further than "the bottom line" as suggested by some. Qantas knows very well that any incident, no matter how insignificant, will be grabbed with two hands by the media and blown out of proportion in the traditional "Qantas Bashing" manner. At the end of the day it will be the Qantas shareholders who will feel the impact of the lost revenue. Qantas will have protected their "safety record" and all will be well in the halls of fame within.
Old Fella,
I don't believe for a moment that my airline is any less safe.
I don't believe that I am exercising my command any less diligently.
My airlines trades on its reputation as well. Do you think for a moment we would sacrifice it all for a couple of bucks?
Inappropriate risk management can do as much damage as none at all. Although, I hasten to add, that grounding flights in the short term is safer. However if risk is not well understood then small issues can be blown out of proportion and, conversely, large issues may be missed.
BUT, I digress. I am not questioning Qantas' commitment to safety, just trying to understand their thinking. As i mentioned earlier, maybe i am missing something. I can always learn more.
Cheers
I don't believe for a moment that my airline is any less safe.
I don't believe that I am exercising my command any less diligently.
My airlines trades on its reputation as well. Do you think for a moment we would sacrifice it all for a couple of bucks?
Inappropriate risk management can do as much damage as none at all. Although, I hasten to add, that grounding flights in the short term is safer. However if risk is not well understood then small issues can be blown out of proportion and, conversely, large issues may be missed.
BUT, I digress. I am not questioning Qantas' commitment to safety, just trying to understand their thinking. As i mentioned earlier, maybe i am missing something. I can always learn more.
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total rubbish KABOY. Virgin do a significant amount of flights into Bali and thus have their own very well developed systems in place for this type of occurrence. Is it the case that Va/Anz/RAAF have just thrown caution to the wind? I don't think so.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gobbledock
...go and grab 3 kilo's of volcanic ash, stuff it in a makeshift bong and inhale the entire amount in one momentous drag. Be gone...
