Qantas jet baggage door opens inflight?
I think you'll find that Controllers are REQUIRED to err on the side of safety if there is ANY hint of uncertainty about the safety of a flight.
Correct, they are not engineers ... that's why they err on the side of safety.
Controllers don't wait till they see a plane crash before calling the cavalry, they must make a judgement call beforehand.
With all due respect, I think you'll find that many pilots tend to, how can I put this ...under report many situations. You just have to read some of the communications transcripts in the crash comics to see this.
I'm sure most Controllers would rather be called "over enthusiastic" ... than to have done nothing ... because the Pilot said everything was OK.
Correct, they are not engineers ... that's why they err on the side of safety.
Controllers don't wait till they see a plane crash before calling the cavalry, they must make a judgement call beforehand.
With all due respect, I think you'll find that many pilots tend to, how can I put this ...under report many situations. You just have to read some of the communications transcripts in the crash comics to see this.
I'm sure most Controllers would rather be called "over enthusiastic" ... than to have done nothing ... because the Pilot said everything was OK.
What's the problem with having services available
So what if atc put the services on standby.
I don't see what the problem is. Sure they weren't asked for but we all know the armchair experts would have hoe'd in if an incident occurred and they hadn't been put on standby.
You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash.
I don't see what the problem is. Sure they weren't asked for but we all know the armchair experts would have hoe'd in if an incident occurred and they hadn't been put on standby.
You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash.
Last edited by Turbine Overheat; 22nd Oct 2011 at 04:47. Reason: Spelling
You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash.
Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact.
Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact
- Lie ... so that you won't be embarrased by a possible overaction by those entrusted with ensuring your safety. Worst case scenario is that YOU under-estimate the problem, and there's no one there to help you and your passengers when the proverbial hits the fan.
- Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... with the worst case scenario being that someone on the ground over-reacts and the firies have to interrupt their game of volleyball. But you, and your passengers will always get to live and fight another day.
CASA and Airservices are continually encouraging pilots to contact Air Traffic Services at the first sign of a problem. If it doesn't develop into something nasty, that's great. But if it does, forewarned is forearmed.
P.S. I've never heard of any plane crashing or passengers dying because ATS provided too much service. However, I have heard of the opposite happening ... and it's usually because ATS weren't FULLY informed of a developing situation.
. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS.
Annoying aspect of any report to ATC about a return due technical issue is the questions they then immediately become obliged to ask. When you are deep in thought about alternative options, revised clearance, fuel burn, landing weight, approach plates, descent profile, checklists, contacting company, reprogramming FMS, etc; ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry airdualbleedfault - wrong again .. at least catering and (cough) cleaning are not completed by QF paid staff but by those of other ground service companies located in DRW.
And .. depending upon the advice given by the crew when they would have requested a diversion of some sort, whatever happened to the polite question of "expecting a normal approach and landing?" followed up by a "do you require emergency services on arrival?"
by the by : The NT news and their intelligent readers/FB followers sunk to a new low "as it was happening" ...
And .. depending upon the advice given by the crew when they would have requested a diversion of some sort, whatever happened to the polite question of "expecting a normal approach and landing?" followed up by a "do you require emergency services on arrival?"
by the by : The NT news and their intelligent readers/FB followers sunk to a new low "as it was happening" ...
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a Qantas flight from the point of view of liability anyway.
If things ever come to court the precedent has been well and truly set, morally and legally:
"Federal Jury Finds American Eagle Liable for the Crash of One of Its Commuter Planes
February 6, 1998
Late yesterday afternoon, a federal jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, found that AMR Eagle, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp. and the commuter arm of American Airlines, is responsible for the December 13, 1994, crash of one of its commuter airplanes in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. AMR Eagle, Inc. has continuously denied responsibility for the crash, which killed 15 and injured 5, according to Michael K. Demetrio of Chicago's Corboy & Demetrio, who had been appointed by the Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as lead counsel for plaintiffs and was lead trial attorney.
Michael K. Demetrio, along with Thomas A. Demetrio and Robert A. Clifford, represent six of the nine victims whose cases were partially tried in North Carolina this week. Michael Demetrio stated: "Throughout the three years since the crash, AMR Eagle, Inc. has used every tactic it could imagine to avoid responsibility for the crash of this plane. In the final analysis, the jury found precisely what we've been saying all along: AMR Eagle should and will be held accountable for this crash."
Until yesterday, AMR Eagle had been promoting the position that its regional carrier, Flagship Airlines, was the only entity which should answer for the crash. AMR Eagle, Inc. operates small commuter aircraft all over the country under the American Airlines trademark name "American Eagle." "Nobody has ever heard of these small regional outfits owned and operated by AMR Eagle, and that's done on purpose," Demetrio added. "AMR Eagle makes its money by convincing travelers that American is operating the aircraft - and in fact it does. AMR Eagle's surprising position - saying 'it's not our plane' - was disingenuous, and the jury recognized that."
If things ever come to court the precedent has been well and truly set, morally and legally:
"Federal Jury Finds American Eagle Liable for the Crash of One of Its Commuter Planes
February 6, 1998
Late yesterday afternoon, a federal jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, found that AMR Eagle, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp. and the commuter arm of American Airlines, is responsible for the December 13, 1994, crash of one of its commuter airplanes in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. AMR Eagle, Inc. has continuously denied responsibility for the crash, which killed 15 and injured 5, according to Michael K. Demetrio of Chicago's Corboy & Demetrio, who had been appointed by the Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as lead counsel for plaintiffs and was lead trial attorney.
Michael K. Demetrio, along with Thomas A. Demetrio and Robert A. Clifford, represent six of the nine victims whose cases were partially tried in North Carolina this week. Michael Demetrio stated: "Throughout the three years since the crash, AMR Eagle, Inc. has used every tactic it could imagine to avoid responsibility for the crash of this plane. In the final analysis, the jury found precisely what we've been saying all along: AMR Eagle should and will be held accountable for this crash."
Until yesterday, AMR Eagle had been promoting the position that its regional carrier, Flagship Airlines, was the only entity which should answer for the crash. AMR Eagle, Inc. operates small commuter aircraft all over the country under the American Airlines trademark name "American Eagle." "Nobody has ever heard of these small regional outfits owned and operated by AMR Eagle, and that's done on purpose," Demetrio added. "AMR Eagle makes its money by convincing travelers that American is operating the aircraft - and in fact it does. AMR Eagle's surprising position - saying 'it's not our plane' - was disingenuous, and the jury recognized that."
My understanding is that the captain told aTC three times they did not require emergency services. He outlined their requirements and e was 100% correct.
Not only did they have emergency services but "some one" had TV, newspapers the works there all for a minor fault. Do people get paid a spotters fee?
If same had happended at a non controlled airport it would not have been an issue and certainly no compromise in safety.
I don't expect some sprog straight from RAAF ATC school with no technical knowledge to decide on my behalf. No.
The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available.
The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?
Answer, the flight crew, plain and simple.
The sort of behaviour displayed simply discourages pilots advising of issues until they become major, its unhealthy, unhelpful and of no benefit to anyone.
and the response should "standby"!
Not only did they have emergency services but "some one" had TV, newspapers the works there all for a minor fault. Do people get paid a spotters fee?
If same had happended at a non controlled airport it would not have been an issue and certainly no compromise in safety.
I don't expect some sprog straight from RAAF ATC school with no technical knowledge to decide on my behalf. No.
The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available.
The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?
Answer, the flight crew, plain and simple.
The sort of behaviour displayed simply discourages pilots advising of issues until they become major, its unhealthy, unhelpful and of no benefit to anyone.
ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions.
Last edited by RENURPP; 22nd Oct 2011 at 07:13.
The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available.
The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?
The question is, who is best placed to make that decision?
The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah.
Until you have that responsibility removed/amended/better defined ... you will have to live with it... and I daresay, in order to protect their arses, Controllers will continue to err on the side of safety.
Put yourself in the shoes of that "sprog".
Will I do nothing and trust that the pilot is 100% aware of the full implications of his situation?
Or, will I call out the troops ... just in case he's got it wrong ... or doesn't have the full picture?
Which scenario will keep me out of jail?
The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah.
RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcome.
Reminds me of a time a Metro driver told me he would be a little slower on descent - no worries, thanks for telling me. When he landed, turns out only one of the engines was turning and burning (can't remember the exact nature of the shut down)! "Didn't want to make a fuss" he told us later. FFS, what if things had gotten worse all of a sudden? Or I had slowed/turned him enough that it caused a controllability problem?
I understand it isn't the job of ATC to second guess the crew when it comes to malfunctions, but equally it isn't the role of aircrew to second guess an ATC action that does not put your flight into harms way, but in fact enhances safety.
With regards to the questioning by ATCs, a phrase that is often used is 'report situation stabilised with intentions' which gives the crew time to work out what they want and get back to us.
Here's your reference (MATS 4-15-220):
"The ATS Officer first becoming aware of an aircraft operating in
other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning
the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase
appropriate to the emergency situation"
The phases they are talking about are ATC internal coordination phases that indicates the degree of apprehension we have about the safety of the flight. It is up to the ATC with the facts in hand to determine the level of the phase.
Would like to hear why aircrew are upset about the firies being called out. You pay for the service anyway, might as well make use of it!
Arigato,
Showa Cho.
Reminds me of a time a Metro driver told me he would be a little slower on descent - no worries, thanks for telling me. When he landed, turns out only one of the engines was turning and burning (can't remember the exact nature of the shut down)! "Didn't want to make a fuss" he told us later. FFS, what if things had gotten worse all of a sudden? Or I had slowed/turned him enough that it caused a controllability problem?
I understand it isn't the job of ATC to second guess the crew when it comes to malfunctions, but equally it isn't the role of aircrew to second guess an ATC action that does not put your flight into harms way, but in fact enhances safety.
With regards to the questioning by ATCs, a phrase that is often used is 'report situation stabilised with intentions' which gives the crew time to work out what they want and get back to us.
Here's your reference (MATS 4-15-220):
"The ATS Officer first becoming aware of an aircraft operating in
other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning
the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase
appropriate to the emergency situation"
The phases they are talking about are ATC internal coordination phases that indicates the degree of apprehension we have about the safety of the flight. It is up to the ATC with the facts in hand to determine the level of the phase.
Would like to hear why aircrew are upset about the firies being called out. You pay for the service anyway, might as well make use of it!
Arigato,
Showa Cho.
RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcome
You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why. Go back and read my previous. If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know.
There was no problem, they were not needed.
With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case!
there is doubt concerning the aircraftʹs safety, "
This is the contncious part isn't it?
The crew had no doubt there was no doubt concerning the aircrafts safety, they advised ATC likewise.
You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why.
other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning
the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase
appropriate to the emergency situation"
There's your reason.
It's not excitement mate, believe me. It's that one hair on the back of the neck that stands up and makes you think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of safety.
With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case!
If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know.
I really can't believe we are debating about someone in aviation leaning on the side of safety.
Just in case of what?
Last edited by Showa Cho; 22nd Oct 2011 at 10:29.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT the phrases "declaration of the phase appropriate to the emergency situation" surely that means a declaration of one of the three options, or are there more these days?
Is it mandatory for RFFS to roll out if one of the higher priority phases are declared?
Is it mandatory for RFFS to roll out if one of the higher priority phases are declared?
Originally Posted by RENURPP
The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers.
Originally Posted by RENURPP
If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase.
As an international airport, Darwin would be RFF cat 8 or so. 
... besides, rolling the tenders every now and then is good training for the Rescue and Fire Fighting crew.
We do. As an international airport, Darwin would be RFF cat 8 or so.
No. Totally ridiculous comment. Not all aircraft tell ATC they have a problem with a gear door and are burning off fuel and returning for a landing.
Do you understand why they were returning to land?
think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of
Last edited by RENURPP; 22nd Oct 2011 at 11:39.
Perhaps this is a case of ideas getting legs for no valid reason. What are the examples of injury (or potential injury) that have occurred because pilots did not request appropriate services?
As for the moron on one engine in his Metro not declaring it, that should not be used to justify having everything on tenderhooks whenever an aircraft returns. And, Showa Cho, you may be an ATC but I'm hardly going to slow down, under orders, so that I stall! Although I wouldn't be so sure with our Metro ace...
As for the moron on one engine in his Metro not declaring it, that should not be used to justify having everything on tenderhooks whenever an aircraft returns. And, Showa Cho, you may be an ATC but I'm hardly going to slow down, under orders, so that I stall! Although I wouldn't be so sure with our Metro ace...
Capn ... the most obvious, and most widely publicised one,that comes to mind is Avianca Flight 52.
.... for a number of reasons.
And those reasons aren't particularly important in this discussion. The point is, for whatever reason, the pilot did not convey the full extent of the issue to ATC. That's why ATS has a responsibility to:
And, do I really have to point this out? ... but, as people are really pushing this issue ... one must also consider situations where the pilot may not be in a situation where he is able to communicate the full story.(not saying this is the case at Darwin)
ATC can sit there, fat, dumb and stupid ... or they can use initiative, consider all the signals and undertake actions ( which, of course, sometimes may later prove to have been unnecessary ... big deal) and possibly save your arse.
You can't expect ATC to turn off their initiative when you want it off. It's either on or it's off. And at the moment, it's mandated as ON.
The NTSB's report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per International Air Transport Association (IATA) guidelines
And those reasons aren't particularly important in this discussion. The point is, for whatever reason, the pilot did not convey the full extent of the issue to ATC. That's why ATS has a responsibility to:
- be another set of ears, eyes and brains
- consider the bigger picture ... such as the affect on other users or facilities
- take heed of the "hairs on the back of their neck" signals
And, do I really have to point this out? ... but, as people are really pushing this issue ... one must also consider situations where the pilot may not be in a situation where he is able to communicate the full story.(not saying this is the case at Darwin)
ATC can sit there, fat, dumb and stupid ... or they can use initiative, consider all the signals and undertake actions ( which, of course, sometimes may later prove to have been unnecessary ... big deal) and possibly save your arse.
You can't expect ATC to turn off their initiative when you want it off. It's either on or it's off. And at the moment, it's mandated as ON.