ABC Radio Intervew Richard de Crespigny
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing quite like your average every day, garden variety, domestic airliner, on which you have quite possibly thousands of hours, turn into a mother that tries to kill you for a wake up call. Unless you have been there (and chances are at least 10% of you will meet that challenge) at some stage of your career, to know what it feels like. The flight deck no longer smells of aftershave, but fear, as the sweat dribbles down your neck, and your back, your training kicks in, you become a team like never before, you become incredibly calm and accepting, and the only urge is to get the mother on the ground as quickly as possible. So his decision to stay airborne for his own reasons, mark the measure of the man. I have been there twice in my career over 49 years, and both times it was a modern airliner of its time, rather than a piston, or lighty. So when you climb into your seat thinking ****, five bloody sectors today, stop for a moment, and think what you are really doing. That mother will kill you if it gets the chance, remember that, never totally trust the bastard to do what it is supposed to do, but at the same time never let it take away the joy of flight. You have chosen one of the best careers in the world, but a career that could ask of you something you never expected, as that A380 skipper found out, and normally not at a time that you expect, think the A330 over WA. but for all of that, I would do it all again tomorrow.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RdeC was interviewed on commercial radio in SYD today and heaped strong praise on those who were in the flight deck with him
At the end of the day, what he says is a positive for pilots and for brand Qantas & staff. (something that has been missing for the past couple of years)
On reflection, I hope management can now see the value of this "positive" to begin the long task of repairing the damage.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 26th Jul 2012 at 05:43.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onya
Good morning PPRuNers,
Despite my own views on his public stance on other issues I do have to say good on him for speaking openly in that video about two issues:
Despite my own views on his public stance on other issues I do have to say good on him for speaking openly in that video about two issues:
- seeking more than the recommended time off (4 months absolutely indicates a conservative approach and respect for Human Performance and Limitations)
- managing his stress with a professional (ditto).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Book Worthy
Nice job on all the CREW getting that A380 on the deck safely.
Doesn't really matter about who did what etc.
SAFE landing = good job in my book under those circumstances.
However Capt RDC is a publicity hound.
The story although interesting is nothing more.
Lets be honest he's no Sully.
However he believes he's earned a place as an aviation hero.
At the end of the day he's paid over $400K per year to do his job and that is exactly what he did.
My mail is that the FO saved the day any way.
But who cares. Nice job.
Doesn't really matter about who did what etc.
SAFE landing = good job in my book under those circumstances.
However Capt RDC is a publicity hound.
The story although interesting is nothing more.
Lets be honest he's no Sully.
However he believes he's earned a place as an aviation hero.
At the end of the day he's paid over $400K per year to do his job and that is exactly what he did.
My mail is that the FO saved the day any way.
But who cares. Nice job.
PS Amused by the interviewer's pronunciation of R de C's last name - is that really how it's pronounced?
This is an easier to open link than the earlier one on this thread, to the Margaret Throsby interview last week on ABC FM morning radio.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/classic/...2012-07-24.mp3
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/classic/...2012-07-24.mp3
Here is a link to yesterday's interview with Richard Vidler. Any debate about the pronunciation of de Crespigny is settled by the world authority on the subject.
Interview with Richard Vidler
or
Tinyurl
Interview with Richard Vidler
or
Tinyurl
Heard the Fiedler ABC interview - well done Richard de C.
I liked his presentation, his honesty and calmness.
Australians and Tall Poppy syndromes - get over yourselves for goodness sake. I hope I can handle any similar situation as well as he and the crew did that day.
So what if there is a little self-promotion (and I don't even think that's the case). Surely he's earned that right. Goodness knows the lousy, underperforming CEO's of companies are past masters at self-promotion and are paid far more than Qantas captains. Teresa Greens previous post sums this up nicely. Also the Captain's admission of tears as stress-release and psychologists visits is refreshing. Of course I am superman and I will never need that
but it's encouraging to have such issues discussed!
And comparing one method of post-event presentation to the behavior of Chesley Sullenberger is also pointless. Sully's PR spiel has also been exemplary. Both pilots have brilliantly displayed the calm and able demeanor we would like our much-pummeled profession to be represented by.
And the concentration on possible errors? Other than as a learning experience, why?
I believe the Sully crew didn't action the Ditching p/b item, naturally there was not much time in their case and the shock must have been godawful. Technically it was an error I suppose but I'm just glad not too much has been made of this in the US. If it were Australia, they would have been crucified on PPrune!
Some of Mastemas questions however pose interesting topics for consideration. Specifically, what would you do if the calculated landing distance was in excess of 4000m? I don't know the answer - what can you do if essentially the only runway available to you on the day isn't long enough for the multiple failures you have suffered?
The other, apparently contentious issue (systems checks) before commencing approach has given me food for thought. It's not something I've ever been taught or practiced (whilst I've had EF's in Airbusses there have been no uncontained failures) and if The Australian interview is accurate, not something the two supernumerary check captains were also familiar with. I like Richards' reference to Gene Krantz's Apollo 13 logic (don't worry about what we've lost, find out what we have left). In the QF32 situation, realistically one none of us will ever have, it was a very sensible process and put the crew back in the loop when systems displays and ludicrous volumes of ECAMs and never-ending Master Warnings and Cautions just serve to confuse.
Having myself flown Airbusses for over 20 years now however it is abundantly clear that:
1) The ECAM is crap when there are multiple failures and
2) LAND ASAP, be it red or amber, is a nebulous statement that in the wrong hands will lead to premature landings without full awareness of systems status, potentially until its too late. The fundamental exception to this is of course fire. The Swissair Halifax case is the best example here. Captain Zimmerman was being understandably thorough but fire waits for no man and destroyed the aircraft before it could return to land.
The other item Richard mentioned was an "Armstrong Spiral". I thought I knew everything about aviation but I haven't heard that term! Google searches have been unhelpful - from whom and what event does it get its name? The concept of gaining altitude from 7000' to 10000' above Singapore so as to be able to glide if necessary is also a little out of left-field but I think very sound. Sure I've always hit "speed hold" and possibly "heading hold" (as they did on the day) but invariably never climbed further. I fly a twin so perhaps in similar circumstances, that's even more important.
Neither the systems checks or the "Armstrong Spiral" are defined in Airbus procedures, they are cases of that oft-cliched but in this case appropriate term - airmanship.
Right? Wrong? Armchair/post-event experts fill your boots but the aircraft, despite it's best efforts at self-destruction, was landed safely.
Richard has served as a good example of crew and situation management. He's also given me, an experienced pilot, and others a couple of things to consider, whether or not I'd use them, and for that I'm grateful.
Not that they would ever use a pilot as a role model but Qantas management would do well to utilize the same thought, process and people management skills in running their disintegrating organisation that were demonstrated by the pilots of QF32 on that day.
I liked his presentation, his honesty and calmness.
Australians and Tall Poppy syndromes - get over yourselves for goodness sake. I hope I can handle any similar situation as well as he and the crew did that day.
So what if there is a little self-promotion (and I don't even think that's the case). Surely he's earned that right. Goodness knows the lousy, underperforming CEO's of companies are past masters at self-promotion and are paid far more than Qantas captains. Teresa Greens previous post sums this up nicely. Also the Captain's admission of tears as stress-release and psychologists visits is refreshing. Of course I am superman and I will never need that
but it's encouraging to have such issues discussed!And comparing one method of post-event presentation to the behavior of Chesley Sullenberger is also pointless. Sully's PR spiel has also been exemplary. Both pilots have brilliantly displayed the calm and able demeanor we would like our much-pummeled profession to be represented by.
And the concentration on possible errors? Other than as a learning experience, why?
I believe the Sully crew didn't action the Ditching p/b item, naturally there was not much time in their case and the shock must have been godawful. Technically it was an error I suppose but I'm just glad not too much has been made of this in the US. If it were Australia, they would have been crucified on PPrune!
Some of Mastemas questions however pose interesting topics for consideration. Specifically, what would you do if the calculated landing distance was in excess of 4000m? I don't know the answer - what can you do if essentially the only runway available to you on the day isn't long enough for the multiple failures you have suffered?
The other, apparently contentious issue (systems checks) before commencing approach has given me food for thought. It's not something I've ever been taught or practiced (whilst I've had EF's in Airbusses there have been no uncontained failures) and if The Australian interview is accurate, not something the two supernumerary check captains were also familiar with. I like Richards' reference to Gene Krantz's Apollo 13 logic (don't worry about what we've lost, find out what we have left). In the QF32 situation, realistically one none of us will ever have, it was a very sensible process and put the crew back in the loop when systems displays and ludicrous volumes of ECAMs and never-ending Master Warnings and Cautions just serve to confuse.
Having myself flown Airbusses for over 20 years now however it is abundantly clear that:
1) The ECAM is crap when there are multiple failures and
2) LAND ASAP, be it red or amber, is a nebulous statement that in the wrong hands will lead to premature landings without full awareness of systems status, potentially until its too late. The fundamental exception to this is of course fire. The Swissair Halifax case is the best example here. Captain Zimmerman was being understandably thorough but fire waits for no man and destroyed the aircraft before it could return to land.
The other item Richard mentioned was an "Armstrong Spiral". I thought I knew everything about aviation but I haven't heard that term! Google searches have been unhelpful - from whom and what event does it get its name? The concept of gaining altitude from 7000' to 10000' above Singapore so as to be able to glide if necessary is also a little out of left-field but I think very sound. Sure I've always hit "speed hold" and possibly "heading hold" (as they did on the day) but invariably never climbed further. I fly a twin so perhaps in similar circumstances, that's even more important.
Neither the systems checks or the "Armstrong Spiral" are defined in Airbus procedures, they are cases of that oft-cliched but in this case appropriate term - airmanship.
Right? Wrong? Armchair/post-event experts fill your boots but the aircraft, despite it's best efforts at self-destruction, was landed safely.
Richard has served as a good example of crew and situation management. He's also given me, an experienced pilot, and others a couple of things to consider, whether or not I'd use them, and for that I'm grateful.
Not that they would ever use a pilot as a role model but Qantas management would do well to utilize the same thought, process and people management skills in running their disintegrating organisation that were demonstrated by the pilots of QF32 on that day.
Last edited by Al E. Vator; 27th Jul 2012 at 18:42.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just finished the book thought it was very good.
For me the strangest thing was on the last page - 334.
Here De Crespigny says the Sing - Australia flight was a route check and when he contacts QF six days after incident he is informed that Capt David Evans failed him on the route check.
Strange how this hadn't really come out in the general public domain yet. So we see all these happy smiling photos of the five pilots, but one of them has actually failed De Cresigny on his performance
For me the strangest thing was on the last page - 334.
Here De Crespigny says the Sing - Australia flight was a route check and when he contacts QF six days after incident he is informed that Capt David Evans failed him on the route check.
Strange how this hadn't really come out in the general public domain yet. So we see all these happy smiling photos of the five pilots, but one of them has actually failed De Cresigny on his performance
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Xraydor Mbasi
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a link to another radio interview that shows he has quite a good sense of humour.
LISTEN: Merrick Interviews Hero Qantas Pilot Richard De Crespigny | Merrick And The Highway Patrol | Triple M
I think the the PA is great
LISTEN: Merrick Interviews Hero Qantas Pilot Richard De Crespigny | Merrick And The Highway Patrol | Triple M
I think the the PA is great
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He didn't "pass" due to the route check being terminated when the severity of the problem became apparent. He did not "fail" he just did not complete the check as it was discontinued.
According to the radio interview, once the check captains had an input, that meant the route check was void.
He said when the checker told him that on the phone he was extremely pissed off and said to his wife something along the lines of 'what the hell do you have to do to pass a route check then?'
He said when the checker told him that on the phone he was extremely pissed off and said to his wife something along the lines of 'what the hell do you have to do to pass a route check then?'