ABC Radio Intervew Richard de Crespigny

[Keg]

Lol. Manage the flight without the input of the checkie. Pretty elementary really.

We've all known that since day dot so I'd be surprised if his mood was one of disappointment and being hacked off? More one of irony. We're those his words though? Was he actually cranky at the check being voided?

[ChrisJ800]

I read the book and took the words that he did not not pass with the irony and tongue in cheek that they were written in. He properly used the 2 check captains eg asked them to calculate the approach speed, so a 'non pass' is not the same as a fail

[Mud Skipper]

ChrisJ800 I read the book

OK that's one copy he sold

[Arm out the window]

I'm pretty sure the gist of his words in the RN breakfast interview were that he did initially feel angry when told he hadn't passed his route check ... understandable, I guess, in that you would probably feel you'd been through one of the most stringent tests possible and therefore should be entitled to a pass on the strength of that!

Grounds for some early feelings of indignance, but obviously the requirements of the route check had been compromised so the flight didn't count on that score. Plus it's a good tag line to finish the book on...

[wilcoleaks]

Actioned 125 checklists according to the MMM interview.

No wonder they were holding for some time!!!!!!!!!

Does the A380 have a QRH or is it all digital/paperless?

[jaded boiler]

Well done Richard. (and his crew)

[training wheels]

Originally Posted by Arm out the window

According to the radio interview, once the check captains had an input, that meant the route check was void.

I would have thought that was good CRM to use all your available resources in an emergency situation.

[BuzzBox]

A route check is supposed to test a pilot's ability to complete a typical line operation from start to finish. This flight was anything but 'typical' and the commander was quite correct involving the entire flight deck crew in managing the situation.

As others have said, the 'check' would have been terminated as a result of what happened, but that doesn't mean he failed. I think the bit about 'I didn't pass' was more than a little tongue in cheek.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Just finished the book and enjoyed it immensely. Have met RdC a couple of times and shared several beers with him one night, and have found him most engaging and not the slightest bit self-promoting.

Celebrate a successful outcome, and let the tall poppies flourish!

[Transition Layer]

Any mention in the book about his industrial relations views and clarification of his absurd statement re: Junior QF pilots and their command "opportunities" abroad?

[Capt Kremin]

Yes, anything there? If anyone here is detecting antipathy towards RDC from the QF pilots here, be advised, it is not due to his actions on the flight deck.

[DutchRoll]

For the non QF types here, any check, ie route check or sim check, can be marked as "incomplete".

A classic example is when the sim breaks down right in the middle of your licence renewal. It's not a pass, but it's not a fail either. It's just marked as "incomplete", but unfortunately you have to start it all over again from scratch on another day. Everybody in QF knows that it just means something happened not of your doing and you couldn't finish the check.

During one sim check I did, we ran out of time due to various circumstances beyond the control of the checky. I was only two sequences from the end, but it didn't count and I had to do the entire sim all over again a week or 2 later.

RDC did (and still does) cop some significant heat over industrial comments publicly made not long after the incident which were very ill-advised. Many QF blokes felt extremely let down.

[M Taylor]

Understood it just wasn't completed. Really don't know why he bothered mentioning it, just looked like a parting shots because it was the last words of book. Good read anyway IMHO

[ChrisJ800]

Any mention in the book about his industrial relations views and clarification of his absurd statement re: Junior QF pilots and their command "opportunities" abroad?

No not that I recall. By the way the book is surprisingly highly readable (in my opinion!).

[sru]

Without getting into the nitty gritty of systems etc, the book was well written, and honest, I felt. It was "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate !" Three core principles of our job, that gets lost so, in often the system.

Control checks after an abnormal, may get lost in the airline system and not discussed, but in my experience, starting with my PPL, it was discussed and practiced. On a basic level it was to find the minimum speed you would have control of the aircaft during landing. I have applied the same to a good outcome at least twice.

I think the approach would be varied according to, weather your a dot point man or a feel it in your seat man. In the end there is more than one way to "skin a cat", the result is in the outcome.

This was the best possible outcome ... So who are we to question actions, when the improbable happened, which was unique with no consideration or training.

This was "airmanship", and was shown by ALL the crew. Well Done !

[crwjerk]

The check could have easily been written up as complete if the checker so desired.

[HF3000]

What's the big deal about the control checks? This is a fly-by-wire machine.

You might think it's a good idea in your Seneca but is there any evidence this was wise in an A380?

[...still single]

What's the big deal about the control checks? This is a fly-by-wire machine.

You might think it's a good idea in your Seneca but is there any evidence this was wise in an A380?

Umm... Yes! You're absolutely right! A total waste of time.

On a completely unrelated topic, who do you fly for?

[ejectx3]

Are you serious hf3000? God help us

[Keg]

This was the best possible outcome ... So who are we to question actions, when the improbable happened, which was unique with no consideration or training.

I've said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it. A 'good outcome' does not mean that we can't question what went on, work out whether there were better ways of doing some things, and learning the lessons of what to do or what not to do. The final outcome of a safe landing doesn't mean that it was all hunky dory along the way.

If (heaven forbid) the wing had come off due to the internal damage whilst on final approach, we'd all be saying what dills they were for flogging around for an hour doing ECAM messages. Same decision making process, same CRM, but different outcome and therefore different judgement from the peanut gallery. I'm interested in what decisions went on and how it worked and the considerations that were discussed. The outcome can often be independent of all these things.

So not only is it a good thing to question what went on, I reckon we'd be silly NOT to question what went on. Of course, we need to do that knowing all the facts and that means waiting for the report. I've commented on this thread about my 'gut feeling' on a couple of issues but indicated that I'll wait for the report to firm up those thoughts. I have passed judgement on a couple of CRM points raised by the Captain in his own words so I reckon that's fair game.