ABC Radio Intervew Richard de Crespigny
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Situational Awareness
Have to agree with Keg. Actually according to the report all the checks were completed within 50 mins and it then took another 50 mins to land.
It appears that most on this forum do not consider RED LAND ASAP as an imperative.
According to the report, there was a fire warning initially and there was a serious fuel leak.
Same scenario, if the fire warning had not extinguished after expending the agents, is two hours too long to get back on the ground?
How long should it take?
It appears that most on this forum do not consider RED LAND ASAP as an imperative.
According to the report, there was a fire warning initially and there was a serious fuel leak.
Same scenario, if the fire warning had not extinguished after expending the agents, is two hours too long to get back on the ground?
How long should it take?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Right of Left
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the fire warning remained or the turbine overheat condition remained, I guess you would hang the rest of the problems and deal with the greatest threat, an airborne fire 
In this case the result would have been a confusing approach with contradicting warnings and indications, most properly a runway over run and possible gear collapse, with ensuing fire and emergency evacuation and maybe loss of life.
Guess luck is a bitch!
The one thing I have leaned about aviation is there is no shortage of experts telling the world how they would have handled the latest incident or accident. Tell you what, have a bat for real, not in the comfort of a simulator or even worse your home office, then get back on here and critique the actions or decisions of others. Bet you don't! Because you may actually have a clue by then.
In this case the result would have been a confusing approach with contradicting warnings and indications, most properly a runway over run and possible gear collapse, with ensuing fire and emergency evacuation and maybe loss of life.
Guess luck is a bitch!
The one thing I have leaned about aviation is there is no shortage of experts telling the world how they would have handled the latest incident or accident. Tell you what, have a bat for real, not in the comfort of a simulator or even worse your home office, then get back on here and critique the actions or decisions of others. Bet you don't! Because you may actually have a clue by then.
Bet you don't!
Most of us have had heartbeat-raising occurrences airborne which could have ended badly - maybe not as extreme as this case, but bad enough, and it's fair enough to have your say if the conjecture is well-founded and will contribute to a balanced discussion.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm otw
Spot on!
Helmut
"...most properly a runway over run and possible gear collapse, with ensuing fire and emergency evacuation and maybe loss of life."
You have lost me here. According to the report the systems assessed to be available after 50mins were; Gear Down, 3 engines, rev #3, flap 3, max braking, anti skid and 4000m of dry runway, with good overrun. (Thank goodness they weren't in SYD or MEL.) Not a bad position to be in, so why would there be a an overrun, etc if you landed sooner rather waiting another 50 mins? I think the likelihood of the fuel leak igniting following the engine explosion is the greater threat. (as per the Concorde crash)
As I asked earlier, what if the computer said you required greater than 4000m, what then?
As far as that bet goes, I lost an engine (birdstrike) on a widebody twin just after takeoff from Vienna and we (three crew) were back on the ground in 35 mins. We didnt feel rushed, the weather wasn't great but it felt just like the SIM and we didnt overrun the runway. Oh and I dont have a book coming out either
35YearPilot (Richard?)
Just received a clip of the interview with you and the girls on The Circle, very nice except you seemed caught up in the gushing moment and misunderstood some of their questions. I haven't read your book and although buying it will no doubt make you all the wealthier, would you mind giving us some straight answers to the questions posed here on Pprune for discussion?
As far as I can see, no one is having a go and all the kudos to you for making a safe landing. It is simply a case of comparision; "how would I have managed it?" and most interestingly, "how would a non-QF crew handle it?" (without QF 001 weighing on their minds).
No doubt it will become a SIM recurrent in the future and I would be very interested in what the QF training department consider a reasonable timeframe for return to land, all things considered.
Also as Keg pointed out, was a percautionary evacuation in order? Personally, after two hours and then the engine not shutting down, I would have.
Spot on!
Helmut
"...most properly a runway over run and possible gear collapse, with ensuing fire and emergency evacuation and maybe loss of life."
You have lost me here. According to the report the systems assessed to be available after 50mins were; Gear Down, 3 engines, rev #3, flap 3, max braking, anti skid and 4000m of dry runway, with good overrun. (Thank goodness they weren't in SYD or MEL.) Not a bad position to be in, so why would there be a an overrun, etc if you landed sooner rather waiting another 50 mins? I think the likelihood of the fuel leak igniting following the engine explosion is the greater threat. (as per the Concorde crash)
As I asked earlier, what if the computer said you required greater than 4000m, what then?
As far as that bet goes, I lost an engine (birdstrike) on a widebody twin just after takeoff from Vienna and we (three crew) were back on the ground in 35 mins. We didnt feel rushed, the weather wasn't great but it felt just like the SIM and we didnt overrun the runway. Oh and I dont have a book coming out either
35YearPilot (Richard?)
Just received a clip of the interview with you and the girls on The Circle, very nice except you seemed caught up in the gushing moment and misunderstood some of their questions. I haven't read your book and although buying it will no doubt make you all the wealthier, would you mind giving us some straight answers to the questions posed here on Pprune for discussion?
As far as I can see, no one is having a go and all the kudos to you for making a safe landing. It is simply a case of comparision; "how would I have managed it?" and most interestingly, "how would a non-QF crew handle it?" (without QF 001 weighing on their minds).
No doubt it will become a SIM recurrent in the future and I would be very interested in what the QF training department consider a reasonable timeframe for return to land, all things considered.
Also as Keg pointed out, was a percautionary evacuation in order? Personally, after two hours and then the engine not shutting down, I would have.
Last edited by MASTEMA; 1st Aug 2012 at 12:51.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I know I won't change anyone's mind, a couple of points that appear to have been overlooked..
(Helmut - what you said
)
Mastema ..
Your list of the available systems to the crew is innacurate. In addition, (from memory) they had only one engine reverser available, increased touchdown speed (about 170 kt or so) from reduced leading edge devices and being overweight, reduced braking owing to reduced ground spoiler capability. At the time of the landing, one of the three captains who did the "best guess" landing capability worked out they had 100m surplus on a 4,000 m runway. Why "best guess"? Because they had so many failures they had to work out which were the most significant. Even so, with manual braking, they had the brake pedals "on the floor".
Whilst I'm pleased your engine failure was so straight-forward, I'd suggest that it bore no relationship to the situation that is being discussed here for complexity.
To those who are puzzled why the crew ignored some "Land ASAP" instruction, you may remember a section of your aircraft's manual which emphasises that checklists do not cover all situations, some of which may need some brain neurons to evaluate the situation and decide what to do based on checklist advice. Seems to me that this was such a situation.
I still rather like Helmut's post on the original QF32 thread, about post no 1035 or so ....
N
(Helmut - what you said
)Mastema ..
Your list of the available systems to the crew is innacurate. In addition, (from memory) they had only one engine reverser available, increased touchdown speed (about 170 kt or so) from reduced leading edge devices and being overweight, reduced braking owing to reduced ground spoiler capability. At the time of the landing, one of the three captains who did the "best guess" landing capability worked out they had 100m surplus on a 4,000 m runway. Why "best guess"? Because they had so many failures they had to work out which were the most significant. Even so, with manual braking, they had the brake pedals "on the floor".
Whilst I'm pleased your engine failure was so straight-forward, I'd suggest that it bore no relationship to the situation that is being discussed here for complexity.
To those who are puzzled why the crew ignored some "Land ASAP" instruction, you may remember a section of your aircraft's manual which emphasises that checklists do not cover all situations, some of which may need some brain neurons to evaluate the situation and decide what to do based on checklist advice. Seems to me that this was such a situation.
I still rather like Helmut's post on the original QF32 thread, about post no 1035 or so ....
N
Last edited by noip; 1st Aug 2012 at 08:30.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
noip
Not looking for a pissing contest, just quoting from the ATSB prelim report and in the words of Richard (nee Appollo 13) "focusing on what was avaiable, not was unavailable..."
The link and direct quotes are below therefore, I believe I listed the systems accurately. I don't agree that the landing distance was a 'best guess', given the report below.
I also still consider the systems available were very reasonable (considering similar incidents in the past) and they had the other advantage to be in SIN not SYD, where an overrun would not be pretty.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2888854...y%20report.pdf
"This second calculation indicated that a landing on runway 20C was feasible, with 100 m of runway remaining. The crew elected to proceed on the basis of that calculation"
"The landing performance application indicated a required approach speed of 166 kts."
"The crew was aware that reverse thrust was available only from the #3 engine, anti-skid was restricted to the body gear only, there was limited nose wheel steering. An ECAM message indicated they could not apply maximum braking until the nose wheel was on the runway. The flaps were extended to position 3."
NB: The A380 only has reverse on Engines #2 and #3
Not looking for a pissing contest, just quoting from the ATSB prelim report and in the words of Richard (nee Appollo 13) "focusing on what was avaiable, not was unavailable..."
The link and direct quotes are below therefore, I believe I listed the systems accurately. I don't agree that the landing distance was a 'best guess', given the report below.
I also still consider the systems available were very reasonable (considering similar incidents in the past) and they had the other advantage to be in SIN not SYD, where an overrun would not be pretty.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2888854...y%20report.pdf
"This second calculation indicated that a landing on runway 20C was feasible, with 100 m of runway remaining. The crew elected to proceed on the basis of that calculation"
"The landing performance application indicated a required approach speed of 166 kts."
"The crew was aware that reverse thrust was available only from the #3 engine, anti-skid was restricted to the body gear only, there was limited nose wheel steering. An ECAM message indicated they could not apply maximum braking until the nose wheel was on the runway. The flaps were extended to position 3."
NB: The A380 only has reverse on Engines #2 and #3
Last edited by MASTEMA; 1st Aug 2012 at 10:22.
I know its very unAustralian, but I would like to say well done to the crew. Dramatic failure, with an outcome of the aeroplane able to be fixed and no-one was hurt.
I think the no-one being hurt thing would have been different if the PAX were thrown off via the slides. Thank god this crew was professional enough to know that was not required.
To compare this incident with a bird strike, engine shutdown and return is a sign of someone screaming for love and attention. What a Muppet.
The Don
PS. The red LAND ASAP is driven by a failure. It does not consider ALL the failures. Pilots get the rock star salary to determine how long the appropriate ASAP is. Which would appear to be the case in the QF32 incident.
I think the no-one being hurt thing would have been different if the PAX were thrown off via the slides. Thank god this crew was professional enough to know that was not required.
To compare this incident with a bird strike, engine shutdown and return is a sign of someone screaming for love and attention. What a Muppet.
The Don
PS. The red LAND ASAP is driven by a failure. It does not consider ALL the failures. Pilots get the rock star salary to determine how long the appropriate ASAP is. Which would appear to be the case in the QF32 incident.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies to all, I have just had a look at the "Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure" thread and now understand that you all have already completely torn to bits we 'muppets' who dare to discuss this incident, in the interest of improving our own flight management skills.
Clearly 'The Don' et al have it scunned and there is absolutely only one way this cat could have been skinned.
Clearly 'The Don' et al have it scunned and there is absolutely only one way this cat could have been skinned.
Last edited by MASTEMA; 1st Aug 2012 at 10:58.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to Capt Rdc regarding the inflight emergency.
He handles the media very well, is australian and a hero. Could he be the next CEO?
We have some larger than life Iron ore magnates...
At the very least, he should be on next years dancing with the Stars!!!!!
He can land a crippled jet, but can he Tango?
He handles the media very well, is australian and a hero. Could he be the next CEO?
We have some larger than life Iron ore magnates...
At the very least, he should be on next years dancing with the Stars!!!!!
He can land a crippled jet, but can he Tango?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Right of Left
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have lost me here. According to the report the systems assessed to be available after 50mins were; Gear Down, 3 engines, rev #3, flap 3, max braking, anti skid and 4000m of dry runway, with good overrun. (Thank goodness they weren't in SYD or MEL.) Not a bad position to be in, so why would there be a an overrun, etc if you landed sooner rather waiting another 50 mins? I think the likelihood of the fuel leak igniting following the engine explosion is the greater threat. (as per the Concorde crash)
As I asked earlier, what if the computer said you required greater than 4000m, what then?
As I asked earlier, what if the computer said you required greater than 4000m, what then?
Imagine you comence the approach knowing what you have written above, only to find out "flaps 1" **** the slats are locked, during the approach "2500" you have one one LGIS indicating the gear not locked down the other indicating it is, this after discovering the only way to drop the gear is via gravity extension. Suprise! But because you are commited to the approach you continue "1000" amongst the sea of ECAM messages you haven't executed is a couple of gems.
You start flying a speed just above VLS 168kts, that will work. "500" "Stable" the ground is rushing up you have all four thrust levers staggered to maintain symmetrical thrust "SPEED SPEED SPEED" you think **** why is it doing that, you bump up the thrust 175kts. "100" your hunting the aim point "STALL STALL STALL" you give it some thrust and "50" start to flare "40" "30" "10" your on! Not bad, touchdown 1500 Ft in at 171Kts. The nose bucks up, WTF is it doing that for? "Ground Spoilers" "REV GREEN" "No DECEL" No problem you get the nose down and push the brake pedals in, it just isn't slowing down you push the to the floor. Mid field rushes by, It starts to pull up, its hunkers down as the brakes start to really bite in. The far end threshold markers come in to view, just maybe we aren't going to stop? "70 KTS" you still have REV in and your feet to the floors, is it Loss of Braking? No we are slowing down, we just don't have enough runway. Suprise! .............
Post event you hear about the other failures you didn't know about, buried in a mass of ECAM messages you didn't have time to run. Half spoilers, no wing anti skid and so on........... I think if a fire actually existed the result may have been entirely different. But it didn't.
Nice approach RDC
no one can ever take that away from you.As for your last question I guess you would try touching down on the keys!?? Maybe thats the reason you do visual approaches with no approach slope guidance in the cyclic matrix??
Anyhow keep rabbiting on, when you have had a bat get back to me
Nunc est bibendum
Seriously?
If we're going to do hypotheticals, imagine its gone down the way the crew did it and then at 1500' on final they get a decent gust, the wing buckles, the aeroplane rolls over and spears in. What if on downwind the fuel leak caught on fire? What if whilst parked on the ground waiting for the stairs, the wing caught on fire and blew up? All of those things were possibilities.
My point is NOT that they should have landed immediately. My question is whether there are issues that I can learn from and do better if faced with a similar situation. The ONLY way to do that is to critically examine what this crew did.
We're I to end up in a similar situation I'd hope people would do the same with my decisions. I hope I'm man enough to wear it and admit the areas where I could have done better rather than fall back on 'good outcome so don't crticise'.
If we're going to do hypotheticals, imagine its gone down the way the crew did it and then at 1500' on final they get a decent gust, the wing buckles, the aeroplane rolls over and spears in. What if on downwind the fuel leak caught on fire? What if whilst parked on the ground waiting for the stairs, the wing caught on fire and blew up? All of those things were possibilities.
My point is NOT that they should have landed immediately. My question is whether there are issues that I can learn from and do better if faced with a similar situation. The ONLY way to do that is to critically examine what this crew did.
We're I to end up in a similar situation I'd hope people would do the same with my decisions. I hope I'm man enough to wear it and admit the areas where I could have done better rather than fall back on 'good outcome so don't crticise'.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Right of Left
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw Keg the last fantasy outcome was directed at MASTEMA. His Bird strike story was truly touching. 
Remind me to tell you the story of how I ran the City2Surf it was exactly like Robert De Castella's finish in the 1981 Fukuoka Marathon.
Remind me to tell you the story of how I ran the City2Surf it was exactly like Robert De Castella's finish in the 1981 Fukuoka Marathon.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmut
I have only quoted facts from the ATSB report, not made up my own fantasies.
Smoking all those 'helmets' and indulging in all that fantasy (or is it the desert air?) must be the secret to your superior flight management skills.
Again, apologies to all for being so naive to ask if there was more than one way to skin this particular cat and possibly learn something new.
I have only quoted facts from the ATSB report, not made up my own fantasies.
Smoking all those 'helmets' and indulging in all that fantasy (or is it the desert air?) must be the secret to your superior flight management skills.
Again, apologies to all for being so naive to ask if there was more than one way to skin this particular cat and possibly learn something new.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one that gets the uncomfortable feeling that this whole captain hero thing has been done to death via QF PR people, the media jocks etc. And now we have the captain invited to speaking tours about how he and his team saved the day.
I wouldn't mind betting that the captain would have preferred to have just gone quietly home and put another entry into his log book. Instead the poor bugger is forced to play the true blue team member where the team was the collective heros of the plot. In every interview he accentuates the team input. Certainly the politically correct thing to do. The whole hoopla is getting worse than the bloody Olympics.
I wouldn't mind betting that the captain would have preferred to have just gone quietly home and put another entry into his log book. Instead the poor bugger is forced to play the true blue team member where the team was the collective heros of the plot. In every interview he accentuates the team input. Certainly the politically correct thing to do. The whole hoopla is getting worse than the bloody Olympics.
Last edited by sheppey; 2nd Aug 2012 at 11:48.
Ahh, sheppy, you obviously don't know the man personally. The latest round of publicity has not come randomly from the media or Qantas, it has come from the man himself to promote his book. Previous speaking engagements were made by him for money. Look online, you will se he is 'managed' for speaking engagements.
Those that know him can see how the outcomes fit neatly with the personality. The others on that flight deck have quietly gone about their daily lives without seeking fame or fortune.
Those that know him can see how the outcomes fit neatly with the personality. The others on that flight deck have quietly gone about their daily lives without seeking fame or fortune.
Does "Land ASAP" not mean "Land ASAP"
But what it does not say is Land Immediately, which is what a few people here seem to think the intent of LAND ASAP is!
