Dallas Dispute - Qantas Crew stood down.
Nope, different chap
And he was a good bloke. A mistake like that was completely out of character.
As was what lead the QF-1 at Bangkok, and quite a few other incidents over the years.
But, they all happened.
Although probably not applicable to what happened in Dallas, do we really know ourselves, until the critical circumstance occurs.
It works both ways, twice I saw remarkable efforts (one an aeroplane saver) from a bloke most people in the company thought was a bit of a dill, "socially challenged" and a very ordinary pilot.
When the fit hit the shan, he proved to be anything but!!
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthill, I'm not certain that anyone has levelled accusations that it's the Captains fault and there is no possibility that he was right and the S/O was wrong. That is entirely possible. Nor are there any accusations of criminal acts, nor breaches of CARs, nor negligence as far as I can tell.
Rather, knowing who was in charge, it is totally unsurprising to many of us that it "ended up" the way it did.
And I mean really unsurprising.
That's just the way it is, like it or not (and obviously some don't).
Rather, knowing who was in charge, it is totally unsurprising to many of us that it "ended up" the way it did.
And I mean really unsurprising.
That's just the way it is, like it or not (and obviously some don't).
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody talking in circles and innuendo's. the fact is if its your ship, you run it as so. If a crew member has a problem and brings it up with you, you discuss it with both he/she and the F/O, in a mature fashion and be open to all suggestions. A sensible conclusion is realised, and a flight deck operates as it should. You might not all totally agree, but realise the final word is the Captains. That is the mature, and capable way of running a flight deck, nothing else is acceptable. You might consider the capt is a complete ********, but he/she is still the Captain, you are not. If you consider the action of the Captain could lead to the destruction of the aircraft and the demise of both crew and passengers, then you must utter those words. you know what they are, if not put your problem into the ring and discuss it. The flight deck is for grown ups only, it requires discipline, maturity, and experience to run it properly, not biff, temper and downright hostility, that is a very dangerous environment and the PAX do not pay for that. We have all been on flight decks where there is a feeling of discord, especially after 89, but mature grown ups put their personal feelings aside and go about their business of operating a passenger aircraft and those who cannot have no business in the office, its as simple as that.
People are 'talking in circles' because:
1. They do not know the full fact situation, and
2. If they know the person concerned, they know it is irresponsible to 'name names' (due in part to point 1).
Additionally, the chap appears to be one of the 'known personalities'. Every organisation has them. Even with modern CRM training, for every one that leaves an airline or a fleet, there is always appears to be another one coming up through the ranks to take their place. Discussion of how they can affect the operation is relevant, particularly when the 'known personality' is the Captain. It can be quite a difficult path to tread for a junior crew member to voice a concern when the Captain is not receptive to what can be perceived as criticism of their knowledge or operational ability. Add to the mix that in the past in Qantas, when there have been incidents that could rightly been attributed to errors by the Captain and F/O, the responsibility and blame has been passed to the S/O, rather than the responsibility flowing upward to the Captain.
1. They do not know the full fact situation, and
2. If they know the person concerned, they know it is irresponsible to 'name names' (due in part to point 1).
Additionally, the chap appears to be one of the 'known personalities'. Every organisation has them. Even with modern CRM training, for every one that leaves an airline or a fleet, there is always appears to be another one coming up through the ranks to take their place. Discussion of how they can affect the operation is relevant, particularly when the 'known personality' is the Captain. It can be quite a difficult path to tread for a junior crew member to voice a concern when the Captain is not receptive to what can be perceived as criticism of their knowledge or operational ability. Add to the mix that in the past in Qantas, when there have been incidents that could rightly been attributed to errors by the Captain and F/O, the responsibility and blame has been passed to the S/O, rather than the responsibility flowing upward to the Captain.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 23rd Aug 2012 at 12:58.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Headmaster you are correct, its human nature that you have just described. If you feel that either the Capt or the F/O is incompetent and not up to running or working on a flight deck it is best to contact a senior captain you trust and voice your opinion. I say that from experience, to say nothing is a possible accident waiting to happen. Any Senior Capt you trust will listen to what you have to say and put out "feelers" to gage what is happening and has there been other complaints. Do not consider yourself a "dobber" or a "brown noser" but consider yourself as doing your duty as bound by your own conscience. I have had in my career many a young Captain come and tell me that X is up to sh$t, and could not run a bath much less a aircraft. You then have to decipher if there is a personal vendetta or he is telling the truth. You then speak to other senior blokes and soon get a feeling for what is going on, the next step is to talk to the CP who generally thinks up a reason to give him a check and a cup of tea, if he passes without any problem he is marked as one who is watched, if he doesn't then the appropriate action is taken. If the bloke has a "personality problem" and not a flying problem he is brought in and asked about his personal life and any problems he might have, that affect his flight deck performance and his getting on with the rest of the crew, generally this is a big wake up call and the offender tends to pull his head in, and try to be more genial. Thats how it was and I don't imagine much has changed.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that he was a protected species under a recent chief pilot ( long history between the two ... Pre QF )
I have heard that these generosities no longer apply, under the present regime especially after the 'pacific bomber' incident a few years back..
He will be asked to leave IMHO
I have heard that these generosities no longer apply, under the present regime especially after the 'pacific bomber' incident a few years back..
He will be asked to leave IMHO
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Many yonks ago I flew with a captain (ex-QF) who was as mad as a bloody
2-bob watch. Seemed to have a "everyone's out to screw me arse" syndrome.
He could make decisions ok but would yell at you if he made a minor trip up
and rant blue murder if you were to ever dare consider dobbing him in behind
his back to the flight dept and he had to go front 'em.
He reminded me of Bogey somewhat...
.
2-bob watch. Seemed to have a "everyone's out to screw me arse" syndrome.
He could make decisions ok but would yell at you if he made a minor trip up
and rant blue murder if you were to ever dare consider dobbing him in behind
his back to the flight dept and he had to go front 'em.
He reminded me of Bogey somewhat...
.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bahrain bomber was a bit more complicated than that. Part of the problem was that due to a VG to system mismatch, the A/P did not disconnect and the A/P followed the toppled VG (twice).
Wunwing
Wunwing