Nice bit of airmanship
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice bit of airmanship
Qantas 767 MEL-SYD this afternoon-landing in dodgy conditons (X-wind, turbulence,gusts etc). All got worse last 50 ft before TD and at wheel touch it wasn't specially pretty so they gave it away and after a few minutes and a calming PA, did it again.
How many (if they lived) pilots who went off the far end will go to their last days wishing they had made such a good decision.
Well done. All the fine regs and SMSs and MBA driven management will never take the place of a couple of folks up the front who know how to make good decisions.
How many (if they lived) pilots who went off the far end will go to their last days wishing they had made such a good decision.
Well done. All the fine regs and SMSs and MBA driven management will never take the place of a couple of folks up the front who know how to make good decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I can assure you that various instructors over the years have contributed to the decision making of the pilot flying - however, having been involved in the 'system' for over 3 decades I can be absolutely certain that the management and regulation of aviation in Australia have, not only the inability, but also no intention of providing any meaningful input in to the operation of a multi crewed modern jet.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'll be bu##ered, pilots doing their job, pure and simple.
And all the SMS bull sh#t had nought input into their doing their job, and doing it well.
The industry is full of academic wa%&ers with their brains full of theory, but no experience - and they are the ones calling the shots. God help us all!!!
Threat and Error management - it's mostly rubbish, it's about ability and experience.
I'm with you SeeBee:-
And all the SMS bull sh#t had nought input into their doing their job, and doing it well.
The industry is full of academic wa%&ers with their brains full of theory, but no experience - and they are the ones calling the shots. God help us all!!!
Threat and Error management - it's mostly rubbish, it's about ability and experience.
I'm with you SeeBee:-
the management and regulation of aviation in Australia have, not only the inability, but also no intention of providing any meaningful input in to the operation of a multi crewed modern jet.
'DoDo' all the class room stuff we have to endure like SMS, CRM, SEP's TEM courses etc etc etc are all 'feel good' lessons & a whole industry has been built around them but at the end of the day despite all the good intentions you will never make 10 pilots the same as you can 10 airframes, the human mind is very unpredictable at times (bit like an Airbus)
What's that saying Airlines like us to use after a briefing?..........."it's okay to go-around"....& that my friends takes balls sometimes
Still we need to have all of the above purely for the legal side of things.
Wmk2
What's that saying Airlines like us to use after a briefing?..........."it's okay to go-around"....& that my friends takes balls sometimes
Still we need to have all of the above purely for the legal side of things.
Wmk2
Nunc est bibendum
Keg must be getting twitchy in his old age. Landed with plenty of fuel, I hope! 
Is landing with 100 minutes of fuel enough to keep the PPRUNE crowd off my back? The flight plan had me landing with 65.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went around landing 16r in the flare entering turbulent air from late departing a330 in still air few years ago. Reckon we would have scraped a pod if we'd continued. Tower almost had kittens. We were turning right before their hasty heading instructions that's for sure !
Fun for the whole family
Fun for the whole family
I wonder if ATC have in the back of their minds that any landing aircraft at any time may go-around.
The reason may not be initially obvious to the tower - e.g, an un-stabilised approach; turtle on the runway.
The reason may not be initially obvious to the tower - e.g, an un-stabilised approach; turtle on the runway.
All got worse last 50 ft before TD and at wheel touch it wasn't specially pretty so they gave it away
Next decade's pilotless 787 would have foreseen the shear and turbulence and gone around long before 50ft or compensated such that another "greaser" was successfully rolled on!
Last Brisbane figures I saw were something like
58,000 movements / 44 go rounds ( 20 pilot initiated, 18 separation, 6 runway blocked or maybe that turtle again )
Don't know what Sydney was
58,000 movements / 44 go rounds ( 20 pilot initiated, 18 separation, 6 runway blocked or maybe that turtle again )
Don't know what Sydney was
I wonder if ATC have in the back of their minds that any landing aircraft at any time may go-around.
A landing aircraft will not be permitted to cross the threshold of the runway on its final approach until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) is airborne, and
-has commenced a turn; or
-is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) is airborne, and
-has commenced a turn; or
-is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach
The thing about the bolded wording of the separation standard (sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach) is that it is never tested when the aircraft lands.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say what you like about the SMS, CRM et al it is all responsible for the end result in most safe operations COM that REQUIRES a go round from an unstabilised approach even unto wheel touch. It assumes the PNF is monitoring the defined stabilised approach parameters for the PF. And gives the pilot permission to exercise what you have called airmanship but Is part of the deal between him and the operator.
That mindset has not always been thus.
C441 gets it
G'day Keg me old.
Airmanship? Suggests something it was IMHO not. Help me out with the right word.
That mindset has not always been thus.
C441 gets it
G'day Keg me old.
Airmanship? Suggests something it was IMHO not. Help me out with the right word.
