Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Geoffrey Thomas Sinks To New Low

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Geoffrey Thomas Sinks To New Low

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd May 2016, 00:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 487
Received 361 Likes on 69 Posts
Geoffrey Thomas Sinks To New Low

Our resident "aviation expert" has again been showing how a few months chucking bags has really qualified him as an aviation technical expert.

In this item:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/crashed-airasia-plan-had-been-flying-with-mechanical-fault/7376776
He sprukes that Qantas would never fly an aircraft around which is maintained like this.

And yet, we know of his vehement opposition to claims from the engineers' union that outsourcing of QF maintenance overseas and reduced maintenance standards were resulting in a slipping of safety. "Scaremongering" I believe was his term of reference towards the TWU's concerns re offshore maintenance.

So on one hand, Australian engineers are scaremongering over offshore maintenance, and yet on the other hand, we should be banning AirAsia because of shoddy overseas maintenance.

The most disappointing thing to me, is that abc news have sunken to the low of referencing this Chairman's lounge puppet.

Note: This thread is not a Qantas vs AirAsia safety comparison, so all of you leaping out of your chairs to Qantas' defence can calm down. We know which airline is safer on the whole - it's not about that.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 00:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sand dune
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
He sprukes that Qantas would never fly an aircraft around which is maintained like this.
He knows this for certain? He is certain that no Qantas aircraft or those operated on its behalf would ever be expected to fly with undocumented, or long term, "nil time to rectify" defects?

That is a relief, very comforting thought.
Blitzkrieger is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 02:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
Cash for comment.
Roller Merlin is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 04:24
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Bubble
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I think it's a fair comment about Qantas not letting aircraft fly with persistent defects like this.

Maintenance watch does provide a very good oversight of recurring defects, I can guarantee if a defect was written up and didn't go away with 1 reset further corrective action would've been taken. I know because of all the of the Maintenance Watch Request tasks that get called up every night for just this reason.

A big factor in the AirAsia crash was no oversight in general and in this case, this particular reoccurring defect that just kept getting penned off with resets for months and months.
600ft-lb is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 09:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,878
Likes: 0
Received 246 Likes on 106 Posts
Isn't it amazing that it came down to a crack in a solder joint. They could not find it in twelve months of line operations but they were able to dig it out of the mud and find the offending circuit board AFTER the crash.



I notice Mr Thomas is indirectly criticising CASA as he believes Indonesian Airlines should not be allowed into Australia (by CASA). If I was CASA I would asking questions of the media about his "expert" status. This status has a very specific meaning in a court room, less so in the real world but even so he has turned it into a meaningless phrase.
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 3rd May 2016, 09:39
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 600ft-lb
I think it's a fair comment about Qantas not letting aircraft fly with persistent defects like this.

Maintenance watch does provide a very good oversight of recurring defects, I can guarantee if a defect was written up and didn't go away with 1 reset further corrective action would've been taken. I know because of all the of the Maintenance Watch Request tasks that get called up every night for just this reason.

A big factor in the AirAsia crash was no oversight in general and in this case, this particular reoccurring defect that just kept getting penned off with resets for months and months.
Really reminds me of Lauda Air troubleshooting a reverser issue for sector after sector with a commercial demand for the aircraft.Dont kid yourself it happens everyday around the world
griffin one is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 09:51
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 68
Posts: 1,551
Received 51 Likes on 19 Posts
A big factor in the AirAsia crash was no oversight in general and in this case, this particular reoccurring defect that just kept getting penned off with resets for months and months.
This is virtually Adam Air all over again; for those that don't remember https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Final_r...t_574_disaster

Adam Air re-racked the faulty IRS multiple times..........but recorded the IRS as having been "replaced". A form of creative writing......

One of the ongoing issues in Indonesia is a lack of experienced and qualified inspectors within their regulator. They don't know what they don't know.

This is not unique to Indonesia.

Unfortunately Joe Public cannot see past the cheap fares.
chimbu warrior is online now  
Old 3rd May 2016, 10:32
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sand dune
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A big factor in the AirAsia crash was no oversight in general and in this case, this particular reoccurring defect that just kept getting penned off with resets for months and months.
Dead right. It happened yesterday, today, and it will happen again tomorrow. Commercial pressures are overriding safety day-in, day-out.

This is not unique to Indonesia
Dead right again, it's happening in this country despite assertions to the contrary.
Blitzkrieger is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 13:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 82
Posts: 3,096
Received 45 Likes on 20 Posts
From the TV program, here we have 'AGAIN' , one pilot pushing forward on his 'stick', whilst the other is pulling back on his 'stick'.

Very much the same scenario as the Air France disaster...?

The net result was a 'confused' flight computer, and the resultant crash.

Is it not possible for Airbus to have an 'indicator' of some sort on the panel adjacent to the stick, to show the position of each stick, one relative to the other?
A set of coloured lights in the 'cardinal points' configuration should be able to do it perhaps....

Just a thought for a sad event.....

Airbus drivers? Thoughts?
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 17:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's called the takeover push button and I have control......

These events have been caused by lack of crew coordination and no one positively identifying who is actually controlling the aircraft.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 20:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 606
Received 13 Likes on 3 Posts
Just watched the foreign correspondent piece with GT. I wish I was a clever as he clearly is.

I am thinking of going to wix.com and building myself an aviation website, perhaps www.rateanaviationjourno.com and I think I will name myself CEO, Grand poobah, MD, president for life and overall big boss. Has a nice ring to it and about as much credibility as GT's website. I mean FFS who calls themselves CEO of a website?

The thing that annoys me the most about this clown is that some people actually listen to him!
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 20:56
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it was the OP who described him as the 'Chairman's Lounge Puppet'.
Couldn't stop giggling over that one.

I'm just taken aback a little that our national broadcaster has now been gullible enough to present this clown as the 'Aviation Expert'.

I'm very tempted to refer the ABC's news and current affairs director to a couple of threads on PPRuNe relating to our bag-chucker friend
from Port Hedland.
I'm sure the said Director would be, at the same time, both embarrassed and amused.

p.s. Oh, and be advised that he's an "Aviation Professional"... Yes Geoffrey - except we know in what capacity.
.

Last edited by Stanwell; 3rd May 2016 at 21:44. Reason: add ps
Stanwell is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 23:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
He certainly is not an aviation expert, he is a journalist with a interest in aviation. Maybe write to the ABC fact checker people and get them to investigate.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 3rd May 2016, 23:12
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,393
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
I thought that report was more Sixty Minutes than Foreign Correspondent.
Fris B. Fairing is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 00:38
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 82
Posts: 3,096
Received 45 Likes on 20 Posts
Understood Mr GG,

But such a loss on at least 2 separate occasions, would call for 'something better' than what is a 'flawed flightdeck discipline'....don't you think?

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 02:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Both occasions you had French nationals with low experience and possibly incorrect training at the controls.

Coupled with poor flight deck discipline and a culture that would be described as less than open, you have these incidents.

During my TR, the instructor had never flown a modern Airbus. He had an Airbus TR and had flown the usual suspects for domestic airlines in Australia prior to 89, and the usual expat stuff afterwards. But no modern Airbus experience. He knew the CBT and sim, but not how she catches you out in the real world.

This is pretty typical of training organisations that the airlines outsource to. Most of my knowledge came from pushing the wrong button at the wrong time and either being quickly put in place by a stressed out captain, or by seeing what happens when you're a spectator on a high performance jet. It can get ugly unless you take the right corrective action almost immediately.

The right corrective action however is not always immediately obvious. Especially under duress in the heat of battle.

I love the Airbus and feel I have a very good understanding of her, and have the tools and training to handle most situations. I can't say I felt like that when I first starting flying the line. I'm also a 10,000 hour pilot with plenty of real world experience .
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 04:41
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 11 Posts
The Airbus could probably do with some tweaks given the similarities between the two crashes.

In the AirAsia crash, the "dual input" warning was totally suppressed by the continuous "stall" warning (though there are both the green priority lights that indicate a dual input). A better system could be something like "stall stall stall dual input" repeated.

In the Air France crash, the stall warning ceased when airspeed reduced below 60kts (i think). This is believed to have led to more confusion with control inputs as it became counter intuitive in that pulling back more ceased the stall warning. Why would you have a system that at anytime in the air would cease a stall warning at very low speeds?
The The is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 06:16
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The The
The
In the Air France crash, the stall warning ceased when airspeed reduced below 60kts (i think). This is believed to have led to more confusion with control inputs as it became counter intuitive in that pulling back more ceased the stall warning. Why would you have a system that at anytime in the air would cease a stall warning at very low speeds?
I've been told the Airbus logic here is that at such a low speed the aircraft thinks it must be on the ground.

Not certain. But it would be consistent with a whole bunch of other daft Airbus logic we have to battle.
IsDon is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 07:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,253
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
It doesn't matter what tweaks are put in if the crew are not properly trained. There have been two Boeing accidents attributable to a lack of understanding about the autothrottle function, does that mean Boeing has to tweak that system? GG has raised an important point about the experience levels on type of simulator instructors.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 08:01
  #20 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the reporter kept getting confused between Air Asia Indonesia & Air Asia X.


The former flies OZ to Indo, the later flies KL to OZ & onto AKL.
XPT is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.