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

Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas

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

Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas

Old 11th Feb 2018, 13:49
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
And the others.

Would you accept “a few knots extra” on your route check ? Try landing a 737 in Kalgoorlie/ Newman with a “few knots extra”. It won’t be pretty ! I’ve been checked by a few Oztranauts and it was not pleseant but usually it taught me something !

Rules are there usually for a good reason, disregard them at your peril !
benttrees is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 16:32
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Oceanside, CA.
Posts: 153
Ok here’s a question I’ve been wanting to ask ever since I got to the Sandpit.

Has anyone else encountered the bad reputation or ‘watch out for the Aussie Captains’ comment from other pilots overseas?

As far as I can tell this relates back to the two major exodus’s from Oz, 1989 and the Ansett collapse. I get the impression there were a lot of w***ers that came overseas and told the rest of the world how to fly, because they knew best. Plus I imagine some of them were angry about being forced overseas...
Might I post this here to serve as a reminder to the Oztranauts that this thread is not about making up bullt about Birdseed, but rather an inquiry into why you all are so anally retentive in flight.
Bonway is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 18:10
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Indeed - many of the recent posts rather prove the point made by the OP...............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 19:09
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
Disregarding tailwind limitations is not a nit-picking sin. Tailwind limitation are a basic and importanat part of operating the aircraft. The Austranaught argument I thought , was about small unimportant issues that distract from the big issues, complicate the operation, and create distracting discussions that don’t need to happen on a busy flight-deck.
framer is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 20:29
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 180
Aviation Enthus

See my post # 35 . It might help to answer your question a little bit .
RodH is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 20:37
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: illabo
Age: 51
Posts: 161
Bonway
As a corporate jet captain who has operated extensively in the USA, don't even get me started on you guys. Talk about cavalier. I won't elaborate - anyone (non American) who has any time flying there will understand.

And anyone defending the BA crew who knowingly exceeded limits needs their heads read. I dont give a shit if ATC reported tail wind 15 knots. The BA crew made it clear that whatever ATC reported they were happy with. For ATC - report what it is and let the professionals say no, and the cavaliers say no wukkas.

And for the idiot who said whilst it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been different on the ground - FFS, when do you judge what the wind is, when the wheels hit, when you've stopped, when disembarking? Jesus, if 22kts in the flare, to you, is NOT definitive that the tailwind is over the limit, you deserve to have your licence torn up.
rodney rude is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 21:47
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 581
I would suggest that Keg would find the actions of the BA crew equally unprofessional regardless of the airline involved - even his own.

And for the idiot who said whilst it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been different on the ground
Nice! Wet runway, Idle reverse, possibly raining and at least a 7kt overshoot shear.......by choice!
C441 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 22:12
  #148 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,178
Originally Posted by Bonway View Post
Might I post this here to serve as a reminder to the Oztranauts that this thread is not about making up bullt about Birdseed, but rather an inquiry into why you all are so anally retentive in flight.
Calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by C441 View Post
I would suggest that Keg would find the actions of the BA crew equally unprofessional regardless of the airline involved - even his own.



Nice! Wet runway, Idle reverse, possibly raining and at least a 7kt overshoot shear.......by choice!
Bang on. Id be appalled if I heard of any crew doing the same. Again, if that makes me an Oztronaught, Austronaught, of whatever other term someone wants to make up, then I’m happy to wear it.
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 22:54
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 349
Keg, normally I have a lot of respect for what you put on these forums, but I think you've somewhat missed the boat here.

Trying to tarnish non-Australian pilots with the BA example is terrible reasoning. It's like buying a brand new AMG. When it blows up as you pull out the showroom, would you surmise that every, single AMG ever built must be crap and inferior to other cars? It's called proof by example, and it's bad reasoning.

The reality is, people's minor interactions/experiences and the subsequent perceptions that are built, strongly tend views towards the isolated event but rarely represent the larger reality.

Yes, that BA incident sounds very dubious at best, but if you think it represents the majority of BA pilots or non-Oz pilots you need to reexamine your reasoning.

EVERY airline has a very similar demographic in terms of achiever levels. Nearly every one I've worked for, including yours, has about 50 % who are excellent at what they do. Then there's the 10% who are absolutely exceptional (and it's normally non-technical skills which make this distinction). Then there's about 35% who are okay, but don't really shine. And lastly, there's a small component (say less than 5%) who either really struggle year after year, or who have deliberate non-compliance type tendencies.

To think any Australian airline (including the big Q) doesn't have at least some proportion of these people is pretty naive. I certainly won't judge BA crew on one or two cowboys.

As for the original point of the thread, I get where the Austronaught reputation comes from - but like most, it's generally a few small individuals that wreck it for everyone else.

There most definitely is a small proportion of Australian C&T history (thankfully mostly disappeared now), where ****-swinging rather than safety seemed to be the prime objective. I've seen questions asked which most definitely have no safety or training benefit, and where the only possible motivation for such ridiculous content could have been for old mate to make himself feel good.

Those days are largely behind us, and it will be good when those final few fall off the perch - and the Oz drivers won't be fighting yesterday's war.

As for the comment earlier about the effect of the regulator, I tend to agree. If you have a regulator that prioritises compliance over safety, you might end up with a situation where a) the C&T industry you control tends to follow suit, and b) a lot of the big stick people who aren't suited to airline C&T will end up working for the regulator because it's the only place they can get a job.
Slippery_Pete is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 01:46
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 822
Hey Rodney,

Calm down mate.....

1 - You say the BA crew 'knowingly landed outside of limits'.... how do you know? Is there an incident report that says such. You are working off some 'recalled' memories of a radio exchange from 3 years ago? I would say there is far from enough evidence to show what you say is fact.

2 - Where did I say exactly how I judge a tailwind? Keg said that the BA crew reported 22kts tailwind 'approaching' the flare.... what does that mean? 500' is approaching the flare, if you are at 300' and the tailwind is out of limits but you can see a windsock on the ground that shows calm on the ground and you are landing on a non limiting runway at what point do you go around. There is no hard and fast rule.

3 - Our operating manual says specifically that you can take an ATC wind as the definitive direction and strength over and above the aircraft generated wind. At what point do I call bullsh*t on ATC. If the ATIS says a 16 kt tailwind and ATC say 'no it is now 14 kts' do I just say 'well I can't trust you' so I am going around.?

4 - Did the BA crew make it clear that they were landing no matter what ATC said.... I must of missed that bit.

At the end of the day Keg is using a situation that may or may not have been a violation of an aircraft limit with a foreign crew from an airline that has a pretty good safety record as evidence that Aussie pilots are not pedantic to the extreme. Perhaps not pedantic but certainly judgemental.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 03:48
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 515
Keg,

How accurate are the IRS's after a 14 hour flight? What about the drift?

Do you really prefer to use the GS/wind vector on your ND over the actual wind from the tower AND use this as a reason for a go-around?

If the tower says 15 tail it's 15 tail...simple. Lets please do not over complicate this job.

Last edited by AQIS Boigu; 12th Feb 2018 at 04:15.
AQIS Boigu is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 03:52
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 515
Keg,

I got another question for you to check if you have Austronautism.

At the gate you run a take off data for 500.0 tons and at the holding point your GW on the lower ECAM says 500.2 tons.

Do you take off or do you wait and burn the 200kgs at holding point?
AQIS Boigu is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 04:13
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 311
No AQIS - at that point you get CC to do a quick rundown of all pax weights and carry-on baggage FFS.
On eyre is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 04:35
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 173
Bearing in mind that for performance and handling certification the wind affecting the aircraft is corrected from the height of measurement to the height of the wing MAC, usually using a 1/7 th power rule, I have difficulty working out how the pilot has any real idea of what the tailwind affecting the aircraft really is.
zzuf is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 05:24
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Age: 44
Posts: 180
Just a pack of big talking big swaggering [email protected]@@@[email protected]@

Talk the big talk

But pull up short when it comes to the delivery side of the equation
Flyboat North is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 05:52
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by Flyboat North View Post
Just a pack of big talking big swaggering [email protected]@@@[email protected]@

Talk the big talk

But pull up short when it comes to the delivery side of the equation
Oh the irony, it burns..!
ruprecht is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 06:48
  #157 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,178
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion View Post

At the end of the day Keg is using a situation that may or may not have been a violation of an aircraft limit with a foreign crew from an airline that has a pretty good safety record as evidence that Aussie pilots are not pedantic to the extreme. Perhaps not pedantic but certainly judgemental.
What the crew actually landed with is kind of irrelevant given that they’d previously advised ATC three times they were prepared to accept more than their certified limit. As I’ve previously stated I can only surmise and infer from the following interactions about what actually happened but that changes nothing about the mindset and declared intention of the crew.

So perhaps they didn’t break the law but they advertised their intentions they were happy to. It staggers me that so many seem to miss this point? Or doesn’t it matter because hey, we can’t prove they actually did.

Now maybe they are one of the 5% that SlipperPete refers to. I’m certainly not suggesting that all BA crew are like that though I was certainly shocked when I heard it- and grieved a little that an airline I’d previously held in such high esteem had at least two crew so prepared to ignore limits. Perhaps some of my colleagues are equally cavalier but I’ve never heard them publicise their idiocy over the VHF.

Anyway, I’m sorry I ever mentioned BA. Perhaps I should have just said it was ‘a major overseas carrier’ though given there are only 3-4 permitted to land in the curfew shoulder it still may have been obvious.

AQIS Burgu, if the tailwind was close to the limits I’d have already tee’d up with ATC for a wind approaching the threshold- as in when I’m at about 50’, not when I’m on a long final. If they said it was within limits at that point I’d land..... as long as it was within cooee of what my instruments were and presuming theirs nothing identifiably wrong with them.

As for the TOW question. What was my planned ramp weight? What was my planned taxi fuel? Have I burned my planned taxi fuel? The A330 GW can increase if I’ve turned sharply onto the runway and then stopped. Is the 500.2 (obviously not a 330) as a result of that or was it previously reading 500.0 (or less) then increased as a result of a turn?

Maybe you think asking such questions makes me an Austronaut. I just think it’s being professional. If it’s the former again I ask how much over a certified limit is acceptable? 500.3? 500.4? 500.5? Where are you drawing the line?
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 06:50
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by AQIS Boigu View Post
Keg,

I got another question for you to check if you have Austronautism.

At the gate you run a take off data for 500.0 tons and at the holding point your GW on the lower ECAM says 500.2 tons.

Do you take off or do you wait and burn the 200kgs at holding point?
That is an easy one!
As the company will want to know why I have taken off above the limit weight (it will be flagged on the QAR) and I wish to retire on my terms I would wait.
You will probably think that silly for a piddling pecentage, but that is how it is done in a professional outfit.
“Explain in you own words why you ignored the limit.”
Tankengine is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 07:01
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by Flyboat North View Post
Just a pack of big talking big swaggering [email protected]@@@[email protected]@

Talk the big talk

But pull up short when it comes to the delivery side of the equation
Talking of coming up short, have you ever made it to being a pilot? Nah didn’t think so, too many hurdles for a troll like you. Now run along, your Mum is calling you for dinner
angryrat is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 07:04
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 67
This thread is all that I hate about PPRuNe...
Biatch is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.