Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas
Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arsehole
With over 400hrs in the simulator over many years.....I have never heard a checkie, instructor or supervisary use any language.....that could be considered offensive....in polite society.
"For a start QF and VA are not FAA 121 operators, they have to comply with CASA requirements"
Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
"For a start QF and VA are not FAA 121 operators, they have to comply with CASA requirements"
Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
Can't speak for B777, the the B747-400 is very sensitive to tyre speed limits with any tailwind component at max brakes release weight.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found (in my experience) the regionals in Australia possessed more of the "Austronaughts"
Once I started at major airline I was stunned by how much more relaxed it was.
Definately a much more pleasant working environment. And if i've learned one thing take everything you hear with a large pinch of salt. 99% of what you hear about people is bull**** anyway.
With the exception of a few knobs, if you show up to work with a good attitude, and do your job properly you will likely have a good day with anyone you fly with.
Once I started at major airline I was stunned by how much more relaxed it was.
Definately a much more pleasant working environment. And if i've learned one thing take everything you hear with a large pinch of salt. 99% of what you hear about people is bull**** anyway.
With the exception of a few knobs, if you show up to work with a good attitude, and do your job properly you will likely have a good day with anyone you fly with.
OICUR....operations ex LAX in the 777 are typically done at MTOW, and a tailwind drops the performance limit by about 2 tonnes per kt of tailwind.
3-4 kts of tailwind very easily becomes 7-8 kts of tailwind in LA and seeing as they typically only update the atis once an hour it is hardly a stretch to imagine that crews are fairly conservative when it comes to takeoff performance.
depending on the temp 2-3 kts tailwind is the limit with no derate, no assumed temp and bleeds off.
Throw in runway closures that run for months and wanting to take off into wind is hardly a world ending event.
Every crew I know of will try their damndest to not need a runway 7L/R departure because of the hassle that comes with it, but the risk is that you get to the end of the runway and they advise that the tailwind is now 3-4 kts not 2-3 kts and you are stuffed.
Being professional shouldn't be the reason for ridicule. Similarly knowing what the tailwind limit is, ensuring you aren't exceeding it and then taking off on the prevailing runway direction is also a mark of professionalism, and should not be used to suggest that they "twiddled" the numbers and took off disregarding the tailwind limit being exceeded - which is what you were suggesting.
Edit...great circle distance LAX-HKG 7260 nm, great circle distance LAX-SYD 7488nm.
The thing that adds a lot of weight ex LA is freight. Not sure what AA carry freight wise.
3-4 kts of tailwind very easily becomes 7-8 kts of tailwind in LA and seeing as they typically only update the atis once an hour it is hardly a stretch to imagine that crews are fairly conservative when it comes to takeoff performance.
depending on the temp 2-3 kts tailwind is the limit with no derate, no assumed temp and bleeds off.
Throw in runway closures that run for months and wanting to take off into wind is hardly a world ending event.
Every crew I know of will try their damndest to not need a runway 7L/R departure because of the hassle that comes with it, but the risk is that you get to the end of the runway and they advise that the tailwind is now 3-4 kts not 2-3 kts and you are stuffed.
Being professional shouldn't be the reason for ridicule. Similarly knowing what the tailwind limit is, ensuring you aren't exceeding it and then taking off on the prevailing runway direction is also a mark of professionalism, and should not be used to suggest that they "twiddled" the numbers and took off disregarding the tailwind limit being exceeded - which is what you were suggesting.
Edit...great circle distance LAX-HKG 7260 nm, great circle distance LAX-SYD 7488nm.
The thing that adds a lot of weight ex LA is freight. Not sure what AA carry freight wise.
Last edited by Snakecharma; 8th Feb 2018 at 03:48.
I agree with that Major. The regionals are far worse than the Major airlines. One only has to listen in on any ctaf that has RPT services to hear the w**kers. Readily available to berate some poor ppl for some minor radio procedure. In fact more often than not they themselves are wrong. I recall recently a Rex crew telling off a vfr driver for not making a departure call.That went out years ago. By the time they get to the big boy toys it is out of their system perhaps?
LAX-HKG is shorter than LAX-SYD great circle, it is normally 1-2 hrs longer flight time due headwinds. The winter jet stream around Japan can get up to 300 kts, it is depressing to see a ground speed around 300-350 kts for hours on end. Yesterday’s LAX-SYD around 14:30, LAX-HKG 15:45.
QUOTE=swh;10045627]It’s Civil Aviation Order 20.7.1B for the regulator that invented regulatory reform that increases complexity. FAR 25 would be too simple, that is just one line !!
Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.
Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.
However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
Full to the gunwahales for Airline A may be different to Airline B.
The performance engineers can do all sorts of fancy things behind the OPT scenes that most, including the line pilots, have no idea about. For example, they might shorten a runway by several hundred meters thus resulting in higher thrust settings than the regs would require, without any visibility of this to the crew. Airline A might do this and Airline B might not.
And I always thought that FAR Part 25 was the airworthiness certification standard for transport category aircraft.
I would be looking elsewhere for the various operational requirements.
I would be looking elsewhere for the various operational requirements.
How so Bonway?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.
We've got a couple where I work and they do give the rest of us a bad name. One, in particular is a loud and vocal arse who knows everything about everything and has managed to piss countless FOs (and some captains) off by criticising them when they don't do the 'little extras' he likes to see, because "that's the way we did it in Ansett". Even though there are plenty of others in the company who have flown for legacy carriers, with more than two aircraft and a dog, he still insists that AN know FAR more than the likes of UA, BA, AF etc. Even the Australians use the 'Austronaut' monicker with him and it fits perfectly.
I think one of the problems is that we've been brought up in an environment of bureaucratic nonsense and to us the pointless trivia (witness above), while being correct, is to many Australians REALLY important. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world does not agree and they certainly don't want it pushed down their throats. "Maaaaaaate, you shouldn't do that. In Oz CAO, CAR, blah, blah, blah"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has become the Galapagos of everything including aviation. Our industry was passed by the rest of the world sometime in the 70s and since then we have evolved to be our own 'best practice' but certainly not worlds best. It's a tiny industry in a tiny market. A bit of humility would not go astray.
Last edited by ernestkgann; 10th Feb 2018 at 04:42. Reason: Spelling
I don’t know if CASA is the root cause or just another side effect of the fact that as Australians we are more likely to call people out on something than almost any other nationality on the planet. There is some fancy Index that measures it and we are either number 1 or number 2 in the world.
Anyone know the name of the Index?
Anyone know the name of the Index?
Nunc est bibendum
Ive had a few mates do the whole Emirates thing and they've passed on some of the Austronaut stuff.
The real eye opener for me was in May 2015 listening to Speedbird respond to ATC for an early morning arrival into Sydney (0500 ahead of the curfew). Both flights running quite early and ETA SYD before 0500. We'd informed ATC that due to weight, wet runway and the way Airbus considers idle reverse on wet runway (braking action poor to medium) we were unable to accept more than 9 knots tailwind and likely to hold until 6am given the prevailing conditions.
ATC then asked Speedbird for their tailwind limit. We got a shock when they replied '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. Stunned silence from ATC (and on our flight deck too). ATC politely asked them to confirm their downwind limit. Again from Speedbird '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. ATC just 'rogered' the second confirmation.
Finally Approach checked when they were on vectors for SOSIJ. Same response again. TWR played the game and told them 'downwind 15, cleared to land'. After Landing the report was passed on to us that Speedbird had reported '22 knots downwind approaching the flare'.
That was the day I decided I was proud to be an Austronaut!
The 'calling out bull**** index'? 
The real eye opener for me was in May 2015 listening to Speedbird respond to ATC for an early morning arrival into Sydney (0500 ahead of the curfew). Both flights running quite early and ETA SYD before 0500. We'd informed ATC that due to weight, wet runway and the way Airbus considers idle reverse on wet runway (braking action poor to medium) we were unable to accept more than 9 knots tailwind and likely to hold until 6am given the prevailing conditions.
ATC then asked Speedbird for their tailwind limit. We got a shock when they replied '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. Stunned silence from ATC (and on our flight deck too). ATC politely asked them to confirm their downwind limit. Again from Speedbird '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. ATC just 'rogered' the second confirmation.
Finally Approach checked when they were on vectors for SOSIJ. Same response again. TWR played the game and told them 'downwind 15, cleared to land'. After Landing the report was passed on to us that Speedbird had reported '22 knots downwind approaching the flare'.
That was the day I decided I was proud to be an Austronaut!
I don’t know if CASA is the root cause or just another side effect of the fact that as Australians we are more likely to call people out on something than almost any other nationality on the planet. There is some fancy Index that measures it and we are either number 1 or number 2 in the world.
Anyone know the name of the Index?
Anyone know the name of the Index?