Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas
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!
And for the idiot who said whilst it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been different on the ground
Nunc est bibendum
t about Birdseed, but rather an inquiry into why you all are so anally retentive in flight.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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 03:15.
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?
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?
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.”
This thread is all I hate about pprune..
I am proud to be an Australian aviator, we have produced some of the best the world has ever seen and I can only hope that one day I might be considered a contemporary amongst my peers.
Having spent 10 years of military flying as an FE, with a lot of flexibility and top cover to get an aeroplane around the world with no support, I will never forget the warning given to me on my first flight with a major civil airline. My instructor said that there were no more fiddles with the physical aircraft, performance calculations or abnormal and emergency proceedures. He pointed out a court room in a hypothetical subsequent inquiry and a barrister asking me why I had chosen to ignore a limitation, carry out an unauthorised proceedure or fudge some performance figures. He also pointed out that my company would not support me in order to avoid lawsuits and to protect its reputation. I have since operated with that sage advice in mind and commend all professional pilots to do the same.
Isn’t wind component reported from the tower not an fmc /irs derived wind for adherence to a limitation. Has been what QF have used for a long time. One particular base is full of pilot/lawyer checkies. Look west.
Keg;
Re VH-OJH 02/07/03 at SYD. 18 kt T/W component (FMC) down to 100 ft, 11 kt T/W component on touchdown. Tower reported 13 kt T/W component. No idle reverse thrust from 136 kts and manual braking to reduce speed to 10 kts at taxiway G turnoff. If idle reverse thrust had not been de-selected and/or next exit taken the brake fires and resulting comedy at the 'gate' would not have occurred. The ATSB Investigation Report in my opinion was generous to QF.
Re VH-OJH 02/07/03 at SYD. 18 kt T/W component (FMC) down to 100 ft, 11 kt T/W component on touchdown. Tower reported 13 kt T/W component. No idle reverse thrust from 136 kts and manual braking to reduce speed to 10 kts at taxiway G turnoff. If idle reverse thrust had not been de-selected and/or next exit taken the brake fires and resulting comedy at the 'gate' would not have occurred. The ATSB Investigation Report in my opinion was generous to QF.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, as a fairly new aviator I find robust discussions and debate such as what we have here in this thread informative, educational and relavant.
I am proud to be an Australian aviator, we have produced some of the best the world has ever seen and I can only hope that one day I might be considered a contemporary amongst my peers.
I am proud to be an Australian aviator, we have produced some of the best the world has ever seen and I can only hope that one day I might be considered a contemporary amongst my peers.
Keep working at it!!!!
