Flying hours
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: aus
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying hours
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
Folks,
In 1966, the then CEO of Qantas, Cedric Turner, said: "When Boeing builds a pilotless airliner, Qantas will be the first to buy it".
Some things never change.
Tootle pip!!
In 1966, the then CEO of Qantas, Cedric Turner, said: "When Boeing builds a pilotless airliner, Qantas will be the first to buy it".
Some things never change.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- slight thread drift -
I believe that "technically" no one was actually ever locked out. (There was certainly no strike). Notification of a lockout was given on Sat 29 to occur at 8pm on Mon 31. FWC terminated all action on 31st before 8pm.
The "grounding" order was given Sat lunchtime, so no one flew but not locked out per se.
(There was one pilot who held a protected stop work meeting in Hong Kong, I think he was locked out of the crew hotel and had to pax himself home. Not 100% sure on that one)
Re Gfk - Ramsay
They sure do - and then expect to be able to extend you out to "rostering" limits, ignoring (deliberately misinterpreting) the CAO.
CASA do not necessarily agree with this (mis) interpretation. But it's the QC that will get ya in the court of inquiry ....... Not CASA.
I believe that "technically" no one was actually ever locked out. (There was certainly no strike). Notification of a lockout was given on Sat 29 to occur at 8pm on Mon 31. FWC terminated all action on 31st before 8pm.
The "grounding" order was given Sat lunchtime, so no one flew but not locked out per se.
(There was one pilot who held a protected stop work meeting in Hong Kong, I think he was locked out of the crew hotel and had to pax himself home. Not 100% sure on that one)
Re Gfk - Ramsay
They sure do - and then expect to be able to extend you out to "rostering" limits, ignoring (deliberately misinterpreting) the CAO.
CASA do not necessarily agree with this (mis) interpretation. But it's the QC that will get ya in the court of inquiry ....... Not CASA.
Last edited by Iron Bar; 29th Jul 2018 at 23:32.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/106396/...token=sQJCsvkg
Iron Bar, it’s interesting you say that CASA don’t necessarily agree with the (mis) interpretation. One of those operators has allegedly had that very thing clarified by CASA. That clarification effectively enshrines the expectation that pilots will extend a duty. 12-14 hour duties in a shorthaul world are NOT safe, but since when is safety more important than a few bucks ay!
Safest* airline in the world though.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Bar, it’s interesting you say that CASA don’t necessarily agree with the (mis) interpretation. One of those operators has allegedly had that very thing clarified by CASA. That clarification effectively enshrines the expectation that pilots will extend a duty. 12-14 hour duties in a shorthaul world are NOT safe, but since when is safety more important than a few bucks ay!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought about that:
Qantas Flight 1
VH-OJH, the aircraft involved in the accident, photographed at Singapore Changi Airportsome eight years later.AccidentDate23 September 1999SummaryRunway excursion caused by hydroplaning, pilot error aggravated by inclement weatherSiteBangkok, ThailandAircraftAircraft typeBoeing 747–438Aircraft nameCity of DarwinOperatorQantas
RegistrationVH-OJHFlight originSydney AirportStopoverDon Mueang International AirportDestinationLondon Heathrow AirportPassengers391[1]:1Crew19Fatalities0Injuries38 (minor)Survivors410 (all)Qantas Flight 1 (QF1, QFA1) was a Qantaspassenger flight between Sydney and London that was involved in a runway overrun accident at Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok on 23 September 1999 as it was landing for a stopover.
The importance of pilot training and the difference pilot decisions can make was dramatically demonstrated in the major Qantas accident at Bangkok in 1999. VH-OJH, a Boeing 747-438 with 391 passengers and a crew of nineteen, over-ran the runway when landing in a rainstorm. Nobody was hurt, but it cost $100 million to repair the aircraft.
The damage was such that the aircraft was a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $100 million.By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age
GEOFFREY LUCK
How Qantas Became the Safest Airline
link to article in Quadrant:
How Qantas Became the Safest Airline ? Quadrant Online
Qantas Flight 1
VH-OJH, the aircraft involved in the accident, photographed at Singapore Changi Airportsome eight years later.AccidentDate23 September 1999SummaryRunway excursion caused by hydroplaning, pilot error aggravated by inclement weatherSiteBangkok, ThailandAircraftAircraft typeBoeing 747–438Aircraft nameCity of DarwinOperatorQantas
RegistrationVH-OJHFlight originSydney AirportStopoverDon Mueang International AirportDestinationLondon Heathrow AirportPassengers391[1]:1Crew19Fatalities0Injuries38 (minor)Survivors410 (all)Qantas Flight 1 (QF1, QFA1) was a Qantaspassenger flight between Sydney and London that was involved in a runway overrun accident at Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok on 23 September 1999 as it was landing for a stopover.
The importance of pilot training and the difference pilot decisions can make was dramatically demonstrated in the major Qantas accident at Bangkok in 1999. VH-OJH, a Boeing 747-438 with 391 passengers and a crew of nineteen, over-ran the runway when landing in a rainstorm. Nobody was hurt, but it cost $100 million to repair the aircraft.
The damage was such that the aircraft was a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $100 million.By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age
GEOFFREY LUCK
How Qantas Became the Safest Airline
link to article in Quadrant:
How Qantas Became the Safest Airline ? Quadrant Online
Please note my sarcasm.
I think an airline who constantly refers to a lack of hull losses as proof of its commitment to safety, like one of our national airlines does, is frankly being deceptive.
I think an airline who constantly refers to a lack of hull losses as proof of its commitment to safety, like one of our national airlines does, is frankly being deceptive.
Last edited by gordonfvckingramsay; 30th Jul 2018 at 07:29.
Nunc est bibendum
OJH was repaired for a cost less than $100 million. It was insured for the replacement cost which was at the time well in excess of $140 million. In addition, at the time Boeing had a log jam of backorders for the 744 at the time meaning Qantas had the lost capacity back online well before they would have had they’d waited for the next available slot off the production line.
Source: the engineer that actually oversaw the repair job and is still sought after world wide for similar repair jobs on big airliners including one on a 747 in Maastricht as recently as a month or so ago.
Oh FFS. This has been debunked so many times over the years it’s not funny.
OJH was repaired for a cost less than $100 million. It was insured for the replacement cost which was at the time well in excess of $140 million. In addition, at the time Boeing had a log jam of backorders for the 744 at the time meaning Qantas had the lost capacity back online well before they would have had they’d waited for the next available slot off the production line.
Source: the engineer that actually oversaw the repair job and is still sought after world wide for similar repair jobs on big airliners including one on a 747 in Maastricht as recently as a month or so ago.
There is an excellent documentary on the whole rebuild, it is made abundantly clear there, by those those doing the work, particularly the senior Boeing engineer on the job, that the aircraft was far from a write-off.
It is insurance underwriters who decide whether a hull is loss or not, in conjunction with the aircraft owners, who are usually finance organisations of some kind, not whoever's name is painted on the side.
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
Tootle pip!!
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
………..How did this thread get from "hours" to "OJH"??
Getting back to 130Herc's original question….
Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
Last edited by C441; 30th Jul 2018 at 07:33.