BB solves JT 610 crash
Absolutely, however a few examples of what “they” did are not necessarily safer. Though we can judge and discriminate about the decisions made, the only people that truly know how close the edge they really are are those in the front seats, and those with the value of hindsight.
To say everything we do as mortals should be safety first would be akin to never getting off the ground in the first place. Aviation as a system is a managed risk. Crossing the road is a managed risk. Telling your wife to calm down, a mismanaged risk.
Following the rules and legal requirements are purely for the strick following of the uninformed , and for the guidance of wise men. I believe that is what you are getting at. As with a lot of these accidents, it’s the decision making that lets the system down.
To say everything we do as mortals should be safety first would be akin to never getting off the ground in the first place. Aviation as a system is a managed risk. Crossing the road is a managed risk. Telling your wife to calm down, a mismanaged risk.
Following the rules and legal requirements are purely for the strick following of the uninformed , and for the guidance of wise men. I believe that is what you are getting at. As with a lot of these accidents, it’s the decision making that lets the system down.
Apart from a desire to denigrate or otherwise belittle the person in question, what is the point of your questions.
If you read the Australian at all, you would probably know exactly what he is flying, transport category aircraft, and a few others to boot.
As for "CAR 216" , are you trying to say that being on a list of pilots on an Australian AOC is a pre-requisite for having a valid opinion?? Or being on such a list makes your opinion have greater weight?? What are you trying to say?? I know well pilots on AOC lists that are as thick as two short planks.
The guy is highly experienced, over a broad aviation spectrum, is far more knowledgeable than many pilots I know, and is highly articulate.
Perhaps it is these attributes that upset you?? Tall poppy cutter??
Tootle pip!!
PS: I am assuming you mean CAR 206?
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Oct 2018 at 03:00.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the airline has a culture of making the wind fit the performance, that's ignoring the rule-book and accepting reduced safety margins to achieve a desired commercial outcome.
I'm sure everyone here has broken rules. Can we conclude that we are all wise men?
You see, the trouble starts when the fools witness the wise men breaking the rules, and assume they can get away with it too. When such behaviour is ignored, or even rewarded by management (for looking after the bottom line, and keeping the show on the road), this evolves into a complacent or dangerous culture, and eventually someone ends up dead.
Most rule books will contain some kind of "out" clause, which is designed to be used when you are satisfied that following the rules will lead to adverse safety. And if you can satisfy that test, and are confident you can defend the decision later, then you aren't breaking the rules. But cost or convenience does not come into this decision.
Of course, a wise man would use his wisdom to try to avoid getting into such situations in the first place. A good start might be to not apply for a job at such an airline, but of course, we don't all have that luxury. Leaving the ground knowingly in breach of performance calculations is neither legal nor safe, and there is a perfectly safe alternative option.
I once thought I was wise, but later realised it was a rather foolish assumption. It's a good goal though. Trying to fly safely and legally, day in, day out, is the wisest thing I've been able to come up with.
But the big question of course is, do airlines such as this one have the culture, the regulatory support, the resources and the training to ensure their pilots can do and are doing the same? (And Maintenance?)
You see, the trouble starts when the fools witness the wise men breaking the rules, and assume they can get away with it too. When such behaviour is ignored, or even rewarded by management (for looking after the bottom line, and keeping the show on the road), this evolves into a complacent or dangerous culture, and eventually someone ends up dead.
Most rule books will contain some kind of "out" clause, which is designed to be used when you are satisfied that following the rules will lead to adverse safety. And if you can satisfy that test, and are confident you can defend the decision later, then you aren't breaking the rules. But cost or convenience does not come into this decision.
Of course, a wise man would use his wisdom to try to avoid getting into such situations in the first place. A good start might be to not apply for a job at such an airline, but of course, we don't all have that luxury. Leaving the ground knowingly in breach of performance calculations is neither legal nor safe, and there is a perfectly safe alternative option.
I once thought I was wise, but later realised it was a rather foolish assumption. It's a good goal though. Trying to fly safely and legally, day in, day out, is the wisest thing I've been able to come up with.
But the big question of course is, do airlines such as this one have the culture, the regulatory support, the resources and the training to ensure their pilots can do and are doing the same? (And Maintenance?)
"current pilot on jet transport types" - okay, I'll ask the obvious: "What types of jet transport category aircraft is Mr Byron Bailey current on?; and a supplementary, "What CAR216 organisation is he permitted to fly under?"
Reading his comments in the above URL, he did fail to mention that even the major airlines, can have an accident. EK's B777 in DXB attempting a simple go-around, does come to mind.
Reading his comments in the above URL, he did fail to mention that even the major airlines, can have an accident. EK's B777 in DXB attempting a simple go-around, does come to mind.
Binger tried to make out that
... on a go-around, all the pilot does is click the TOGA switches, pull back on the control column to raise the nose and — when the other pilot, after observing positive climb, announces it — calls “gear up” and away we go!
Having clearly misstated the Go–Around and Missed Approach Procedure (which specifically calls for both PF and PM to verify that the thrust increases and for the PM to verify that the thrust is sufficient for the go-around or adjust as needed) when pressed on why he had deliberately misrepresented what the crew should have done he responded;
... we have an Australian co pilot and part of the intent is to help him. The Captain was an Emirati.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To go on TV ( in uniform) and to blame fellow aviators without getting the facts first is just poor form.
He may be right but, those pilots had families ,friends and deserve better from a professional pilot on TV. A forum ,such as this, is the place for conjecture.
Professionalism and respect for aviators that maybe have not had the luck of others or maybe still have a way to go in their careers would compel one to keep silent.
Don't know if it has been mentioned already but, both the carriers that he held up as model operators have had issues where pilot error and /or cost saving practices have cast a permanent shadow on them. Now these carriers had all the simulator training possible with large amounts of cash and (supposedly) top flight instructors. So what is his reasoning for those issues? Must be pilot error due lack of training and cost saving ( low..er cost airlines) or would he suggest poor quality pilots. Can't be the aircraft because they all have new ones.
I think that if this fellow had more experience, he would know that new types ( and new variants of existing types) do have issues at introduction. I have experienced this during introduction of types into a few airlines that I worked for.
He may be right but, those pilots had families ,friends and deserve better from a professional pilot on TV. A forum ,such as this, is the place for conjecture.
Professionalism and respect for aviators that maybe have not had the luck of others or maybe still have a way to go in their careers would compel one to keep silent.
Don't know if it has been mentioned already but, both the carriers that he held up as model operators have had issues where pilot error and /or cost saving practices have cast a permanent shadow on them. Now these carriers had all the simulator training possible with large amounts of cash and (supposedly) top flight instructors. So what is his reasoning for those issues? Must be pilot error due lack of training and cost saving ( low..er cost airlines) or would he suggest poor quality pilots. Can't be the aircraft because they all have new ones.
I think that if this fellow had more experience, he would know that new types ( and new variants of existing types) do have issues at introduction. I have experienced this during introduction of types into a few airlines that I worked for.
Thread Starter
Lead Sled:
Deliberately or otherwise, you're missing the point. We all know his qualifications (we're told often enough) and he does indeed write well, but I'm not even sure about the "more knowledgeable" bit (some of his comments about the B777, when discussing MH370, are open to debate). But isn't it arrogance and just bad form to get up there and pontificate publicly, wearing his four gold bars and all, about the cause of the accident when he can't possibly know all of the facts? I suspect (sadly) that he may well be right, but where's the professionalism and respect here? Despite his greater qualifications (no, sorry, at least he's got qualifications), doesn't rushing into print in the immediate aftermath place him in the same category as the much lampooned GT?
And, in today's "Australian", a simply amazing quote from BB:
"This suggests to me that the captain panicked..."
How the hell does he know this, considering they've yet to even recover the CVR? Or did BB swim down there and recover it himself? This comment is insultingly derogatory to a fellow pilot, offensive to the entire proffession and, I suspect, bordering on the slanderous.
The guy is highly experienced, over a broad aviation spectrum, is far more knowledgeable than many pilots I know, and is highly articulate.
And, in today's "Australian", a simply amazing quote from BB:
"This suggests to me that the captain panicked..."
How the hell does he know this, considering they've yet to even recover the CVR? Or did BB swim down there and recover it himself? This comment is insultingly derogatory to a fellow pilot, offensive to the entire proffession and, I suspect, bordering on the slanderous.
You might be wrong about that...
Thread Starter
Good one LeadSled - I fell about laughing at this. A deafening silence from the west, isn't there?
Dora how can you say he writes well? Did you read his article on speed warnings.
Nobody has the facts at this point in time, yes we all have our gut feelings with industry knowledge but why oh why go so public, is it a need for recognition. It’s sensationalist reporting by an ‘expert’ at best.
Stick to the facts, it’s a high profile crash and I am sure Boeing will see to it the proper result.
RIP all on board.
Everyday is precious.
Nobody has the facts at this point in time, yes we all have our gut feelings with industry knowledge but why oh why go so public, is it a need for recognition. It’s sensationalist reporting by an ‘expert’ at best.
Stick to the facts, it’s a high profile crash and I am sure Boeing will see to it the proper result.
RIP all on board.
Everyday is precious.
Dora-9,
How BB presents himself publicly is a matter from him, that it might be different to how you or I might handle it is not, in my mind, a criticism if him.
And a far more modest stance by many pilots is appropriate, as they have so much to be very modest about!
And, after all, it is the popular media, and, as Kerry Packer said, many years ago: " You can't underestimate the intelligence of the viewing public".
The "viewing public" can count to four and know what it means, just like the viewing public knows: "that CASA regulations stop accidents and keep Australian aviation the safest in the world".
Tootle pip!!
PS: That last quote comes from a question in a CASA public opinion poll many years ago. Needless to say, the poll found, among other things, that "the Australian public" was in favour of more "aviation safety regulations" to keep the Australian public safe from aviation.
How BB presents himself publicly is a matter from him, that it might be different to how you or I might handle it is not, in my mind, a criticism if him.
And a far more modest stance by many pilots is appropriate, as they have so much to be very modest about!
And, after all, it is the popular media, and, as Kerry Packer said, many years ago: " You can't underestimate the intelligence of the viewing public".
The "viewing public" can count to four and know what it means, just like the viewing public knows: "that CASA regulations stop accidents and keep Australian aviation the safest in the world".
Tootle pip!!
PS: That last quote comes from a question in a CASA public opinion poll many years ago. Needless to say, the poll found, among other things, that "the Australian public" was in favour of more "aviation safety regulations" to keep the Australian public safe from aviation.
Thread Starter
LeadSled:
But I know from reading all your postings that you wouldn't represent yourself like this either. It's common decency, respect, sympathy and/or just not wanting to get your name in print until you're sure of your facts - maybe we're just showing our age?
I find a photo of the captain, with the accompanying text claiming he panicked, with this allegation unsupported by anything representing a fact, deeply offensive.
He's at it again today, claiming amongst other things, that all Boeing acceptances are completed by the customer (he's basing this on his EK B777 experience I assume). That's not right - certainly a significant number of B737 acceptances, i.e. acceptance test flight(s), are completed by Boeing alone. The customer turns up and simply take their aeroplane away. He also seems critical of a Mayday being declared in the first three minutes of the doomed flight - how the hell can he possibly know - right now - what was going on on that flight deck????
PM sent (not about this subject).
Cheers!
But I know from reading all your postings that you wouldn't represent yourself like this either. It's common decency, respect, sympathy and/or just not wanting to get your name in print until you're sure of your facts - maybe we're just showing our age?
I find a photo of the captain, with the accompanying text claiming he panicked, with this allegation unsupported by anything representing a fact, deeply offensive.
He's at it again today, claiming amongst other things, that all Boeing acceptances are completed by the customer (he's basing this on his EK B777 experience I assume). That's not right - certainly a significant number of B737 acceptances, i.e. acceptance test flight(s), are completed by Boeing alone. The customer turns up and simply take their aeroplane away. He also seems critical of a Mayday being declared in the first three minutes of the doomed flight - how the hell can he possibly know - right now - what was going on on that flight deck????
PM sent (not about this subject).
Cheers!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kawkerxp, are you saying they illegally accepted those conditions against FCOM, or are you saying they’ve accepted those conditions at limiting weights and if so how do you know they were limiting?
If it’s within limitations, and they have the performance to do so, I don’t see the issue unless being performance limited at TOGA with other options available.
If it’s within limitations, and they have the performance to do so, I don’t see the issue unless being performance limited at TOGA with other options available.
Thus a TW of 15 knots will in all likelihood exceed the published limitations.
The A330 has a 15kt tailwind limitation for takeoff and landing. So did the 767 (at least the GE-engined ones). Probably plenty more that I don’t know about or have forgotten.