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

Bamboo Airlines crew configuration

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

Bamboo Airlines crew configuration

Old 2nd Dec 2023, 01:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Received 170 Likes on 75 Posts
Bamboo Airlines crew configuration

Had a look at the preliminary report into the MAS and Bamboo airlines runway excursions taking off from Melbourne during the reduced runway length operations. I saw that the Bamboo Airlines flight had the PIC sitting in the jump seat for take-off:

On 18 September 2023 at 2230, a Bamboo Airways Boeing 787-9 aircraft, registered VN-A819, was being prepared to depart Melbourne Airport for scheduled passenger transport flight QH83 to Hanoi, Vietnam. There were 3 flight crew, who were assigned the roles (according to the operatorís terminology) of pilot in command (PIC), PM, and PF.[15] For this flight, the PIC sat in the jump seat behind the pilots at the controls, the PM sat in the left pilotís seat and the PF sat on the right.
Is this just the ATSB not understanding that a Check Captain sitting in the jump seat is not the PIC or is this an alarming trend in crew configurations for departure? I am hoping its the former. There is also the twin problems of not understanding NOTAMS and the volume of NOTAMS that are issued for Australian airports.
Lookleft is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 01:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,031
Received 389 Likes on 98 Posts
I hear what you are saying but to play the Devils advocate for a second, is it not better to have the PinC sitting in the jump seat with a clear head ? The PinC is often not the most skilled stick and rudder pilot on the flight deck so is there possibly a safety benefit to having them sitting and observing and relaying the odd instruction when necessary?
framer is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 01:21
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,051
Received 111 Likes on 53 Posts
I hear what you are saying but to play the Devils advocate for a second, is it not better to have the PinC sitting in the jump seat with a clear head ? The PinC is often not the most skilled stick and rudder pilot on the flight deck so is there possibly a safety benefit to having them sitting and observing and relaying the odd instruction when necessary?
However PIC is ultimately responsible. You can't be ultimately responsible sitting in the jumpseat. You could quite conceivably sit and watch two inexperience guys kill you. Air France 447 would be one example.
Unlike boating flying can unravel in seconds and the last thing you want is the guy who is in charge not in a position to do anything about it.
neville_nobody is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by neville_nobody:
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 01:21
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Received 170 Likes on 75 Posts
AF447 would suggest otherwise but it does feed into the narrative that pilots are just systems monitors. AFAIK the PIC is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. In the event of an RTO he/she/they can't do it from the jump seat.
Lookleft is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 03:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,836
Received 346 Likes on 184 Posts
PIC is ultimately responsible. You can't be ultimately responsible sitting in the jumpseat
How can s/he be ultimately responsible if in the bunk? 447 has shown accidents can happen at any time, as you say "flying can unravel in seconds". The Qantas A330 Learmonth upset could conceivably have occurred with the PIC taking rest if the flight demanded additional crew.
megan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 03:43
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 223
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
What about Final Command Checks? The Command candidate (an F/O) is in the LHS, a line F/O in the RHS and the ‘Checker’ (who is a CPT and the PIC) sits in the jumpseat.
Bleve is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 04:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: YHOT
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Bleve
What about Final Command Checks? The Command candidate (an F/O) is in the LHS, a line F/O in the RHS and the ĎCheckerí (who is a CPT and the PIC) sits in the jumpseat.
Most airlines employing this type of line check scenario denote the command candidate the PIC for that particular flight with a 'real' FO. The initial part of the line check (generally done prior to this event) would have the Check Captain in a control seat.
DynamicStall is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 04:37
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,265
Received 288 Likes on 111 Posts
A NOTAM for runway works should provide a decent diagram. An airspace NOTAM should do the same. A picture speaks a thousand words. Why are we still using hieroglyphics to transmit important safety information?

One NOTAM no problem, ten NOTAMs annoying, 25+ NOTAMS asking for trouble. Not saying airmen arenít responsible for checking them but after thousands of pages of NOTAMs about unlit obstacles and bird types flying across the airfield, pilots could be forgiven for suffering from NOTAM overload thereby missing the one really, really important bit of information.
Chronic Snoozer is online now  
The following 2 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 06:08
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Micks Place
Posts: 48
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Surprised there were no overruns in Darwin with the nearly two months long runway works. Half the day it was down to 1400m. To paraphrase a prominent Australian legal expert "Stage three? What the **** is stage three?!?"
belongamick is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 06:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,051
Received 111 Likes on 53 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
A NOTAM for runway works should provide a decent diagram. An airspace NOTAM should do the same. A picture speaks a thousand words. Why are we still using hieroglyphics to transmit important safety information?

One NOTAM no problem, ten NOTAMs annoying, 25+ NOTAMS asking for trouble. Not saying airmen arenít responsible for checking them but after thousands of pages of NOTAMs about unlit obstacles and bird types flying across the airfield, pilots could be forgiven for suffering from NOTAM overload thereby missing the one really, really important bit of information.
100% agree with that however the solution to that requires someone to take responsibility and no office worker in aviation is going to do that. Itís all about avoiding responsibility. That starts at the CEO and works itís way down.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 07:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2023
Location: UAE
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very corrupted company, all FCD vietnamese staffs always very rude. No salary , half salary, training dept vietnameses very unprofessional.
mest be bankrupt soon
Ilililililil is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2023, 07:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 7 Posts
John Citizen is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by John Citizen:
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 01:27
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,781
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Reminds me of a wonderful story I heard many years ago.

A crusty old ships Captain was invited into a jumpseat for landing (like you could do pre 9/11!!)

After watching the procedure the pilots turned and asked him what he thought.

He said "I just have one question-why was the Captain helming?"
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 01:29
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,781
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
A NOTAM for runway works should provide a decent diagram. An airspace NOTAM should do the same. A picture speaks a thousand words. Why are we still using hieroglyphics to transmit important safety information?

One NOTAM no problem, ten NOTAMs annoying, 25+ NOTAMS asking for trouble. Not saying airmen arenít responsible for checking them but after thousands of pages of NOTAMs about unlit obstacles and bird types flying across the airfield, pilots could be forgiven for suffering from NOTAM overload thereby missing the one really, really important bit of information.
And it should also be on the ATIS.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 01:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 1,082
Received 118 Likes on 30 Posts
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
And it should also be on the ATIS.
It was, in both instances.

Initial report refers.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-043
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 02:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I was interested to read the following on page 7 of the ATSB preliminary report:
The crews indicated that
there would likely have been some benefit in additional cues to highlight the shortened runway
length, including:
ē Auditory cues, such as having their attention drawn specifically to the shortened runway when
given various clearances.
and, on page 14:
APAM had requested for ASA [Airservices Australia] (Melbourne Tower) to amend take off
phraseology to include that the runway was shortened, however this was declined as it was non-
standard and too prescriptive
(my bolding).



As a pilot not trained or based in Australia, but who operates there regularly, I found it incomprehensible that Airservices Australia declined to amend their take off phraseology! This should be a standard practice in Australia, as it is in the rest of the world. Skybrary have a good article with links to the appropriate ICAO and FAA documents. Why can the phraseology not be amended during reduced length operations to add one word? "Malaysian 128, Runway 34 Shortened, Cleared for Take-off"
NZScion is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by NZScion:
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 02:34
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,781
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere
It was, in both instances.

Initial report refers.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-043
Thanks
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 05:22
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 1,082
Received 118 Likes on 30 Posts
All good.

Couple of things of note - frequently I taxi out to find the ATIS has changed a couple of times since I did my performance calculations, with no notification from ATC. Frequently I listen to aircraft give the previous ATIS on ground or approach and arenít advised by the controller that it has changed.

In this instance, however, ATC confirmed with Bamboo the change of ATIS which Bamboo hadnít actually listened to, in spite of stating that they had. 🤯

The crew stated in their interview that usually it would just be a change of wind or QNH - and ďimportantĒ changes would be communicated by ATC rather than the ATIS.

That implies a level of complacency on behalf of the crew, but also that the critical information contained within the change of ATIS from O to P, ie. shortening the runway by 1500m or so, wasnít communicated directly to the crew to confirm understanding.

ATC should be able to assume crews are competent and diligent, but as a systemic defence, communicating and confirming that change to crew taxiing for departure may have been wise.

Lots to pick through in this one.

Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 3rd Dec 2023 at 06:19.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 06:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,031
Received 389 Likes on 98 Posts
I always find it a bit strange when Iíve done data for a shortened runway either for landing or takeoff and the ATC communications donít highlight it. It always makes me wonder if Iíve been correct with my interpretation of the timings for runway shortening. On the flip side I always appreciate it when overseas and the clearance is along the lines of ď runway 24 reduced length, cleared to landĒ.
framer is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2023, 07:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 39
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by framer
I always find it a bit strange when Iíve done data for a shortened runway either for landing or takeoff and the ATC communications donít highlight it. It always makes me wonder if Iíve been correct with my interpretation of the timings for runway shortening. On the flip side I always appreciate it when overseas and the clearance is along the lines of ď runway 24 reduced length, cleared to landĒ.
This is always the case at SYD for arrivals during the Curfew. Reduced runway length, including distance and whether or not the threshold is displaced, even the last available exit is included.

Not sure why MEL ATC don't do the same (or maybe they do for arrivals?).
keepemseperated is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.