QF mishap YPPH 03/03/24
The following users liked this post:
That’s true - they should have said that.
ATSB not investigating…
Did they also not investigate the Rockhampton bogging for the same reasons?
Not that both seemed to involve transport category aircraft taxiing the wrong way at night. Not that potentially line markings or marshalling or fatigue could have been a factor in either or both.
Did they also not investigate the Rockhampton bogging for the same reasons?
Not that both seemed to involve transport category aircraft taxiing the wrong way at night. Not that potentially line markings or marshalling or fatigue could have been a factor in either or both.
Originally Posted by Maggot
More to the point they probably consider it within the scope of internal safety investigation which will absolutely take place.
There would be thousands of outside/Non-Qantas people, both pilots and groundcrew, that would be interested in, and learn from, this incident. Assuming that Qantas will not publicise it's investigation findings, we can only rely on the ATSB to learn from this. I understand that dealing with the (negative) press is an issue these days but flight safety will only be further enhanced if we are given the opportunity to learn from other's mistakes.
The following 6 users liked this post by Capn Bloggs:
At least ATSB is consistent in the application of its paradoxical logic. It’s able to foretell the probabilities of an investigation yielding new safety lessons or safety benefit, even in transport category incidents, before all of the facts are ascertained.
Given that there’s very little left under the aviation sun that hasn’t been learnt about the many and varied ways in which aviation accidents happen, one wonders why ATSB bothers at all. Just leave it to operators (and local police and coroners) to sort it out.
But, then again, I suppose we do ‘need’ ATSB’s ‘nothing to see here; everything’s under control; no systemic problems in ATC and safety regulation in Australia; just pilot error; everybody move on’ reports. They make us feel ‘safer’.
Given that there’s very little left under the aviation sun that hasn’t been learnt about the many and varied ways in which aviation accidents happen, one wonders why ATSB bothers at all. Just leave it to operators (and local police and coroners) to sort it out.
But, then again, I suppose we do ‘need’ ATSB’s ‘nothing to see here; everything’s under control; no systemic problems in ATC and safety regulation in Australia; just pilot error; everybody move on’ reports. They make us feel ‘safer’.
FFS, it's a couple of dents occurring at low speed right at the gates while one of the aircraft was parked. Why on earth would the ATSB get involved wasting time and resources on this? If they had not collided, would you want any resources input into the "breakdown of separation" or "near miss"? It's an internal QF problem as to how their aircraft receiving procedures broke down resulting in minor damage to two of their aircraft.
The short answer to your (perhaps rhetorical) question is: Yes.
The paradox is this: If it’s just a simply explicable error, it should only take ATSB a very short time to find that out and report accordingly. Investigating ostensibly simple incidents, and near misses, is important. That’s because of the word “ostensibly”. This has been learnt before.
You’ve evidently done your own investigation and ascertained the facts. What’s your explanation of the cause?
The paradox is this: If it’s just a simply explicable error, it should only take ATSB a very short time to find that out and report accordingly. Investigating ostensibly simple incidents, and near misses, is important. That’s because of the word “ostensibly”. This has been learnt before.
You’ve evidently done your own investigation and ascertained the facts. What’s your explanation of the cause?
The following users liked this post:
FFS, it's a couple of dents occurring at low speed right at the gates while one of the aircraft was parked. Why on earth would the ATSB get involved wasting time and resources on this? If they had not collided, would you want any resources input into the "breakdown of separation" or "near miss"? It's an internal QF problem as to how their aircraft receiving procedures broke down resulting in minor damage to two of their aircraft.
The following 4 users liked this post by neville_nobody:
Of course QF would have been involved in making the maximum stands possible on that apron, which then introduces many restrictions. Also the apron wasn't designed for A330, they have been shoe-horned in there, creating complex secondary bay arrangements.
ATSB
We prioritise our investigations to focus on accidents and incidents that have the potential to deliver the greatest public benefit through improvements to transport safety. We focus on the public interest where the safety of passengers and crew on an aircraft, train or ship is concerned, and when it comes to the significant costs that can result from an accident, particularly where there is significant damage to public infrastructure or an impact on the national economy.
But, yeah. All about squeezing in what they can.
Better lines and lighting would go a long way.
The following users liked this post:
One word-geometry. Thats why they come together. The collision was inevitable once the PIC started to follow the 18A lead in line. Why he/she thought that line was the correct one is the why that should be looked at whether its Qantas Safety or the ATSB. As it involved Qantas aircraft at a Qantas terminal and doesn't really have any safety benefit for anyone else other than Qantas why would the ATSB be involved? I imagine that the safety outcome will be an some form of internal communication for pilots to be more familiar with the configuration of the bays or that they stop using Alpha bays altogether.
Correct, that was when it started. Then when VA moved over to T1, QF continued it on with also getting INTL ops and 787s in to that ****box terminal.
Originally Posted by Awol57
I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.
I suspect that design was only instituted at Qanta's request as they couldn't possibly do LHR direct without having an international transfer over that side. I don't recall 18A and 20A existing prior to that requirement.
Originally Posted by Nafenn
They were installed for Virgin Australia's A330s around 2011 along with 17A.
A question for the ATSB is why they published this report for a similar type of accident but QF get to keep their safety report private.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2016-167
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2016-167
The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through:
- identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues
- providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry.
Originally Posted by Lookleft
As it involved Qantas aircraft at a Qantas terminal and doesn't really have any safety benefit for anyone else other than Qantas why would the ATSB be involved? I imagine that the safety outcome will be an some form of internal communication for pilots to be more familiar with the configuration of the bays or that they stop using Alpha bays altogether.
There is a current (pre-dated the event) FSO about the requirements for turning onto a parking bay. Basically
- NIGS (that states correct A/C) or a marshaller
- equipment is behind the lines
- green light on the bridge (as applicable)
If these aren’t satisfied then you’re not supposed to turn onto the lead in line.
In Perth we are always received by a QF engineer so I would be amazed if a contractor was directing the aircraft if they were following a marshaller.
- NIGS (that states correct A/C) or a marshaller
- equipment is behind the lines
- green light on the bridge (as applicable)
If these aren’t satisfied then you’re not supposed to turn onto the lead in line.
In Perth we are always received by a QF engineer so I would be amazed if a contractor was directing the aircraft if they were following a marshaller.