Discrepancy
 

Must have worked AC, he's in command of the A380 and you have your angry palm trees.

Not long ago under the GD regime, some engineers were being sent on courses run by a group called "Amazing people". It was called "Change Management". This training cost quite a few bucks, and some engineers were taught that recent surveys revealed the travelling public were more concerned with departure times, not safety. They also learnt how to cross a room carrying a ping pong ball on a bit of plastic. Pretty frustrating when what we really wanted was more CAR214 training, or even more LAME's being trained.

Mmurray, I got into the papers some years ago after a engine failure out of CBR, the old girl (DC9) ingested part of one of her own tyres, and I ended up with one donk on rotate. Needless to say the F/O and I decided a beer at the CBR Hyatt was a much better bet than one at the SYD Hilton and did a quick go around and straight back in. As I was carrying the pollies back to their wives/ mistress's (it was a friday night) all of a sudden I was a hero, (until 89, then I turned into a overpaid bus driver) so the difference from the A380 missus comment was completely different to my missus. Your not coming home, she thundered, "but its your turn to do the Rugby/ netball run"! Ah, marital bliss.:rolleyes:

Food for thought,

According to this article Qantas to change engines on two A380s two trent 900 engines are being replaced. VH-OQC was found with an abonormal oil leak.

And with that in mind, going to this article , Oil Fire Suspected In Trent 1000 Failure | AVIATION WEEK, dated in September, it suggests that
Maybe a possible cause to the engine failure?

Did anyone else see some iphone footage of the cabin after landing and everyone applauding? No problem with that except doesn't Qantas have a policy of 'electronic devices' switched off for take off and landing? If that is indeed the case, such footage shouldn't be indulged and payed for by the media... What's more if I were Qantas I would go after the guy - I think they named him when crediting the footage!

Another frequent flyer who was mucked about because of the fleet grounding and subsequent flight changes commented that he would never fly with Qantas again. I would have to say that is a bit rich, but if people are going to respond to an incident with a good outcome like this can you imagine the response to an incident with a less favourable outcome?

What else is needed to affect a 'wake up call...'

"The father of a cabin attendant who was flying home to Sydney on QF6 as a passenger said his daughter was "definitely frightened" after the first one, but her insecurities were peaking after it happened again. She was considering flying home with another carrier, he said."

Read more: Richard de Crespigny, Qantas's Captain Marvel | News.com.au

I did wonder today whether any of the crew thought SQ et al might be a better choice.

A job well done by the guys up the front, or as the papers would have us believe, the guy up the front.

Would someone with knowledge of the QF system care to comment. From the papers, Capt D'C was the second pilot checked onto the A380 when it was introduced.

Also from the papers, this flight was a check flight and had on board a Capt under check, a new checkie, and a supervising checkie. Given that he was second on to the aircraft it could be assumed (but not assured) that Capt D'C was the supervising checkie.

The question is: is it Qantas policy for the most senior guy to kick the most junior out when the smit hits the fan?

If so, what confidence can the public have, in the Q training system when although a guy is good enough to put up for check, he gets booted so the "best" pilot (wifes words "they were lucky to have Richard as their Capt") can demonstrate to the world why he is so.

SS :confused:

Iphone Use
 

No problem with that except doesn't Qantas have a policy of 'electronic devices' switched off for take off and landing?

I think cabin crew would careless about someone with an Iphone when the arse of an engine is strewn through the gardens of an some Indonesian Is?:ugh:

Yeah, and the flight crew have enough on their hands to deal with without any additional unecessary anomolies possibly created by mobile phone use... :ugh:

(I'm not saying that this is what happened but there is always that intereference possibility especially if a whole bunch of people get the same idea - despite what Mythbusters might think of mobile phones and aircraft...)

Show me the hard evidence of interference from mobile phones.:rolleyes:

ALAEA Fed Sec

So your aware AJ of QF likes a drink. Word is the drinking hole next to the ex AN building in MEL noticed a big drop off in sales after AJ left AN.

Arnold dont bite....

- the only mobile phone interference was when Olivia Wirth responded to one of the very few experienced journalists who posed a wholly reasonable and logical question and then challenged her inarticulate, immature, uniformed, arrogant and WRONG B.S. response with hard evidence.

A mobile phone can only endanger an aircraft when in the hands of a brainless, brainwashed QF PR bimbo.

[sorry mods - may sound harsh - but sometimes even the rumour network needs to convey facts]

AT

In flight phone
 

Forget the phone camera usage issue, it is not one. iPhones have a 'flight mode' which turns the transmitter bits off, so you can still listen to stored music etc inflight-legally.

And of course the camera is still able to be used.

That's a negative there buddy ALL ELECTRONIC devices must be turned off when required by the operator, check their inflight magazine for the requirement.

Or here...Using other electronic equipment inflight

The offence is one of failing to comply with flight crew instructions.

If RR own and maintain the engines then why aren't they coping more flak? Why aren't QF shifting the heat onto the owners of the engines, especially as it seems they have discovered problems in more engines? Qantas A380s not likely to take off again soon Why haven't SQ of Luft found similar defects?

Scam Sniffer, you sound like a journo but here goes anyway. The captain slated for the flight would have remained in command. That was Richard. As far as the right seat goes, my guess is that they would have kept the FO in the seat and the other two check captains would have assumed monitoring and support roles. One of the PA's broadcast is the senior check talking, not Richard.
Richard was second on the aircraft because he bid on to it early, thats all.

http://www.nexternal.com/armynavy/im...-watch-CW2.gif http://healthy-ojas.com/assets/diab/insulin_pump.jpg http://mykentuckyheart.com/images/pi.../pacemaker.jpg

Thankfully common sense generally prevails.

Mothball Fleet
 

Well I Guess The 747>> 767s Will Have To Come Back From The Bone Yard :d

So Capt Kremin

You are saying that "Richard" was in the seat as a Capt under check, and was not on board as a checker himself.

From all the accolades, none denied, "Richard" was at the controls for the handling of this emergency. If he was under check then it is understandable that he was the handling pilot or the PM. If he was not under check, then presumably he kicked the other guy out. Alternatively, he was not in a control seat but is prepared to take all the credit.

Something doesn't add up.

The question remains.

SS

Phone him up and ask him......can't get any more direct than that!


And as for this
This is probably true, most servo fires are from static jumping across from the victim, no doubt on a windy winters day and wearing synthetic materials.....you know those big zaps you get when you touch your car.

Truth is ask some folk from BP, they had a refinery explosion when a tradesman took his mobile phone into an area he should not have, commenced work, and his phone was called he answered.....:uhoh: and exactly that time was recorded by the phone company to the second.....BOOOM!!!!!:\ Nothing else he was doing could have ignited the explosion at the time, and needless to say he was not able to deny the claim.:ouch:

Thread drift off........