The above comment should really be a criticism of Jetstar's selection and training system. It is quite feasible and reasonable for a 200 hour cadet to fly an Airbus because that is what many other airlines do. But I don't think we are talking about a cadet here, just someone who was relative new on type doing a visual, hand flown approach. Also, when stating hours it is important to recognise the quality of those hours. For many it will just be one hour's experience, 2,000 times over.

Complete and utter rubbish. This was a classic "rushed approach" (I'm a member of that club) which ended up in an un-expected go-around, hence the F/O's omissions. Top tip - read the ATSB report.

Let me see... like Air France, for instance? (See concurrent thread.)

Yep, the cemetries are full of pilots who thought the 'Bus was " a walk in the park ", unfortunately so are their passengers.

Andu - that's exactly what I mean. Proper training is what is required and this should include something about what to do when it all goes wrong. Something which airlines are now starting to introduce.

2000 hours experience could mean anything. 1500 hours of instructing in a 152 goes hardly no where in an A320. IMO low experience/time in this environment is deadly

Considering the events of the last few months I really feel sad seeing what the Australian airline industry has become. It was the pinnacle of airline standards 20 years ago

But, how could this be? We have public statements from the CEO of Jetstar John Buchanan that he considers inexperienced pilots to be preferable to experienced recruits..?

Surely the CEO of an airline would know of the fundamental connection between experience and safety in aviation? He does have complete and in-depth knowledge of the complexity and intricacies of flight operations...doesn't he?

Perhaps the chickens are coming home to roost. And perhaps the JQ claptrap about safety being a priority from the management morons at JQ is truly just an empty and meaningless mantra to soothe the ill-informed and trusting public.

Folks,
A couple of things to inject into the discussion:

(1) Jetstar flight operations management had unilaterally changed to missed approach procedure in the company manuals ---- contrary to, and apparently in complete ignorance of the fact (also a mystery to a number of CASA FOIs) that AFM compliance is required by law, look up the reg., it is a simple one that cannot be "re-interpreted" into an inverted meaning even by the most imaginative management or official mind.

Three IS a process for varying a provision of the AFM, but Jetstar acted unilaterally.

(2) I don't care how much or how little experience you have, by the time you get a PPL, you should know that CLIMBING is part of a missed approach.

In a missed approach, everything else is secondary to getting the power up, getting the G/A attitude, and confirming the positive rate of climb.

Whether it's a hand flown or a A/P engaged G/A doesn't matter ---- the same fundamentals apply. You glue yourself to those bleeding "dials". If the automatics are not doing the job, that's what you have two hands for, one to pull the attitude up, the other to push the power up---- don't bugger about wondering "why" ---- make it happen ----- and never forget that computers are just big dumb adding machines.

Everything else can wait, gear, flaps ----- if the G/A is caused by a wind shear, your not even going to touch the gear or flaps until you are not only climbing, but clear of the shear.

And in this Jetstar incident, that didn't happen, until the terrain warning went of as the modes changed as the gear came up ---- and the crew woke up to the fact that they were just accelerating down the glideslope.

Bollocks to all the excuses, pilots have to be smart enough to not let ANYTHING distract them from from carrying out the absolute basics for survival.

A missed approach is NOT a "high stress" exercise, it's just normal operations.

If you are half a pilot, you treat every T/O as an abort, and every approach as a G/A, and count every completed T/O or landing as a bonus.

We are allowing ourselves to become so mired in bull****, the basics are being buried.

Tootle pip!!

No mention of VMC / IMC?

And where was PNF when this comedy of errors was assembling itself? Why was this a last-seconds recovery?

Phew! Saved by the EGPWS! Experience not required.

LeadSled you are incorrect regarding AFM compliance and changes. An operator has every right to vary their SOPs in line with their operations as is stated at the very front of the Airbus FCOM, these are only recommended procedures and may be tailored for operations variances. The go around procedures was a complete breakdown in the SMS.

In saying that, I know for a fact that Jetstar is leaning towards its operation being 100% aligned with FCOM.

As for the incident, completely a symptom of a failure in training. As the organisation moves towards cadets, this is when they should be spending more money on training and training facilities.

If CASA want to make a difference they would regulate training facilities access for all aircrew.

Can someone please riddle me this:

1. Europe.... ILS to ILS or long final visual approaches and inexperienced FO's.

2. Why do we persist with the SHEED arrival which requires a 4 degree descent from 2500' to start the turn @ 4nm to align on the 3 degree approach with a 60 m wide runway with approach aids set at 74 ft.

Consultancy first!
 

Quick quick somebody call a consultancy firm to come in and 'independently review JQ's systems and processes'! About 4 weeks work at 10k per day should about cover it.
Anybody know a good consultancy firm??
Tick tock tick tock..

This is where the 'Go Round' should have been initiated:
Look under the title of a 'Stabilized Approach' in your FCOM, it will give a definition of a stable approach and if your config/profile doesn't meet that definition then you carry out a 'Missed Approach'. The governing altitude is usually 1000'agl.

The concept of a stabilized approach came in where there were way too many CFIT accidents happening with aircraft on final approach/landing. It's not rocket science it is just common sense!:ok:

Common sense ain't that common anymore!:ugh:

PPRuNe perhaps ?? :}

Good God, a chance to denigrate both "the" CASA and Qantas in the same thread.
Must be a Christmas Bonus to some sciolists that post here.

Blackhand, both QF and CASA have been pissing in each others pockets for years. It used to give us all at TAA and Ansett the Sh%ts, as time after time they would have a "incident" that for the rest of us was a deadset could be disaster. As far as this crew were concerned none of us were on the flight deck, so we can only go on what was reported. As for myself, if given a F/O with such small hours on the clock, I would personally fly the thing myself, and give him as little work as possible, let some other skipper take up the slack as far as his training was concerned. Time and time again TAA handed me a " baby" time and time again, I did most of the work myself, my duty was to the PAX, not check and training. Selfish yes, short sighted, yes, but each Skipper has the right on his ship to how he runs it and he should and would expect a competent F/O by his side. I feel sorry for them both, the Skipper was not given what he was entitled to, and the young bloke/girl was not given sufficient training. The fault is totally with the company, not either pilot. It will be interesting to see if the pissing stops for this one.

@teresa green
No doubt, there has been much spoken of the "perceived" collusion between Qantas and CASA in pprune threads.
Whether this is the reality, few would know.
When we have certain contributers, using multiple identities, posting a continuous diatribe against both organisation one does wonder at the relative truth of this perception.
I too wonder at the regulators response to various incidents, but maybe that is because I do not have all the evidence.

If this event was Tiger what do you think would happen?

If Tiger had 10 engine failures what would CASA do?

I don't believe that there is collusion between CASA and QF it's just that QF are to powerful for CASA and they are to scared to take any serious action against them. They can regulate Tiger all they like because there is very little political ramification. Pull the AOC of Jetstar and QF then it's a whole different ball game.

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash in a post accident Royal Commission one day, if nothing decisive is done soon.