|
plane talking article on Jetstar safety concerns pulled?
Just noticed the Ben sandilands piece slamming Jetstar safety has gone. Qantas heavies in action?
|
Could be - but those articles sometimes change or disappear for more mundane reasons (like fact checking...)
|
This was it....
'raided' by CASA blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/.../... Jetstar chief pilot's office 'raided' by CASA. June 16, 2012 – 8:36 am ... |
Ben is probably sick of being put through the blender by various company and Federal agency legal eagles....rumour is that some years ago Ben had a bevvy of lawyers chasing his tail over some home truths he published about the LHR inquest!:{
Being a blogger these days means he no longer has the protection of a legal department...and besides he probably got his point across. :ok: |
Not Ben Sandilands - but
|
Where is that alfoil hat?
|
The chemtrails guy is borrowing it
|
Quote from that article ..
At this point, the pilot in command called for “go-around flaps,” which is a standard call in an Airbus in a go-around situation, and the pilot not flying (or “support pilot,” depending on which school you went to) will normally move the flap selector from “flaps full” to “flaps 3″, however in this case the co-pilot selected the flaps to the “flaps one” position. |
"TW" I guess its seems obvious that a call for 'flaps 3' would be logical in this case but a 'go-around' can be made at any point during an approach (not necessarily in config full) inc in a clean config for that matter so calling 'go-round,(should be alight pause here) flaps' is a generic call as such to allow for all contingencies.:-)
Also the PF will be busy during the escape maneuver (especially in a break out maneuver during a PRM)& this is a time where the PF could call the actual flap setting he/she wanted incorrectly where as the PNF can allow more of his/her attention for this simple task of moving the flap lever up one stage:-) Wmk2 |
You can't just call 'Flaps 3' as you may be landing in Flaps 3, or you may commence the go around from Flap 2. It is hardly rocket science to just move the flap lever up one stage. Mistakes do happen though, an ANY pilot is capable of making such a mis-selection.
One of my 'mates' was involved in a situation departing a major airport (UK) where he asked for 'gear-up' and the very experienced First Officer promptly retracted the flap to Flap 1. It was a co*kup but didn't result in either crew being stood down, it simply resulted in a notice to all aircrew reminding them to think about what they are moving before they move it. This seems to me to be a bit of an over-reaction....... again. |
Minor you say? A flap selection instead of gear departing cairns a while back almost wrote off a ba146 from memory
|
Bing is your friend.
|
Here's the rewrite.
Jetstar refutes reports of NZ and head office incidents | Plane Talking While there is apparently nothing in any alleged 'raid' on the CPs office, there was clearly an incident on a SYD-CHC flight, the substance of which is as was alleged previously. This is the fifth landing/ go-around config incident I can recall. Systemic issue? Jetstar has refuted the reporting of an incident involving one of it jets which made a missed approach to Christchurch airport earlier this month and about an incident in its Melbourne head office which it says didn’t happen. Plane Talking referred to the claimed Melbourne incident and also linked to a report concerning it in a different publication in an article on Saturday morning, and when Jetstar said it challenged the information and would reply in writing as to its particular concerns it was agreed that the article published here would be withdrawn ahead of that statement, which is published in full below. [INSERT JETSTAR STATEMENT HERE] The Jetstar statement doesn’t deal with ongoing concerns the writer has with a number of other incidents involving the airline which have been raised in ATSB reports and before Senate committees, but as a matter of fairness, and no doubt further argument those are matters for another day, and not in relation to a story in which key elements were wrong, as they were in the article which had been linked to in the Aviation Advertiser. In a statement a CASA spokesman said: Consistent with normal regulatory practice, Jetstar has reported a recent landing incident to CASA, and CASA is reviewing Jetstar’s investigation into the event. On the completion of its review, CASA will ensure that any appropriate safety actions are taken. |
The chief pilot does not have an office - no one does.
|
Today's Age - Breaking News
|
Is it just me, or is this kind of event becoming routine at Jetstar?
I know that the reporting cultures and "just cultures" are being fostered and encouraged nowadays perhaps more than in previous days, but the the frequency of these events at JQ seems to me to be quite concerning. Every operator has "events", but it just seems to me that this is all too common and accepted as "going with territory" at JQ. The PR machine seems to be trotting out all kinds of excuses and rhyme and reason why these events are common place and all part of the safety culture at JQ. If this was TT, this would be a totally different scenario. The term Double Standards certainly comes to mind. |
Why doesn't Airbus modify the standard call to 'flaps 3' for a Go Around ?.. That way, there's no ambiguity and no excuse for not knowing what the go-around flap position should be. In a Boeing go-around, the required flap setting is called for (varies for single- and 2-engined go-arounds, according to the model). As Jeremy Clarkson would say "Why can't they just get it right?" |
If this was TT, this would be a totally different scenario. The term Double Standards certainly comes to mind. |
Hmmm.
Bust MSA a couple of times (in VMC?) and you'll get shut down. But repeatedly and regularly put your aircraft in undesirable and inappropriate configurations and modes with respect to thrust lever positions, landing gear and flap positions close to the ground seems to be no big deal. |
Wasn't the Tiger 'show clause' due to failures in dealing with the incident(s) (i.e. a below average safety system) not the actual incident.
If you read the wording from CASA above, they say that Jetstar reported the incident as they would expect and are only investigating if the Jetstar internal investigation followed the approved process. I read into those statements that CASA is not concerned with the actual incident but about the safety system in place and how the airline 'rectifies' these issues. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.