Qlink Dash 8 tail scrape Roma
 

I heard that a Dash 8 had a tail scrape on landing or take off yesterday at
Roma. Aircraft is still at Roma. Anyone know the circumstances?

Cheers

BS

I hear it, but I don't wanna believe it!
SN

Let's blame Joyce...:hmm:

Two tail strikes in 6 wks now. :eek:

300 or 400?

Q400 again!
SN

Its all OK though the crew have passed the SHL testing during recruitment so it wont need to be written up or any issue made of it happening

Always Gunna Hap
 

What happens / get when you pay Peanuts ???

Good work to management / recruiters & there grade 12 requirements !!!

So sad to see a fantastic $27million dollar machine handled by fools...

Qlink Dash 8 tail scrape Roma
 

Pretty sure Horizon Air has had around 8 tailstrikes on their Q400s.

Perhaps it comes down to the initial training.

But also the pay is a long way from where it should be. Increase pay to attract some more experienced folks.

Dutyofcare, Bit far to be slamming them for their entry requirements, when you struggle with the English language yourself...

Bahama, it's pot luck whether you're on the 400 or classics, makes attracting suitable talent difficult, especially when they still compete against 2nd year Grade 3 instructors. Who wants that?

Command requirements just went up a fair bit too along with tightened operational restrictions for FO's.

As a result, low time FO's either won't apply or will move on quicker.

A 200-300 hr newbie will probably wait 5-7 years for a command.

I don't think more pay will lessen the risks of a tailstrike. A fundamental redesign of QLink's screening and training program would be a good start.

If you're going to employ people with low time, then your initial line training needs to reflect that and at the moment I don't think it does. Not much has changed in the training file since the average time of newbies was 2-4000 hrs.

You can't have Training Captain's spending valuable line training time on things like "Power + Attitude = Performance" and the like as has been in the past.

I would agree with above sentiments. I have seen them land down wind,
into Roma on Monday missed approach due to height, does not promote confidence up the front.

Also how about the Training Captains only having 2-3 years experience in the company? Experience is non existant!

Have to agree that Qlinks selection process can restrict suitable applicants from applying. I know of a high time Training Captain who flies for another DHC8 operator who couldn't even apply as his application was rejected as he didn't do year 12.

There needs to be some exceptions if they want to have a experienced captains within the organisations. Seems like REX and a few other smaller operators understand this. Although I have to agree - the pay and conditions should be improved to assist with stability to make the regionals a long term career path for those interested.

There are very experience pilots on the market doing other things outside of flying who would like to fly for Qlink and the likes - but they can't get their foot in the door due to unrealistic requirements, which in the big picture account for nothing.

OOP's tail bump
 

How many of these have occurred. I also heard to avoid another, one landed hard enough to require gear change. Me thinks there is a systemic problem. Seems strange that this is occuring years after introduction when procedures should be down pat. :ooh:

Cadets, Yip Yip ha-ray,.

Most of the cadets I've flown with at QantasLink have been very impressive. Much better than a lot of the FOs that come in through direct entry with thousands of hours under their belts. It's a shame that people put them all under the same banner when 1 or 2 of them make mistakes.

I know a lot of people stuck in GA who can't get through the QantasLink recruitment process because they have the personality of a wet carrot, or the "experience" they so boldly strut around with was all built doing visual circuits in a C152, so they make a mess of the sim check. Those guys love talking about how cadets are terrible and QantasLink has flaws in it's recruitment and training. That's just because they're bitter and jealous.

If you've actually seen the quality QantasLink can produce from its cadets you'd know that these tail strikes don't reflect the entire group of them.

Perhaps the solution is to only employ 2000-3000 hour GA operators as a minimum who have plenty of time practicing the landing technique in a 1.2 T aeroplane before they jump into a 28T, completely unforgiving turbo prop. After all, long time GA experience, in a single pilot operation, only doing the annual renewal and "pushing" all the "rules" will colour a pilot in such a favourable way as that they will have the perfect multi-crew skills, procedural and regulatory understanding and compliance, leadership qualities and future management skills that any sound airline would so desire. Above all, this persons many years of operation in light aircraft will provide a more suited candidate to the cadet who has known nothing but airline operation. In no way could this said applicant ever, ever have an incident/accident, or in this case, landing event - I cannot for the life of me recall an experienced pilot ever having an incident or accident through handling error.
It's simply the only way to go about achieving consistent safety records.
As for the aptitude testing, it is clear that it is completely biased toward these highly skilled personnel.

A shame really....

Hahaha! Well said :D

We have 250hr cadets flying right hand seat in an A330 and cripple 7 doing the business all over the world through rain, hail and snow. So I can not believe that a cadet in a Dash 8 would have too much of a problem.
These aircraft are two pilot right? Wouldn't the experienced Captain see things going astray and take over?
Perhaps the training department needs to look at intervention training as well as its line training. If you train people properly it doesn't matter how many hours they have.


the Don