Geoffrey Thomas Sinks To New Low
 

Our resident "aviation expert" has again been showing how a few months chucking bags has really qualified him as an aviation technical expert.

In this item:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/crashed-airasia-plan-had-been-flying-with-mechanical-fault/7376776
He sprukes that Qantas would never fly an aircraft around which is maintained like this.

And yet, we know of his vehement opposition to claims from the engineers' union that outsourcing of QF maintenance overseas and reduced maintenance standards were resulting in a slipping of safety. "Scaremongering" I believe was his term of reference towards the TWU's concerns re offshore maintenance.

So on one hand, Australian engineers are scaremongering over offshore maintenance, and yet on the other hand, we should be banning AirAsia because of shoddy overseas maintenance.

The most disappointing thing to me, is that abc news have sunken to the low of referencing this Chairman's lounge puppet.

Note: This thread is not a Qantas vs AirAsia safety comparison, so all of you leaping out of your chairs to Qantas' defence can calm down. We know which airline is safer on the whole - it's not about that.

He knows this for certain? He is certain that no Qantas aircraft or those operated on its behalf would ever be expected to fly with undocumented, or long term, "nil time to rectify" defects?

That is a relief, very comforting thought.

Cash for comment.

I think it's a fair comment about Qantas not letting aircraft fly with persistent defects like this.

Maintenance watch does provide a very good oversight of recurring defects, I can guarantee if a defect was written up and didn't go away with 1 reset further corrective action would've been taken. I know because of all the of the Maintenance Watch Request tasks that get called up every night for just this reason.

A big factor in the AirAsia crash was no oversight in general and in this case, this particular reoccurring defect that just kept getting penned off with resets for months and months.

Isn't it amazing that it came down to a crack in a solder joint. They could not find it in twelve months of line operations but they were able to dig it out of the mud and find the offending circuit board AFTER the crash.

http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/u...ort_Image5.png

I notice Mr Thomas is indirectly criticising CASA as he believes Indonesian Airlines should not be allowed into Australia (by CASA). If I was CASA I would asking questions of the media about his "expert" status. This status has a very specific meaning in a court room, less so in the real world but even so he has turned it into a meaningless phrase.

Really reminds me of Lauda Air troubleshooting a reverser issue for sector after sector with a commercial demand for the aircraft.Dont kid yourself it happens everyday around the world

This is virtually Adam Air all over again; for those that don't remember https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Final_r...t_574_disaster

Adam Air re-racked the faulty IRS multiple times..........but recorded the IRS as having been "replaced". A form of creative writing......

One of the ongoing issues in Indonesia is a lack of experienced and qualified inspectors within their regulator. They don't know what they don't know.

This is not unique to Indonesia.

Unfortunately Joe Public cannot see past the cheap fares.

Dead right. It happened yesterday, today, and it will happen again tomorrow. Commercial pressures are overriding safety day-in, day-out.

Dead right again, it's happening in this country despite assertions to the contrary.

From the TV program, here we have 'AGAIN' , one pilot pushing forward on his 'stick', whilst the other is pulling back on his 'stick'.

Very much the same scenario as the Air France disaster...?

The net result was a 'confused' flight computer, and the resultant crash.

Is it not possible for Airbus to have an 'indicator' of some sort on the panel adjacent to the stick, to show the position of each stick, one relative to the other?
A set of coloured lights in the 'cardinal points' configuration should be able to do it perhaps....

Just a thought for a sad event.....

Airbus drivers? Thoughts?

It's called the takeover push button and I have control......

These events have been caused by lack of crew coordination and no one positively identifying who is actually controlling the aircraft.

Just watched the foreign correspondent piece with GT. I wish I was a clever as he clearly is.

I am thinking of going to wix.com and building myself an aviation website, perhaps www.rateanaviationjourno.com and I think I will name myself CEO, Grand poobah, MD, president for life and overall big boss. Has a nice ring to it and about as much credibility as GT's website. I mean FFS who calls themselves CEO of a website?

The thing that annoys me the most about this clown is that some people actually listen to him!

I think it was the OP who described him as the 'Chairman's Lounge Puppet'.
Couldn't stop giggling over that one.

I'm just taken aback a little that our national broadcaster has now been gullible enough to present this clown as the 'Aviation Expert'.

I'm very tempted to refer the ABC's news and current affairs director to a couple of threads on PPRuNe relating to our bag-chucker friend
from Port Hedland.
I'm sure the said Director would be, at the same time, both embarrassed and amused.

p.s. Oh, and be advised that he's an "Aviation Professional"... Yes Geoffrey - except we know in what capacity.
.

He certainly is not an aviation expert, he is a journalist with a interest in aviation. Maybe write to the ABC fact checker people and get them to investigate.

I thought that report was more Sixty Minutes than Foreign Correspondent.

Understood Mr GG,

But such a loss on at least 2 separate occasions, would call for 'something better' than what is a 'flawed flightdeck discipline'....don't you think?

Cheers

Both occasions you had French nationals with low experience and possibly incorrect training at the controls.

Coupled with poor flight deck discipline and a culture that would be described as less than open, you have these incidents.

During my TR, the instructor had never flown a modern Airbus. He had an Airbus TR and had flown the usual suspects for domestic airlines in Australia prior to 89, and the usual expat stuff afterwards. But no modern Airbus experience. He knew the CBT and sim, but not how she catches you out in the real world.

This is pretty typical of training organisations that the airlines outsource to. Most of my knowledge came from pushing the wrong button at the wrong time and either being quickly put in place by a stressed out captain, or by seeing what happens when you're a spectator on a high performance jet. It can get ugly unless you take the right corrective action almost immediately.

The right corrective action however is not always immediately obvious. Especially under duress in the heat of battle.

I love the Airbus and feel I have a very good understanding of her, and have the tools and training to handle most situations. I can't say I felt like that when I first starting flying the line. I'm also a 10,000 hour pilot with plenty of real world experience .

The Airbus could probably do with some tweaks given the similarities between the two crashes.

In the AirAsia crash, the "dual input" warning was totally suppressed by the continuous "stall" warning (though there are both the green priority lights that indicate a dual input). A better system could be something like "stall stall stall dual input" repeated.

In the Air France crash, the stall warning ceased when airspeed reduced below 60kts (i think). This is believed to have led to more confusion with control inputs as it became counter intuitive in that pulling back more ceased the stall warning. Why would you have a system that at anytime in the air would cease a stall warning at very low speeds?

I've been told the Airbus logic here is that at such a low speed the aircraft thinks it must be on the ground.

Not certain. But it would be consistent with a whole bunch of other daft Airbus logic we have to battle.

It doesn't matter what tweaks are put in if the crew are not properly trained. There have been two Boeing accidents attributable to a lack of understanding about the autothrottle function, does that mean Boeing has to tweak that system? GG has raised an important point about the experience levels on type of simulator instructors.

the reporter kept getting confused between Air Asia Indonesia & Air Asia X.


The former flies OZ to Indo, the later flies KL to OZ & onto AKL.