Stop telling fibs. No one has ever called you an ar*ehole. D!ckhead maybe? :E :}:ok: (only kidding mate. Never heard anyone refer to you with anything but respect). :ok:

Arsehole
 

With over 400hrs in the simulator over many years.....I have never heard a checkie, instructor or supervisary use any language.....that could be considered offensive....in polite society.

"For a start QF and VA are not FAA 121 operators, they have to comply with CASA requirements"

Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?

Exactly, when it is basic Part 25 Performance Limits.
Can't speak for B777, the the B747-400 is very sensitive to tyre speed limits with any tailwind component at max brakes release weight.
Tootle pip!!

I found (in my experience) the regionals in Australia possessed more of the "Austronaughts"

Once I started at major airline I was stunned by how much more relaxed it was.

Definately a much more pleasant working environment. And if i've learned one thing take everything you hear with a large pinch of salt. 99% of what you hear about people is bull**** anyway.

With the exception of a few knobs, if you show up to work with a good attitude, and do your job properly you will likely have a good day with anyone you fly with. :ok:

OICUR....operations ex LAX in the 777 are typically done at MTOW, and a tailwind drops the performance limit by about 2 tonnes per kt of tailwind.

3-4 kts of tailwind very easily becomes 7-8 kts of tailwind in LA and seeing as they typically only update the atis once an hour it is hardly a stretch to imagine that crews are fairly conservative when it comes to takeoff performance.

depending on the temp 2-3 kts tailwind is the limit with no derate, no assumed temp and bleeds off.

Throw in runway closures that run for months and wanting to take off into wind is hardly a world ending event.

Every crew I know of will try their damndest to not need a runway 7L/R departure because of the hassle that comes with it, but the risk is that you get to the end of the runway and they advise that the tailwind is now 3-4 kts not 2-3 kts and you are stuffed.

Being professional shouldn't be the reason for ridicule. Similarly knowing what the tailwind limit is, ensuring you aren't exceeding it and then taking off on the prevailing runway direction is also a mark of professionalism, and should not be used to suggest that they "twiddled" the numbers and took off disregarding the tailwind limit being exceeded - which is what you were suggesting.

Edit...great circle distance LAX-HKG 7260 nm, great circle distance LAX-SYD 7488nm.

The thing that adds a lot of weight ex LA is freight. Not sure what AA carry freight wise.

I agree with that Major. The regionals are far worse than the Major airlines. One only has to listen in on any ctaf that has RPT services to hear the w**kers. Readily available to berate some poor ppl for some minor radio procedure. In fact more often than not they themselves are wrong. I recall recently a Rex crew telling off a vfr driver for not making a departure call.That went out years ago. By the time they get to the big boy toys it is out of their system perhaps?

Gee Capn Bloggs, that was a masterful way to extinguish the toroidal vortex of bulls@#t.

It’s Civil Aviation Order 20.7.1B for the regulator that invented regulatory reform that increases complexity. FAR 25 would be too simple, that is just one line !!

LAX-HKG is shorter than LAX-SYD great circle, it is normally 1-2 hrs longer flight time due headwinds. The winter jet stream around Japan can get up to 300 kts, it is depressing to see a ground speed around 300-350 kts for hours on end. Yesterday’s LAX-SYD around 14:30, LAX-HKG 15:45.

QUOTE=swh;10045627]It’s Civil Aviation Order 20.7.1B for the regulator that invented regulatory reform that increases complexity. FAR 25 would be too simple, that is just one line !!

Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.

So what is the FAR 25 line up allowance ?

Swh, thanks very interesting :)

No .
Full to the gunwahales for Airline A may be different to Airline B.
The performance engineers can do all sorts of fancy things behind the OPT scenes that most, including the line pilots, have no idea about. For example, they might shorten a runway by several hundred meters thus resulting in higher thrust settings than the regs would require, without any visibility of this to the crew. Airline A might do this and Airline B might not.

And I always thought that FAR Part 25 was the airworthiness certification standard for transport category aircraft.
I would be looking elsewhere for the various operational requirements.

How so Bonway?

Whilst technically correct (probably, I really can't be arsed to find out or even attempt to look) THIS is the sort of stuff that earns us such a bad reputation. For God's sake, get a life and stop arguing about absolute f*#kin trivia.

We've got a couple where I work and they do give the rest of us a bad name. One, in particular is a loud and vocal arse who knows everything about everything and has managed to piss countless FOs (and some captains) off by criticising them when they don't do the 'little extras' he likes to see, because "that's the way we did it in Ansett". Even though there are plenty of others in the company who have flown for legacy carriers, with more than two aircraft and a dog, he still insists that AN know FAR more than the likes of UA, BA, AF etc. Even the Australians use the 'Austronaut' monicker with him and it fits perfectly.

I think one of the problems is that we've been brought up in an environment of bureaucratic nonsense and to us the pointless trivia (witness above), while being correct, is to many Australians REALLY important. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world does not agree and they certainly don't want it pushed down their throats. "Maaaaaaate, you shouldn't do that. In Oz CAO, CAR, blah, blah, blah"

Australia has become the Galapagos of everything including aviation. Our industry was passed by the rest of the world sometime in the 70s and since then we have evolved to be our own 'best practice' but certainly not worlds best. It's a tiny industry in a tiny market. A bit of humility would not go astray.

The root cause is CASA and the way they force people to behave through regulation and testing vs the 'rest of the world'.

I don’t know if CASA is the root cause or just another side effect of the fact that as Australians we are more likely to call people out on something than almost any other nationality on the planet. There is some fancy Index that measures it and we are either number 1 or number 2 in the world.
Anyone know the name of the Index?

Ive had a few mates do the whole Emirates thing and they've passed on some of the Austronaut stuff.

The real eye opener for me was in May 2015 listening to Speedbird respond to ATC for an early morning arrival into Sydney (0500 ahead of the curfew). Both flights running quite early and ETA SYD before 0500. We'd informed ATC that due to weight, wet runway and the way Airbus considers idle reverse on wet runway (braking action poor to medium) we were unable to accept more than 9 knots tailwind and likely to hold until 6am given the prevailing conditions.

ATC then asked Speedbird for their tailwind limit. We got a shock when they replied '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. Stunned silence from ATC (and on our flight deck too). ATC politely asked them to confirm their downwind limit. Again from Speedbird '15 knots but we can take a knot or two more than that'. ATC just 'rogered' the second confirmation.

Finally Approach checked when they were on vectors for SOSIJ. Same response again. TWR played the game and told them 'downwind 15, cleared to land'. After Landing the report was passed on to us that Speedbird had reported '22 knots downwind approaching the flare'.

That was the day I decided I was proud to be an Austronaut!

The 'calling out bull**** index'? :ok: :}

Is it because Australians actually follow the rules?

I’m all for looking at the big picture stuff, but at some point the little things need to come into it as well. After all, we’re professionals aren’t we? Isn’t the attitude of “that’s close enough” for amateurs? If you’re good enough with the big picture stuff a true professional will continue to perfect the little things.

“Captain we really need to make that height requirement on the STAR”
“Relax sunny boy, they’re a guide”
Meanwhile you just missed it by 500ft and there’s now a loss of separation with a departing aircraft, but it’s ok, the big picture stuff is that he knows up from down :hmm:

Call me an Austronaut, but at least I won’t have to be answering the phone calls from the chief pilot when I was being a little pedantic.

The problem is Morno that as a Check Captain I always have found that someone who is overly pedantic actually lowers the whole operation and reduces CRM and I am not talking about height constraints s etc. but more along the lines of one pilot just tying to ‘oneup’ the other with displays of totally irrelevant and pointless knowledge.

I agree Ollie. We have a fondness for 'rules', I don't know why this is but we do know that rules and regulations do not make you safer. Blind adherence is worse. Even knowing this my company continues to spew out regulation like parliament. In the end it is a lawyers picnic, a lot of people who can't see the wood for the trees and an industry disappearing no more safely up its own arse.

Keg, I was holding prior to a landing at YSSY a few years ago when a QF -400 landed prior to curfew on 34L as they are approved to do. Unfortunately they were heavyish and there was a significant tailwind. They evacuated at the gate with reported brake fires although the pilots walked off the aeroplane rather then go down the slides. How did the BA crew go?

I would be very surprised if this actually happened. Sounds like a made up story to me.

No, it's real. Boeing 747-438, VH-OJU Sydney Aerodrome, NSW 2 July 2003

The factual information about the sequence of events from touchdown to runway exit makes interesting reading.

Virgin driver did you miss the bit where I said I was there?

Ollie I do agree with what you’re saying. The way I approach it is if it’s safe, and within the realms of the rules and SOP’s, then I don’t care how the other bloke/blokette flies their leg. I won’t try to ‘oneup’ anyone. But as soon as they start pushing those boundaries and disregarding pretty basic rules or boundaries, then I’ll happily speak up and won’t hesitate to make sure it’s corrected. Just like I expect them to if it’s me flying.

Like I said earlier, at the end of the day, I just want to go home to my family and not have to answer any phone calls from the chief pilot.

Morno, totally agree.

Did you miss the bit where I said the BA crew reported to ATC they could accept more than the certified downwind limit of the aeroplane?

There is no evidence of the QF crew doing the same in the event you’ve posted. If I understand that event correctly the TTFs were consistently less downwind than the certified limit or what the P charts would have said they could accept. ATC had not reported tailwind in excess of the aircraft limit.

That’s very different circumstances to the situation I’m talking about where for a number of hours previously the TTFs reported the tailwind consistently more than the certified limit and with the last TTF prior to top of descent still recording a tailwind of 18 knots.

Did you miss the bit in the report where the F/O broke his collar bone going down the slide? Was that comment about the pilots designed to impugne their reputation?

Did you miss the bit in the report where the brake fire was as a result of excess grease on the axle and probably wouldn’t have occurred if it hadn’t been there?

Is the point you’re making that because the BA crew I referred to didn’t have a brake fire and evacuate that it’s ok to land with tailwind exceeding the certified limits?‪

We checked the 34L tailwind consistently until we landed 16R at 0600. Tailwind never decreased below 17 knots.

In short, I’ll take a a crew having to evacuate at terminal due brake fire as a result of excessive grease on an axle in front of a crew landing outside certified limits every day of the week. One is as a result of a crew applying certified limits correctly and dealing with events as they happened. The other is a prang waiting to happen. In what other cases are they prepared to ignore limits? Minimas? Crosswind limits? Stable approach limits? Heights?

So I’m not sure of the relevance of the incident that you relate to the one I’m talking about but the more I think about your comments the more I appreciate my airline.

Hear hear Keg.

So, let me get this right, Keg.

To start with you claim the BA aircraft was about 1:45 ahead of schedule. I've done that route more times than I care to mention and have never been more than 5 minutes before the curfew. That time has, of course, been rectified by slowing down or ATC vectors to arrive after the curfew. Your suggestion is more than 'quite early' and makes me suspicious of your story.

You then base most of your maligning on the basis of forecasts and only refer to the actual winds once (in a disparaging way).

"We can take a knot or two more than that" is clearly totally unacceptable......IF it happened.

You then tell us that ATC reported a downwind component of 15 knots i.e. NOT out of limits. Your claim that they "played the game" is entire supposition and only serves to insult the professionalism of ATC AND the BA crew. If ATC tell me the tailwind is 15 knots then I'm going to believe what they're telling me and I don't assume they're making it up in order that I can get in.

IF the BA crew later reported the tailwind was 22 knots on landing then that, too, is unacceptable and they should have gone around. However, your claims on timing and the 'guess' that ATC were feeding them a line makes me suspect the rest of your story. However, even if it is all true, then I can guarantee this was truly a 'rogue' crew and does not reflect the standards of the airline or the rest of their colleagues. I do not know of ANYONE who would exceed the limitations, outside of an emergency situation that couldn't avoid doing so, and it is certainly not endemic of the BA culture. The same cannot be said of "we know better than everyone" attitude that exists in a good number of Australian pilots both at home and overseas and the subject of this thread.

5am precurfew arrival is pretty normal.

Pontius,

ATC play the game all the time.

I have been on approach in LA where they gave the preceeding aircraft the vis and cleared them to land to which they responded that they needed something better than reported otherwise they were off to vegas, ATC came right back with a revised vis that was what they needed.

Similarly in Sydney doing night freight in a jet atc queried the max downwind we could accept. As we approached the departure intersection, the downwind was exactly the max we could accept. A coincidence possibly but convenient nonetheless. Have had the same situation occur in LA at night on departure in relation to the downwind.

OK Pontious. Let's play.

Nope. They were about 10 ahead of schedule. They were permitted to land before the 0600 curfew. I think Sked blox is 0515 for the arrival I'm talking about. Our ETA ex DXB was 0415 but a half hour delay meant we could adjust speed enroute pretty easily to ensure we weren't going to land before 0500 as is permitted for SYD winter ops. Unfortunately the tailwind was never less than our 15 knot certified limit let alone the 9-11 performance limit as we burned off fuel in the holding pattern..... except for the landing clearance given to the BA crew.

But it appears you're calling me a liar off the basis of me saying a BA aircraft was arriving in SYD at 0500 in May? Really?

Did you read my follow up post? Every TTF I looked at in the preceding 4-5 hours was in excess of 15 knots tailwind.

Calling me a liar? Again? Suggesting I made it up? I can probably look up the crew list and find three others who will back me home on that one. Heck, not sure how long ATC keeps it's tapes but I've still got the date in my log book.

Yep. It is a supposition about ATC. I've been around long enough to see TEMPO TS disappear off a critical TTF for a period of 30 minutes to facilitate the arrival of someone on skint fuel (unless the TS was directly over the airfield at the time). Like Snakecharma I've heard of viz and wind and cloud base be adjusted by Aussie and other ATC units to conveniently match a limit or permit an approach. BKN003 becomes BKN004 as the latter doesn't require an alternate, etc.

I'm actually quite happy to insult the professionalism of that BA crew on that approach. I know what I heard.

All I can say is that ATC told us that BA15 reported the downwind as 22 knots 'approaching the flare'.

For the record I didn't suggest all BA crews were the same. I just reminded myself after hearing this BA crew did this that I was glad I worked for the mob I do.

I note though that you infer again here that I'm telling porkies. Perhaps you should have just said 'liar, liar, pants on fire' and be done with it.

Interestingly I'm not sure we've had a thread about the pains in the backside poms can be. I flew with a bunch of them in my early days in Qantas. Complete dills. Luckily I'm smart enough to know that it's just individuals and not tar en entire demographic with the same brush just because of the actions of a few clowns.

Tower reported the tailwind as 15kts. BA landed. What's the fuss about?

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

You don't reckon it's an issue when an airline reports they can accept more than the aircraft's certified limit Fathom?

Keg, you say the wind never dropped below 17kts on the RWY but ATC said the tailwind was 15kts? The BA crew said it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been less on the ground? I know at our airline we are allowed to take the ATC wind as the definitive source for judging tailwind components. So all in all a BA Aircraft said their limit was 15 kts, ATC confirmed the tailwind was 15kts and they landed.

I take back what I said- got Dash 400 on my mind...

Surely the answer to the QF744 brake fire incident was to use full reverse thrust at that touchdown speed, when retardation is most effective. Blind adherence to noise abatement idle thrust requirements don’t come before safety. It’s called airmanship.
Better stop safely and perhaps get a rude note from the Airport Authority.