Full Reverse thrust use would create a situation where the company would pay a large fine and the crew penalised for it. “Airmanship” would have been to let the FO land the aircraft as briefed (probably reverse would have stayed in idle) and then forget all about stopping at golf and reduce braking to get off at foxtrot or full length.
Stopping was not an issue, plenty of runway. If stopping was an issue then of course go full reverse.

Yep Ollie. The ONLYreport of the wind at 15 knots for about 5 hours. All other TTFs both before and after BA's approach indicated more than that.

I've got no problem with them taking ATC at face value. I've got a massive problem with them telling ATC that their limit is 15 knots but that they can take 'a knot or two more than that'. Conveniently they didn't need to break the rules as per the clearance given to them. We all had a good laugh of their report of 22 knots 'approaching the flare'.

Don't criticise Keg because the TTF said.......All the other airlines he's been in haven't been as professional as his current employer. You'd think QF1, golf courses and the blind adherence of regulation might ring a bell.

You can't plan to land in the curfew shoulder period with greater than idle reverse. In the example I gave of our A380 arrival we could have landed with 15 knots tailwind had we been able to utilise full reverse. Of course it was available to us but then we wouldn't have been complying with the curfew act because we would have been planning to land using greater than idle reverse. Massive fine for Qantas and it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to have crunched the numbers had we used full reverse and just submitted paperwork.

Of course maybe it was this rigid adherence to the intent of the curfew act, and not shoot an approach where the tailwind had been consistently reported as exceeding the certified limit of the jet even if we did use full reverse that makes some of us Austronauts.

Oh FFS. Yes. Let's praise the airline who are quite happy to accept a 'knot or two' more than the certified limit of the aircraft and demonise those who adhere to policy.

Meanwhile let's dissemble and distract with an entirely irrelevant 744 brake fire and evacuation and remind people that once a crew (from the same airline as the pilot telling of rogue behaviour in a different airline) made some poor decisions and errors even though there wasn't a hint of rogue behaviour such as ignoring or disregarding certified limits.

I like to think I'm a pretty practical bloke but I also value my life, my license, and my profession. I won't knowingly break rules. Limits are limits for a reason. Altitude restrictions are altitude restrictions for a reason. If that defines me as an Austronaut (or Oztronaut) then I'll wear the badge with pride.

I hope one day we don't have to scrape the remains of a crew off the end of a runway because they accepted a 'knot or two' more than the certified limits.

Stopping the aircraft safely comes before worries about Airport fines.

Kegs getting all wound up about a possible 2 kt. tailwind exceedence. If you are landing on a Rwy where 2 kts. makes a difference between stoping or not, you shouldn’t be there. From what I remember Certificated landing performance has a buffer of landing at v ref +15. So landing anywhere near v ref gives you some margin in hand. Reverse of course is not taken into account in stopping distance on a dry runway.
The PIC should be the final arbiter of any decision on these aspects not ATC, he has an accurate GS readout to compare with his airspeed.

So where is your limit exceeding limitations cessnapete? Two knots? Why not three? Four? If you're going to miss an altitude how much is OK? 100'? 200'? How am I supposed to know what your personal limit for missing requirements is when I'm sharing the airspace? Can you put up a list for the rest of us so we know exactly which limits you're prepared to ignore? EGT? MTOW? MLW?

In the SYD 34L 744 brake fire example cited by ernestkgann the aircraft did stop safely. That's not in dispute. They landed within their tailwind limit and the performance charts indicated they could stop well within the distance required. The brake fire (and subsequent evac) was due to excess grease on the axles, not the use of idle reverse. That use may have contributed to a fire but a fire would not have occurred without the grease. Are we clear on that one now? Are we cool that it's got zero, nothing, nada, zippo to do with the example I raised of a BA crew indicating they were happy to exceed certified limits?

I'd absolutely go around if the tailwind was indicating 16 knots coming across the fence and my certified limit was 15. If something else goes wrong and I end up off the side/end of the runway (even if it was a mechanical thing not of my making) I'm not sure the insurance company is going to be thrilled with me landing outside certified limits.

I'll say one thing for sure. This thread has certainly been illuminating. I didn't realise I shared the sky with people who were so cavalier about exceeding aircraft limits. They must be the TRUE Astronauts as clearly they know much more about the aircraft they're flying than the flight test engineers who created the limits.

Here here Keg. Well said.

Beautifully put Keg:D

It sure has. :sad:

It is interesting the number of people who are happy to sling **** at Australian pilots for sticking by the rules.

I agree there are those that walk amongst us that cant see the wood for the trees, but equally there are many amongst us that can see the big picture, are big T little C checkers and who live to provide quality training and impart knowledge.

People were willing to jump on Keg for the telling of his story, but to be honest i cant understand why, the BA crew, on repeated occasions, said they would willingly exceed the max certified tailwind component of their aircraft.

Unless i misunderstood him, his issue was not landing with 15 kts of tailwind, but the willingness of the other crew to disregard the limit, and not only disregard the limit but tell the world they were willing to do so.

I have no issues with a crew making an observation of the wind and making a determination that the wind is either inside or outside their limits, i personally dont get too wound up by FMC wind indications particularly in the last part of the approach, as they are not a super accurate indication of actual wind, but i will make a determination based on a whole bunch of considerations.

We need big picture thinkers not nit pickers, but i think that is a broader issue not limited to Australians.

I have not flown for an asian carrier but my friends that have or do tell me that their checking styles are very big C and very small T so to limit the Oztronaut tag to Aussies is a bit unkind.

Think we should have some rules for debating these arguments !

I’m amazed Keg can recall in such detail, radio exchanges from May 2015!:E I must pay more attention in future.:uhoh:

Well said Keg, I agree 100%.

Mate, when you hear a major carrier say over the radio three times that their downwind limit is 15 knots but they can take a knot or two more it tends to stick in the mind. If I went back through my iMessages I could probably find the message I sent to some mates the day I got home from the trip! I've told the story to a few others along the way as well as using it as a discussion point with various crew so it tends to stay fresh. :ok:

There are none so blind as those who will not see

That’s for you Fathom !

And the others.

Would you accept “a few knots extra” on your route check ? Try landing a 737 in Kalgoorlie/ Newman with a “few knots extra”. It won’t be pretty ! I’ve been checked by a few Oztranauts and it was not pleseant but usually it taught me something !

Rules are there usually for a good reason, disregard them at your peril !

Indeed - many of the recent posts rather prove the point made by the OP...............

Disregarding tailwind limitations is not a nit-picking sin. Tailwind limitation are a basic and importanat part of operating the aircraft. The Austranaught argument I thought , was about small unimportant issues that distract from the big issues, complicate the operation, and create distracting discussions that don’t need to happen on a busy flight-deck.

Aviation Enthus
 

See my post # 35 . It might help to answer your question a little bit .:ok:

Bonway
As a corporate jet captain who has operated extensively in the USA, don't even get me started on you guys. Talk about cavalier. I won't elaborate - anyone (non American) who has any time flying there will understand.

And anyone defending the BA crew who knowingly exceeded limits needs their heads read. I dont give a **** if ATC reported tail wind 15 knots. The BA crew made it clear that whatever ATC reported they were happy with. For ATC - report what it is and let the professionals say no, and the cavaliers say no wukkas.

And for the idiot who said whilst it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been different on the ground - FFS, when do you judge what the wind is, when the wheels hit, when you've stopped, when disembarking? Jesus, if 22kts in the flare, to you, is NOT definitive that the tailwind is over the limit, you deserve to have your licence torn up.

I would suggest that Keg would find the actions of the BA crew equally unprofessional regardless of the airline involved - even his own.

Nice! Wet runway, Idle reverse, possibly raining and at least a 7kt overshoot shear.......by choice!

Calling me a liar?

Bang on. Id be appalled if I heard of any crew doing the same. Again, if that makes me an Oztronaught, Austronaught, of whatever other term someone wants to make up, then I’m happy to wear it.

Keg, normally I have a lot of respect for what you put on these forums, but I think you've somewhat missed the boat here.

Trying to tarnish non-Australian pilots with the BA example is terrible reasoning. It's like buying a brand new AMG. When it blows up as you pull out the showroom, would you surmise that every, single AMG ever built must be crap and inferior to other cars? It's called proof by example, and it's bad reasoning.

The reality is, people's minor interactions/experiences and the subsequent perceptions that are built, strongly tend views towards the isolated event but rarely represent the larger reality.

Yes, that BA incident sounds very dubious at best, but if you think it represents the majority of BA pilots or non-Oz pilots you need to reexamine your reasoning.

EVERY airline has a very similar demographic in terms of achiever levels. Nearly every one I've worked for, including yours, has about 50 % who are excellent at what they do. Then there's the 10% who are absolutely exceptional (and it's normally non-technical skills which make this distinction). Then there's about 35% who are okay, but don't really shine. And lastly, there's a small component (say less than 5%) who either really struggle year after year, or who have deliberate non-compliance type tendencies.

To think any Australian airline (including the big Q) doesn't have at least some proportion of these people is pretty naive. I certainly won't judge BA crew on one or two cowboys.

As for the original point of the thread, I get where the Austronaught reputation comes from - but like most, it's generally a few small individuals that wreck it for everyone else.

There most definitely is a small proportion of Australian C&T history (thankfully mostly disappeared now), where ****-swinging rather than safety seemed to be the prime objective. I've seen questions asked which most definitely have no safety or training benefit, and where the only possible motivation for such ridiculous content could have been for old mate to make himself feel good.

Those days are largely behind us, and it will be good when those final few fall off the perch - and the Oz drivers won't be fighting yesterday's war.

As for the comment earlier about the effect of the regulator, I tend to agree. If you have a regulator that prioritises compliance over safety, you might end up with a situation where a) the C&T industry you control tends to follow suit, and b) a lot of the big stick people who aren't suited to airline C&T will end up working for the regulator because it's the only place they can get a job.

Hey Rodney,

Calm down mate.....

1 - You say the BA crew 'knowingly landed outside of limits'.... how do you know? Is there an incident report that says such. You are working off some 'recalled' memories of a radio exchange from 3 years ago? I would say there is far from enough evidence to show what you say is fact.

2 - Where did I say exactly how I judge a tailwind? Keg said that the BA crew reported 22kts tailwind 'approaching' the flare.... what does that mean? 500' is approaching the flare, if you are at 300' and the tailwind is out of limits but you can see a windsock on the ground that shows calm on the ground and you are landing on a non limiting runway at what point do you go around. There is no hard and fast rule.

3 - Our operating manual says specifically that you can take an ATC wind as the definitive direction and strength over and above the aircraft generated wind. At what point do I call bullsh*t on ATC. If the ATIS says a 16 kt tailwind and ATC say 'no it is now 14 kts' do I just say 'well I can't trust you' so I am going around.?

4 - Did the BA crew make it clear that they were landing no matter what ATC said.... I must of missed that bit.

At the end of the day Keg is using a situation that may or may not have been a violation of an aircraft limit with a foreign crew from an airline that has a pretty good safety record as evidence that Aussie pilots are not pedantic to the extreme. Perhaps not pedantic but certainly judgemental.

Keg,

How accurate are the IRS's after a 14 hour flight? What about the drift?

Do you really prefer to use the GS/wind vector on your ND over the actual wind from the tower AND use this as a reason for a go-around?

If the tower says 15 tail it's 15 tail...simple. Lets please do not over complicate this job.

Keg,

I got another question for you to check if you have Austronautism.

At the gate you run a take off data for 500.0 tons and at the holding point your GW on the lower ECAM says 500.2 tons.

Do you take off or do you wait and burn the 200kgs at holding point?

No AQIS - at that point you get CC to do a quick rundown of all pax weights and carry-on baggage FFS.

Bearing in mind that for performance and handling certification the wind affecting the aircraft is corrected from the height of measurement to the height of the wing MAC, usually using a 1/7 th power rule, I have difficulty working out how the pilot has any real idea of what the tailwind affecting the aircraft really is.

Just a pack of big talking big swaggering Ar@@@@l@@

Talk the big talk

But pull up short when it comes to the delivery side of the equation

Oh the irony, it burns..!

What the crew actually landed with is kind of irrelevant given that they’d previously advised ATC three times they were prepared to accept more than their certified limit. As I’ve previously stated I can only surmise and infer from the following interactions about what actually happened but that changes nothing about the mindset and declared intention of the crew.

So perhaps they didn’t break the law but they advertised their intentions they were happy to. It staggers me that so many seem to miss this point? Or doesn’t it matter because hey, we can’t prove they actually did.

Now maybe they are one of the 5% that SlipperPete refers to. I’m certainly not suggesting that all BA crew are like that though I was certainly shocked when I heard it- and grieved a little that an airline I’d previously held in such high esteem had at least two crew so prepared to ignore limits. Perhaps some of my colleagues are equally cavalier but I’ve never heard them publicise their idiocy over the VHF.

Anyway, I’m sorry I ever mentioned BA. Perhaps I should have just said it was ‘a major overseas carrier’ though given there are only 3-4 permitted to land in the curfew shoulder it still may have been obvious.

AQIS Burgu, if the tailwind was close to the limits I’d have already tee’d up with ATC for a wind approaching the threshold- as in when I’m at about 50’, not when I’m on a long final. If they said it was within limits at that point I’d land..... as long as it was within cooee of what my instruments were and presuming theirs nothing identifiably wrong with them.

As for the TOW question. What was my planned ramp weight? What was my planned taxi fuel? Have I burned my planned taxi fuel? The A330 GW can increase if I’ve turned sharply onto the runway and then stopped. Is the 500.2 (obviously not a 330) as a result of that or was it previously reading 500.0 (or less) then increased as a result of a turn?

Maybe you think asking such questions makes me an Austronaut. I just think it’s being professional. If it’s the former again I ask how much over a certified limit is acceptable? 500.3? 500.4? 500.5? Where are you drawing the line?

That is an easy one!
As the company will want to know why I have taken off above the limit weight (it will be flagged on the QAR) and I wish to retire on my terms I would wait.
You will probably think that silly for a piddling pecentage, but that is how it is done in a professional outfit.
“Explain in you own words why you ignored the limit.”

This thread is all that I hate about pprune...

haha, lolz!

and the colours, time for an update no?

Gentlemen, as a fairly new aviator I find robust discussions and debate such as what we have here in this thread informative, educational and relavant.

I am proud to be an Australian aviator, we have produced some of the best the world has ever seen and I can only hope that one day I might be considered a contemporary amongst my peers.

Having spent 10 years of military flying as an FE, with a lot of flexibility and top cover to get an aeroplane around the world with no support, I will never forget the warning given to me on my first flight with a major civil airline. My instructor said that there were no more fiddles with the physical aircraft, performance calculations or abnormal and emergency proceedures. He pointed out a court room in a hypothetical subsequent inquiry and a barrister asking me why I had chosen to ignore a limitation, carry out an unauthorised proceedure or fudge some performance figures. He also pointed out that my company would not support me in order to avoid lawsuits and to protect its reputation. I have since operated with that sage advice in mind and commend all professional pilots to do the same.

Isn’t wind component reported from the tower not an fmc /irs derived wind for adherence to a limitation. Has been what QF have used for a long time. One particular base is full of pilot/lawyer checkies. Look west.

Keg;
Re VH-OJH 02/07/03 at SYD. 18 kt T/W component (FMC) down to 100 ft, 11 kt T/W component on touchdown. Tower reported 13 kt T/W component. No idle reverse thrust from 136 kts and manual braking to reduce speed to 10 kts at taxiway G turnoff. If idle reverse thrust had not been de-selected and/or next exit taken the brake fires and resulting comedy at the 'gate' would not have occurred. The ATSB Investigation Report in my opinion was generous to QF.

;);););)

Keep working at it!!!!

no mention of the AC drivers (other British subjects) that tried to land on a taxiway full of aircraft!?!?!?

my, oh my....