“Being professional shouldn't be the reason for ridicule.”

Maybe a misunderstanding but I would never suggest that being professional should be subject to ridicule. I was once a proud austronought myself and you should note my opening comment thus:

“This is merely an observation, not a criticism; I see both sides of the story on this issue.”

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

True, but winds can give Honky a longer flight time than even MEL sometimes.

“Full to the gunwahales for Airline A may be different to Airline B.”

True, and this may have been the case. All of the arguments put forth may be completely true and valid and my position may be completely incorrect.

However, having spent a third of my career as an austronought and two thirds of my career . . . . not, I have seen all manner of approaches taken to the game of flying airliners with varying degrees of flexibility and I feel reasonably confident in standing by the implications of my initial comment.

Wow, that escalated quickly..as Ron would say.

Keg, like many on here I read with interest your observations and comments, and whilst I accept completely what you’ve said in terms of the radio conversations, I find your inference somewhat unbecoming that the BA crew would merrily operate deliberately outside the certified envelope. We often forget the cultural element along with the inherent level of cynicism that exists relating to all things Ozzie from a Brit perspective, it’s not too difficult to imagine the conversation going along the lines of “he’s saying it’s 15kts to cover his arse...cos he’s an Ozzie” How do I know? because I’ve heard it said plenty of times by many different nationalities.
Let’s also not be too hasty in condemning the crew you heard given the reported wind and the vagaries of a drifting IRS.
Keg, in a way your comments have proved the point of the OP, making a mountain out of molehill based upon your perception..and inference, it is ostensibly the working definition and example of how austronaughts got their reputation.

Sure. A bunch of errors and the holes lined up. How is this relevant to an airline professing over VHF they’d willingly exceed limits?

Is expressing surprise that a carrier would publish over VHF their willingness to exceed certified limits making a mountain out of a mole hill Haughtney? Maybe they did get a 7 knot overshoot ‘approaching the flare’ and landed within certified limits. The fact they broadcasted that they were prepared to accept more? That’s making a mountain out of a mole hill? Again, if that makes me an Austronaught then guilty as charged.

Anyway, I’ve made that point a few times. On to other things that make Aussies Austronaughts. Adhering to speed limits? Adhering to altitude constraints? Adhering to weight limits and flight control limit speeds? :E ;)

This thread is as funny as...
 

Aussies used to have a sense of humour and could laugh at themselves.

I guess we've become a nation of snowflakes!


This thread was from Fragrant Harbour and ran for a few years. Although SOME of the C&T guys were clearly marked as Irish or Canadians, the obvious reference is that MOST of the C&T's were Australians and their love of pedantry.

I read it again last night; still funny years later.

Enjoy

https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harb...essential.html

The best pilots I have worked with knew how to fly, knew their aircraft, and knew the rules. They use the rules to their advantage to get the job done, a lot of the job involves working in the grey area and thinking outside the box.

Example above with the aircraft showing 200 kg above MTOW on the lower SD display. The data on the lower on the lower SD display is irreverent. The legal requirement is to check the load sheet against the performance data, if the load sheet is legal, you can go. The numbers on the lower SD display can be in error by 1% due to the way fuel volume and properties are measured and converted into mass then added to the ZFW to generate the numbers on the lower SD screen.

As with the BA crew, I would have done exactly as they did, made an approach and and assessed the conditions for myself. Tower wind is a mean wind of the wind sensors across the field over the previous 120 seconds, the tolerance is +/-10 degrees, and +/-10% above 10 kts measured 10m above the ground. SYD probably has one for every threshold plus mid field.

As an approved observer I am allowed to make an approach and look at the windsock for the runway I intend to land on and decide then to land or not. This is by far the easiest for me, if the windsock is not fully extended it is below 15 kts and it is realtime next to where I will touchdown.

The BA crew could have had a wind indicating 210/22 on the ND which is still 22 kts in the flare, and still perfectly legal to land on 34.

Agreed.

Well that would depend on whether I’ve burned all my planned taxi fuel would it not? If the load sheet says you’re going to burn 500kg on taxi depart at MTOW and you’ve only burned 200 are you suggesting you’d depart anyway because hey, errors in the tanks.

Broadcast your intention to accept greater than the certified limit? :ok:

Again, I’ve no qualms with them having a go at the approach and I only have my suspicions as to what actually occurred at 50’. The rest of your post is exactly as I have done in the past and would do again.

You’re just pissed off because your cricket team sucks. :8

No one forcing you to be here Bonway. I could understand it if you have a different opinion about adhering to limits and wanted to put your point forward and discuss it but you don’t even bother with that. You just throw rocks from the sidelines.

Personally I’ve found the discussion illuminating and have appreciated others points of views on this topic. Recently the questions I’ve asked and many of the responses have assisted me to understand thought processes behind what some people are saying and understand the way they view risk, limits, etc.

Incidentally there is lots of medical evidence that ‘Rock throwers’ tend to be unhappy with their lot in life and frequently suffer from mental health issues. I’m worried for your well being. Consider getting yourself a referral or some help. Or may be it simply is what goodonyamate has pointed out! :E

Personally. I’ve been out on my boat today. Caught a dewy that will feed us for weeks. Sun, beer and a beautiful family all enjoying what this incredible country has to offer. I can’t inderstand why anybody from Australia would give 2/5ths of a f@&k what people overseas think of us. Just as I’m sure no english Nigel gives a **** what I think of him etc........
Aussie’s are a passionate bunch, with a very good record. If you don’t like us, well, F@&k you.

Oztranaut alert!! That’s important sh*t right there...:E:E:p

I would depart, the justification is not “errors in tanks”, it is being in possession of a valid load sheet and performance data. Under CAR 235 your airline will have an approved “method of estimating” and “manner of determining” the the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, and the centre of gravity. The method/manner is the rigid process to compile, issue, and accept the load sheet, it is not the number on the lower SD screen.

Turn that statement around the other way, if your load sheet indicates ZFW+(Total fuel-taxi) > MTOW and sit at the holding point to burn off a tonne of contingency fuel to be under MTOW based upon fuel burn, that is illegal. That is due to your approved “method of estimating” and “manner of determining” the TOW on the load sheet indicates it is overweight.

Taking off overweight is an offence of strict liability, every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With a valid load sheet and performance data you are covered because it is the approved “method of estimating” and “manner of determining”, if the load sheet that says you are overweight and sit on the ground to burn off contingency fuel you are not covered.

That is not my take on what was going on, they decided to have a look and make their own assessment.

The important thing is knowing that a horizontal windsock is 15 kts and it is located just next to where you want to touch down. Knowing how ATC determines the mean wind is not important, it is important to understand that it is not realtime or at the touchdown point.

That’s what I meant to say :D

There are some here that are holding on just a bit too tight!
Breathe.

Wrong on 2 accounts.

Strict liability does not require proof of fault or carelessness by prosecutor. There is effectively no defence.

“Strict Liability
Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.
Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent”

Most windsocks are 25 knots, meaning if the windsock is straight in the majority of cases you,ve got significantly more than 15 knots. Granted there are 15 knot windsock in use but they are the exception rather than the rule.

And they generally don’t exist at the major city airports in Australia.

The defence of mistake of fact would apply in the case
Source - some bloke called Jonathon Aleck
Cant post the URL but google "Strictly liable, fairly enforced" in FlightSafety

That is not my understanding,

13.1 Legal burden of proof—prosecution
(1) The prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence relevant to the guilt of the person charged.
Note: See section 3.2 on what elements are relevant to a person’s guilt.
(2) The prosecution also bears a legal burden of disproving any matter in relation to which the defendant has discharged an evidential burden of proof imposed on the defendant.
(3) In this Code:
legal burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of proving the existence of the matter.

As an example under CAR 235 it is up to the prosecution to prove the physical element, that you took off overweight and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is a reasonable defence to have accepted a loadsheet that says you are within limits, then to find after landing that there was a loading error and unknowingly had onboard an extra pallet making your 6 tonnes overweight. This is known as defence of reasonable mistake of fact.

What was the topic? Oh the irony...

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow ?


Must be someone here among all these experts that knows :)

I think a few mates might be able to conduct some research on unladen and then laden swallows in Asia and report back.

I stand corrected with regards to the windsock. You are correct in the FAA standard regarding the 15 knots. The Australian MOS does not specify a wind strength, rather it now specifies the dimensions of the windsock and a fabric type that is suitable. It used to be that windsocks were 15 or 25 knots depending on the fabric used.

In terms of the strict liability law, if you took off with the GW indicting over the MTOW of the aircraft, you would be guilty. I do not believe the ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ defence would not cut it in those circumstances.

This whole thread regarding ‘oztranauts’ is enlightening about the standards to which we hold ourselves, and also judge others by - I had a major carrier in Oz report visual a few years ago to approach going into Melbourne. The controller then gave him as traffic to me and told me to maintain my own separation. I replied that would be hard as he was going in and out of cloud ro which the approach controller then applied positive control to us both The problem here was that the other pilot had put the separation of us both at risk by not applying the rules properly.

There are times when breaking the rules are acceptable, but it is not to try and take off 200kgs overweight according to a GW indicator, nor to accept a landing a few knots outside the certified limits of an aircaft’s limits, particularly when there are other options. Being safe, being legal and being practical may not always give you the same outcome, but there is always a right choice.

If you were to google “atsb loading related event” you will see a whole series of events where aircraft have departed with incorrect loads that were only picked up later. The most recent I am aware of was in December with an A330 operating SYD-PEK that took off around 500 kg over MTOW. Nothing will happen to the crew as they were of the reasonable belief the aircraft was loaded correctly around 900 kg lighter.

I am not one for breaking rules, real rules, not ones that have been made up. There is no rule that says an aircraft must have the weight displayed in real time in the cockpit, let alone wait for that value to drop to a magic number before takeoff, or an aircraft cannot commence an approach if the reported tower wind exceeds the tailwind limit.

We have all flown with people with different personal standards that they apply above the regulatory minimum, what this thread in essence is about is people who project their personal standards onto others and pass them off are being the rule when in fact they are just another persons opinion.

Wrap it up! We’ve only just got started, what about the sub groups? The Qaustronauts, Voztronauts, Cobsonauts....;)

I think the administrators should change the website name to Prune. Nothing professional in the dribble on this thread. :ugh:

Trouble with the Australian's I've had to fly with is, they seem to want to reinvent the wheel. It's all been down before by proper pilots decades ago. Tried to tell them, if it ain't broken then don't fix it. Keep it simple! Complicate thinks and people screw up. KIS!!!

Not sure if that's a Freudian slip or a sophisticated play on words. :ok:

The mob I work for need the last two sentences of your post framed and put in the chief pilots office.

Exactly, it ain’t the pilots who started this...

Sorry, typo = screw up. Big hands, big fingers. Too big for the phone key board. Sophisticated? No I'm simple, hence KIS. :}

I was a young F/O in an expat airline in the early 90’s and flew with ex-89-dispute skippers. It was the most fun flying I’ve ever had. These skippers took us newbies under their wings and stood up for us no matter what. Later I was jet-trained and checked by ex-AN skippers, one of which is still the best instructor I’ve ever had. Fast forward, and the roles are now reversed, with me doing the training, often of ex-QF F/Os. Every single one, without exception, has been a pleasure to fly with, selected and trained by a QF training department that obviously got it ‘right’.
Don’t drag an entire community down by how a few misguided individuals behaved way back when.

African or European?

I don't know that ! Arrrrgggghhhhhhhh !!!

Never gets old...

Big hands? Nevertheless John, a profoundly true statement.

The most delightful, professional pilot I ever flew with was from Addis. In the middle of a crew room group of inebriated, and appropriately noisy Aussies, this man entered once, and the Aussies who knew him from prior airlines fawned over him; he was that sort of person. The same program had pilots from some 90 countries, and they varied in their skills, and character, but they generally did a job. Flying with one or the other wasn't so very different, except for the occasional person who would have stood out in any program, for better or worse. Of these, the distribution was pretty much random. That operation was in a location where the book "Cultures Consequences" and it's riveting sequel was appropriate reading.

There is more that we have in common than we are usually prepared to admit.

As a group, tossing the holy hand grenade of Antioch at the group that you have a grievance with is hardly good CRM or consistent with achieving harmonious flight decks. Aussies can be a PITA, just like every other nationality on the planet.

Ask the passengers on QF32 from SIN what they think of Oz captain/pilot/crew capability and persona

Oh sweet Jeebus, I'd steer clear of that question...!

:E

Or the passengers on QF1 at BKK.....

He must have been quite a remarkable man. As your post reads now - this man from Addis entered each Aussie once, and then they all fawned over him.

Your post proves both the remarkable nature of Aussies, and the importance of punctuation.


:E