Pathetic
 

Try flying with the guy :rolleyes:

I heard this in an extract of his "book" on radio ".... Landing an A380 is a precision exercise."

Unlike landing any other modern jet transport.

I turned the radio off.

Well he does have a new 'novel' to flog!

It's an insult to the those in QF that really did make a difference
The ground and flight staff whom made up the crew for the Catalina aircraft that flew the "Double Sunrise". It takes more than a pilot to make a flight successful!

its the easiest by a significant margin that I've come across

Beautiful even

One of the best, and most honest, unintentional yet clever put-downs I have ever seen was in a crew bar with a couple of crews when Discrepancy wandered in. One Capt at the table immediately piped up with the greeting 'G'day Mate! we saw your crew heading off to xxxx up the road - they'll still be there!'. Stifled laughter from around the table as the subtlety of the comment sunk in. The Capt involved genuinely hadn't meant to be 'rude' but did admit that it just 'popped out'. It was a beautiful thing to witness:)

I don't think you can equate the 146 incident with the 380. Saw from the tower a Lear recover single engine via a GCA in absolutely atrocious weather after a double engine failure due ice ingestion, managed to relight one, even though compressor damage was extensive. Just doing their job i guess, self preservation and all. You may rail about the afterwards/circus of the 380 event, but it certainly was a major, major event in terms of an airborne emergency. I've always wondered what the outcome may have been had there been only two occupants on the flight deck to handle the work load.

Yes Megan, good point though both were effective use of all the crew at hand (senior fleet A380) and tools available, to end with the same number of landings to takeoffs.:ok: Both Widebody heavies :p
The Ansett BAE146 "rollback" incident was shown afterwards by a good, though cheesey CRM Video, while Ansett's CRM video of their Sydney B747 incident won awards.
Somehow I doubt QF capable of doing likewise with this.
Here's a good place to confirm / dispel events that may have occurred afterwards. I have no "horse in the race" so don't shoot the messenger:
* He wasn't "Cleared to Line" until close to a year later, given it was his last sector of a final check, requiring 4 sectors?
* The same scenario was replicated in the sim, to which everyone failed, even after all the criticism of him?

How this bloke is now, long after the fact, I don't care too much for as it's the flights safe result and CRM points that we can learn from it, that are important.
We already know the catalyst - an incorrectly bored alloy tube that split under pressure & leaked etc etc but what about an objective look into the human factors side?
Happy Landings:ok:

Bloodyhard,
The reference to 4 highly trained pilots was deliberate I would suggest. :D

Thanks for the replies as this is good, everyone is learning something.
No sorry I'm not confusing it with the Hudson River event, as it was talk in Singapore when I was there at the time it occurred.

"The A380 suffered a single engine failure albeit uncontained." ... is quite a rubbish simplification of the whole event seriously.

The disintegration of "the single engine failure" Intermediate turbine, caused multiple failures of many systems and flight controls. Fragments of the failed engine flung out, resulting in structural and systems damage. It also severed critical wiring routes, which rendered signals erroneous or devoid. "Uncontained"? I suggest you reword that.

That is where the CRM story begins, after such unexpected multiple failures.
Handing over...