Originally Posted by Zeta_Reticuli
(Post 11291560)
The "West Island" is sarcasm, buddy. Sounds like you haven't spent much time in Australia.
My comment was a generalisation towards paragraphs generalisation of grubby tenants. And I am a pilot, but I have also worked in two other industries filled with kiwis, as every industry in Australia is full of kiwis. Most of them are good, but there is also a common theme among them, especially the macho meathead ones. Always telling everyone how much better "back home is", well then why are you here then? Maybe people could afford to buy homes in NZ, if it were not for every second kiwi working back in Australia to pay for a home in NZ! So if you can generalise renters as grubs, I can generalise paragraph as a grub. but also paragraph, don't worry mate when you vote your beloved communist dictator Ardern in for another term, you will probably have to rent your home back off the government. At least then you will join the rest of us grubs. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 11291665)
Why does Alan have the slicked back hairstyle these days? Is it due to balding? He looks like a pint size mafia hit man who should be carrying a violin case with a machine gun inside it. A massive 8 pound head on top of two tiny shoulders. He gives me the creeps. And as for his apology spiel that he recorded, that was one of the most insincere, unemotional, cue card delivered pieces of utter crap that I have seen in years. Hope he never takes up acting as a career. Just plain woeful.
|
Originally Posted by Wonderworld
(Post 11291794)
I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing that as well when he came into our office one day when I was on shift. Ewwww.
The thought of him referring to his employees as 'our people' made me want to throw up. |
David Evans of QF32 fame https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampprojec...06-p5bfp6.html
|
Originally Posted by bazza stub
(Post 11291871)
Simple answer for Alan if he’s so confident with the safety of his outsourced operation would be to make himself criminally liable for anything that goes wrong. If the operation is so safe he shouldn’t have an issue with that surely.
|
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 11291577)
So basically it will be “I’ll look into it”, so she’ll contact CASA, they’ll confirm that they’re happy with how current ops are going and all Safety Management Systems are working and that will be the end of that.
Qantas safety: CASA says it’s confident in airline (smh.com.au) |
CASA has no interest in taking Qantas head on. They look at the manuals to ensure that the SMS is in place an operating IAW said manuals but no way are they going to look at the engineering shop floor or the ramp to uncover potential safety issues. They would just agree with Alan and consider it part of a Union plot to undermine the brand that is Qantas. It would also impact on their access to the Chairman's lounge.
|
The real question to ask CASA is: What contraventions of the aviation law by Qantas or its personnel have you ever found?
I'd love to watch the spin doctors spin their way around that one. |
The real question to ask CASA is: What contraventions of the aviation law by Qantas or its personnel have you ever found? |
But when things ‘happen’, they still do what exactly? Air Asia X will always be a classic example. Racked up a dozen safety, all serious, safety investigations, yet not a single sanction. I was far from impressed with the approach taken towards that operator, which was do nothing.
When I wrote to CASA asking why I continue to share airspace with the operator citing about two dozen incidents here and abroad, they simply advised they had conducted ramp checks, reviewed manuals, procedures, which sat at standard or above. Now my issue isn’t with paperwork, it’s with the check and training departments, and poor CRM. I have never seen such a disregard for Airbus procedures in my entire career. Yet nothing was done. I don’t think anyone gets special treatment. It’s just, everyone gets no treatment. |
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
(Post 11291683)
He has a handshake that makes you want to wash and disinfect your hands afterwards. Only met him the once and wiped my hand down my trouser leg after escaping his limp grip.
Or any passenger for that matter. |
Poppajo:
don’t think anyone gets special treatment. It’s just, everyone gets no treatment. 1978 was when I built an IT based engineering defect analysis system to provide reports to the regulator; “tell us how safe you are “ was the CAA request. The system calculated our performance using statistical quality control methods and every month we sent the report to CAA. Never heard from them again. ‘’Fast forward to 2018 - QANTAS pilot mate: “They come around asking questions, we tell them bull####, they go away”. ‘’Now if you are a GA person CASA can and will make your life hell if they feel like it because the aircraft are easy to understand and you do not have the political clout that QANTAS has. |
I doubt any current employee would shake his hand. Those that appeared on 4C should be very proud. VERY proud. |
Originally Posted by T-Vasis
(Post 11292128)
David Evans of QF32 fame https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampprojec...06-p5bfp6.html
“It all could have been solved so easily by Qantas showing some reciprocal loyalty to its dedicated and loyal staff, which could have been transferred to our loyal and dedicated passengers.” Did this article just finish or did I miss the details around this magical solution where you don’t cut any costs despite going through a crisis and bleeding to death? :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11292057)
I always made sure to never let him or any of his sidekicks get close enough to be able to shake my hand.
The thought of him referring to his employees as 'our people' made me want to throw up. |
Originally Posted by Gunner747400
(Post 11292133)
You hit it right on the head.
Qantas safety: CASA says it’s confident in airline (smh.com.au) Qantas launches investigation into overloaded Sydney flight (smh.com.au) |
Prediction as to what Q, ATSB and CASA will conclude: There was never any risk to safety.
|
I take your point, but there actually wasn’t. If 160 kgs was critical then they had better start weighing passengers.
|
Thought it was rather amusing that they felt the need to state that the baggage handling for the flight was conducted but “our in house team” in there internal email..
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 11293410)
I take your point, but there actually wasn’t. If 160 kgs was critical then they had better start weighing passengers.
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 11293410)
I take your point, but there actually wasn’t. If 160 kgs was critical then they had better start weighing passengers.
(Coincidentally, for the first time I've ever heard in on a commercial jet, an announcement was made, while we were disembarking, that the rear passengers had to quickly move to the front of the aircraft because there was a risk it would tip back on its tail. Australian carrier. 21st century. I kid you not.) |
Not uncommon to unload a dash 8 as quick as possible to avoid it getting tail heavy . A new casa inspector lost it over standard weights for bags and pax , plus carry on not weighed and rang the shonky bell . Proceeded direct to his boss with his findings only to be told to let it go .
|
The aircraft I was disembarking wasn't a Dash 8...
|
Originally Posted by KAPAC
(Post 11293419)
Not uncommon to unload a dash 8 as quick as possible to avoid it getting tail heavy . A new casa inspector lost it over standard weights for bags and pax , plus carry on not weighed and rang the shonky bell . Proceeded direct to his boss with his findings only to be told to let it go .
The new CASA inspector hopefully now realises that the rules are for the powerless to comply with; optional for others. |
LMC: A key point the TV show didn't highlight was The Dublin Commoners' base salary was already restored to pre-covid levels with a nice 15% pay rise, in 2022 FYI.
Check the Australian for the details. Brief excerpt: "Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has pocketed a 15 per cent pay rise in 2022 after his base salary was restored to pre-pandemic levels. Despite poor on-time performance, lost baggage and rising fares, new disclosures show Mr Joyce’s total pay from $1.98m to $2.27m in the 12 months to June 30. However, this remains significantly below Mr Joyce’s pay before the Covid-19 pandemic, when his earnings hit $10m after bonuses. Other executives have also had their remuneration increased, the new disclosures show. In particular, Qantas chief financial officer Vanessa Hudson has seen her total salary rise $236,000 to $1.44m." Happy Landings:ok: |
Originally Posted by Brakerider
(Post 11293413)
they do weigh passengers for lord Howe flights.
|
I'd be more worried about how much luggage goes in overheads and under seats these days on top of the standard passenger weight. Some of the city pair full flights where they are putting cabin bags in the hold the lockers are filled to the brim and with many underseat bags. I know some companies account for the weight of excessive cabin baggage, but not sure if that's widespread. So much for 5-10 kg per passenger....
|
Indeed. Just goes to show:
|
Problem with transport category the margin is huge in normal ops. Its when one donk goes pop that you test how those figures work. I only know of one recent shut down that occurred a few knots after V1 (bird ingestion), mid weights and the TP climbed fine and returned to land. All the other shut downs I know of have been conducted at higher altitude with lots of speed margin.
It would be interesting to know what the performance of a 737 loaded with maximum passengers (many over the standard weight) and fuel, then stacked with carry on luggage, dirt from service, peeling paint and scuffs and dents from service would climb like after a failure at V1. Not something I want to really find out on the spot. That being said I've played in a few sims with ice weight and can easily get many extra tons in addition to max weight before it gets unhappy, but that's with two engines. Another issue entirely is how accurate are the basic weights to begin with, but that's a whole topic in itself. |
Spot on. Just goes to show that the current (new) Minister’s comment that “there is no margin for error in aviation safety” is - fortunately - naively misguided. But that suits the ‘safety’ regulator quite nicely - thank you very much - as it can be trotted out when convenient.
|
The actual situation reflects the general state of precision in the every day world. Some flights depart lighter/some depart heavier than computed. Almost none depart at the exact figure. Does 1% or 2% matter? Likely not. Maybe 1 or 2% on climb ratios.
About 25 years ago I flew a MEL-SYD sector in a 737-400. The aircraft flew sluggishly. I voiced my displeasure to the F/O who then made a Federal case out of it with ops. The load was weighed on arrival and found to be 4400+ kgs over. Reports filed. War dances danced. Threats issued, loaders tasered. Nothing else was ever heard. Tell me again about strict liability. |
4400kg on a -400 is about 5% of MTOW, whether there is issues depends on a variety of things. If it was flying sluggish on 2 engines, think what it would be like on one accelerating from a few knots above V1. Then you have issues like Zero Fuel weight and the impact of overloads over a number of flights over time affecting fatigue life, gear limits, brakes and hydraulics, who knows, maybe pickle forks. If one flight departs accidentally over weight every now and then there is not much chance of the holes lining up, however the more often it happens the more likely we get answers to the questions posed in worst case scenarios.
Its a bit like saying there's nothing wrong with a truck being overloaded, until you have to brake suddenly to avoid an accident, or start down an steep descent and find the brakes fade out. Or engine and drive train wear out at half life because they have been working overtime. |
On the topic of W&B, I’ve often wondered why manufacturers don’t install weight sensors in all the undercarriage bogeys.
You’d get an accurate Ramp weight and CG to compare with load sheet. Hmm… I may have inadvertently just answered my own question. |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 11293696)
The actual situation reflects the general state of precision in the every day world. Some flights depart lighter/some depart heavier than computed. Almost none depart at the exact figure. Does 1% or 2% matter? Likely not. Maybe 1 or 2% on climb ratios.
About 25 years ago I flew a MEL-SYD sector in a 737-400. The aircraft flew sluggishly. I voiced my displeasure to the F/O who then made a Federal case out of it with ops. The load was weighed on arrival and found to be 4400+ kgs over. Reports filed. War dances danced. Threats issued, loaders tasered. Nothing else was ever heard. Tell me again about strict liability. But in the real world, day in day out, strict liability offences are committed with no consequences. As I’ve said, in this case I predict that Q, ATSB and CASA will come to the conclusion that there was no risk to safety. So think about that: A strict liability offence provision, justified by the regulator on the ground of safety, is contravened but contravention is found by the regulator not to have caused any safety risk. It makes perfect (non)sense. |
And think about how many strict liability cases we have covered in the last few weeks, from low fuel events, to security issues, to now overweight departure. And what charges have been laid, or fines issued? I doubt we will even see the reports as they will be handled 'in house' and distributed only to those that need to see. These scenarios need to be 100% transparent as the traveling public is being told the line that all this cost and severe penalties are required, but apparently doesn't apply if you are big enough to manage it yourself. And as said before it seems the rules only apply if you are an individual or small operator with no political clout. I've been through ATSB investigation and can say that the companies involved will strongly oppose any finding that will lead to changes, especially related to fatigue and working conditions, and the findings watered down so that nothing but some safety management system changes are rolled out, ie the constant finding that pilots are responsible to manage their own fatigue in a commercial environment.
|
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11293972)
And think about how many strict liability cases we have covered in the last few weeks, from low fuel events, to security issues, to now overweight departure. And what charges have been laid, or fines issued? I doubt we will even see the reports as they will be handled 'in house' and distributed only to those that need to see. These scenarios need to be 100% transparent as the traveling public is being told the line that all this cost and severe penalties are required, but apparently doesn't apply if you are big enough to manage it yourself. And as said before it seems the rules only apply if you are an individual or small operator with no political clout. I've been through ATSB investigation and can say that the companies involved will strongly oppose any finding that will lead to changes, especially related to fatigue and working conditions, and the findings watered down so that nothing but some safety management system changes are rolled out, ie the constant finding that pilots are responsible to manage their own fatigue in a commercial environment.
|
Don’t forget the other purveyors of crapp in aviation, the good folk from the Bureau of Climate Change aka BoM.
ATSB/CASA seem to give them free reign with producing forecasts that are produced by somebody using a woogie board or tea cup leaf reading. |
Nothing you can do about weather forecasting unless somebody is proven to maliciously produce a false forecast to mislead. It's an imprecise science in its nature in that we only can predict a chaotic system so far based on limited precis information. Things like fog and thunderstorms are highly local knowledge based, even then the locals get it wrong sometimes. The BOM is protected from legal repercussion as you'd have airlines, shipping, graziers and a myriad of other businesses claiming billions in restitution when a bad forecast goes out. Then you'd just end up with no one wanting to do it.
|
The new Policy developed by Qantas Executive Management should immediately resolve all the current problems and complaints: https://www.theshovel.com.au/2022/06...BKByqmm5ZHzKpg
|
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11293997)
Nothing you can do about weather forecasting unless somebody is proven to maliciously produce a false forecast to mislead. It's an imprecise science in its nature in that we only can predict a chaotic system so far based on limited precis information. Things like fog and thunderstorms are highly local knowledge based, even then the locals get it wrong sometimes. The BOM is protected from legal repercussion as you'd have airlines, shipping, graziers and a myriad of other businesses claiming billions in restitution when a bad forecast goes out. Then you'd just end up with no one wanting to do it.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.