Stop making perfect sense A.
The bottom line is that Q do not want an ATSB investigation, as that may get reported in the media and so the independent statutory body obliges them.
Q are happy, the ATSB is happy and the travelling public is happy as they are not informed,
It is just those pesky safety orientated pilots who are unhappy.
Imagine if pilots had a representative body like the AMA or the bar association to lobby for them? (no I do not compare our job to theirs just their ability to organise themselves)

You mean like QF888 which had an engine shutdown due to a misdiagnosed fuel leak and diversion to a CTAF? Splashed all over the media? No, QF have enough bad publicity with BAU let alone a wingtip clash on the ground. The ATSB can choose to investigate or not to investigate, I can imagine that they don't consider this to be worth their limited resources to investigate.

Watching their phones? I often look around the ground staff below the aircraft and count the number who are interacting with their phones. Not that long ago when I did the job I would have been pulled aside by the leading hand if I had done that and briefed on staying alert and scanning every aircraft for leaks and open hatches. I don’t blame any of them as they haven’t been trained up like we were but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a groundy to spot the pitot covers that have been left on or the fuel leak that’s just started, or the wing tip collision that is about to happen.
I should say that there are some awesome ground staff that do all of those things but often the number staring at their phones is in the majority.
Gotta go…just seen the shadow of a cloud racing across my back yard

QF780 MEL PER 3 MAR
 

Can someone who is not 'new around here' please post the Flightradar24 track of QF780 from MEL to PER on 3 March? It seems the aircraft headed north to the Longreach/Winton area before turning towards Perth, adding an additional two hours to the flight.

Does someone (else?) know what happened?

Unfortunately I cannot post it myself because 'I am new around here' - which is a misnomer as I have been a member since the late 90s under the handle of Pedota - but that seems to have disappeared.

Cheers

Pedota(s)

It is common practice in Perth for QF aircraft to be holding short of the stand waiting for an engineer, as even though their break room is 50m from the stands, and presuming they know when the flights are arriving, they are still unable to make it to the stand in time to hit the NIGS button. That has been an issue for years.

The exact reason on the odd occasion we are requested to do an engine run on the bay I refuse to have any part of it. As if!! Swisscheese crew wondering around on their phones! I won't have a bar of it. Gotta be paid to care yeah $

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...qf780#3437fc04

There seem to be a lot of posters on here who think that the function of a NIGS is to guide an aircraft onto the correct lead-in line.

ATC have been closing a lot of airspace lately.

ETOPS restrictions due to unserviceable item(s) on aircraft perhaps? Been a few flights doing similar routes recently.

Non-ETOPS and runway works in Adelaide?? Not sure why Edinburgh would not have been an adequate for ETOPS if Mt Isa was (by the look of the track).
Oh and it was PER - MEL not the other way.

Edinburgh cannot be used as an alternate, and lacks sufficient RFF capacity if it was for an A330

Thread Drift!

@Pedotas, it is extremely rude to star a completely different topic in an already-running thread. Please start a new thread if you want talk or ask about something different.

All quiet here, which undoubtedly suits QF. Herein an overview, but no answers...

Let's first look at the gates in question, say, 17 - 19:
B737 and smaller can park all three simultaneously with no restrictions. However, for example, putting a wide-body on, say, Bay 18, immediately blocks-off Bays 17 & 19. Bay 18A is thus a work-around for a wide-body as it then only additionally blocks-off Bay 19.

Now let's look at the ground players:
'Alpha' Site coordinator/ 'Qantas Perth' 129.5MHz
'Kilo' In-terminal meet & dispatch
'Oscar' Tarmac meet and dispatch

My understanding Oscar is always an engineer for B737, probably because this type may be assigned either aerobridge or stand-off bays, with the latter requiring active marshalling. However, because wide-body always operate to/from aerobridges with NIGS appropriately trained contractors perform this role. There is NO possibility of random baggage handlers being assigned these tasks!

Now the sequence of events:

Around 150nm to go QF939 calls QF PER/ Oscar and is assigned Bay 19.

A short while later QF857 calls and is (presumably) assigned Bay 18A. Hmmm. If the tech crew here had 'local knowledge' would they not immediately query this allocation, given there is no compatible NIGS? On the other hand a crew less familiar with PER and at the end of a long day would understandably be more inclined to 'go with the flow'. Regardless, when eventually approaching the bays the timeline at post #16 indicates that 857 hesitated for a minute or so before committing to Bay 18A. So, there was some confusion/doubt which unfortunately 'flipped' the wrong way.

The assignation of Bay 18A seems unfathomable; so could it be unintentional? For example, could Oscar has assigned 18 to the crew, then through 'finger trouble' assigned 18A to Kilo and Oscar?

Whatever. The two final swiss cheese holes to align are Kilo and Oscar. Kilo unlikely to have the tarmac knowledge to spy something amiss, but surely this comment does not apply to engineer Oscar?

Assignation ≠ Assignment

Proofreader fail. ;)