Making the air...err...clearer?
 

I spoke to a QF skipper, who just recently reported a DJ crew for landing at Tulla with approx 420mtrs visibility. He was second in behind him & was told by the tower that it was between 500-800mtrs. I won't bother with repeating the conversation, but a DJ crew had the last laugh over the air with him. ;)

This made me wonder if there is a set minimum distance for visibility or if it's at the pilots discretion? I know that airports don't really "close" like they used to for weather, due to, amongst other things, liability, but do they have any CASA regs that prohibit landings under a set distance? :confused:

And how exactly did the QF skipper decide on what vis the VB crew experienced on their approach..?

Chuck.

Obviously the QANTAS bloke has not heard of the phrase - "people in glass houses...."

What business is it of the QF skipper to dob in the DJ crew?

The determination of runway visibility on landing is up to the crew - they are authorised met observers for that purpose.

I assume it wasn't fog, and rain can move through giving variable visibility.

Did the QF bloke land by the way?

Bad enough officious pilots dobbing you in, what about aviations most over qualified, F/As.

A couple of years ago, Melbourne weather about the minima, and all attempted arrivals diverted, except for two Ansett A320s.

Incensed Flight Attendants accused the A320 crews of making unauthorised use of the aircrafts autoland function( the system was not approved for use in Australia).

Ansett F/A Association approached the Flight Department. The reply given was that A320s had "big windows" which gave Airbus crews an advantage in low viz ops.

The Flight Attendants were happy with this response!

Buster, how were the VB crew dobbed in? Over the radio or by phone at flight completion?

Hang on, we are all way out of line here. We should be realising that Qantas invented aviation and as a result, they have the right to tell people how to fly aeroplanes.

Not withstanding this, they went over Boeing's head in promulgating non Boeing approved procedures when they ran QF1 off the runway in Bangkok.

What do you expect from a pack of w@nkers who's press to talk button is between their legs?

To answer your question, Buster - "Yes", there are minimum visibility and cloud base minimums set for each approach.
These minima (the plural of minimum) vary from airport to airport and depend upon the type of radio aid(s) used for the approach, the elevation and surrounding local terrain, the type of approach and runway lighting, and the qualifications of the crew conducting the approach - amongst other things.
Minima at one end of a runway may be different to that at the other end.

In some countries, approaches are permitted to be made under zero visibility conditions - but not in Oz as yet (because of the standard of the pilots!! :D :D ....that was tongue-in-cheek, by the way, for those who suffer from a sense of humour failure!).

As Chimbu Chuck pointed out in the first response to your thread opener, "And how exactly did the QF skipper decide on what vis the VB crew experienced on their approach..?
Even in fog conditions, minima fluctuate (due to convection, wind...no matter how light...isobaric, and mechanical disturbances), and so although one pilot may report a particular set of values encountered on his approach visibility and cloud base may have changed considerably for an aircraft 3-5 miles behind.

The QANTAS "skipper" has displayed his obvious LACK of knowledge - not to mention UNPROFESSIONALISM - in making such STUPID statements, imho!

The ONLY other person who would have been capable of making the assessment of the minima encountered by the DJ PF (pilot flying), was the other pilot in the cockpit with him at that time!

A few years ago one of Ansetts most infamous Captains "stole";) a landing in fog at Melborne. The airport had been socked in for an hour before and didn't open until mid-morning the next day. He claimed that the vis increased to 800m for a few seconds just as he arrived at the minima. Now thats a bit of a co-incidence:rolleyes:

I was on the frequency when the Sky God asked for the DJ flight number that had just landed in the foggy conditions. At that stage the SG was holding at least 20nm from ML. At the time we both laughed at the arrogant attitude of the QF bloke. As if HE could determine what the vis was at the DA for that particular approach at that particular time. Thats why the decision to land is left to the Captain of the aircraft and not QF flight operations. By the way the fog was very patchy, Vis fluctuated from about 400m out to 1000m+ along the length of the RWYs. Sounds like the DJ got lucky!

Arrogance unlimited
 

Isn't it amazing the attitude that gets instilled in some staff by any given company's management.

Not to say that QF management teaches its pilots to hawkishly watch other crews flying techniques and decisions and criticise accordingly, but when you repeatedly tell some people (ie - not all people, just the minority) that they are "the best of the best" for a considerable period of time they actually start believing it.

The entire way Qantas runs its business needs to be changed. Financially the airline is a powerhouse. In terms of staff morale and customer service at best Qantas is tolerated. At worst it is laughed at. Loudly.

Allegedly. :mad:

I say let Qantas continue with their arrogance. it only serves to p$ss everyone off and gives weight to more people wanting to fly with better airlines.

In Qantas, and it's pilots view, they are the best airline in the world. An attitude that will cause them to come very unstuck in the future.

What they don't realise is that people only fly QF because they have to.

Taxiing at CBR last week on the way to MLB, the QF Captain over-rode the cabin crew's safety instructions to inform the passengers that a Virgin Blue plane had got in front of us and we would therefore be delayed a few minutes. Cabin crew were delivering the safety instructions verbally as there was some sort of problem with the pre-recorded message. The height of arrogance (like who the hell are DJ to jump the queue!!!) and rudeness, I thought. So the plane was going to be delayed a few minutes getting into MLB - big deal. Who cares. Captain obviously though it was more important than passengers being told how to exit the plane in the case of an emergency.

:D

Wasn't there when it happened (as it appears that the majority of contributors to this thread weren't) but it is ONE bloke out of 2200+ pilots who are currently employed as aircrew for Qantas Airways Ltd.

But you're right you know. The WHOLE airline must be cactus. ALL QF pilots think they are God's gift to aviation. Heaven forbid I don't know why we aren't having a prang every day with that sort of attitude. :rolleyes:

If we are going to start picking on each others transmissions and questions, then it is going to get real messy in a hurry. Here are a couple for you. Landed in MEL after flying all nighit from HKG. Boss stuck it on the 1000' markers in what would have appeared as a 'solid' landing but was in reality quite a smooth one. VB bloke at the holding point comes up with 'Doh, that must've hurt'.

Second instance. VB taxiing in at SYD the day after the MEL comment . Tower reminds them that they've left strobes on long after exiting the runway. Bloke petulantly asks if tower would like to 'do checklist for him too'.

The point is, both examples were 'unprofessional' and displayed an ignorance of the world around them and an arrogance that I found breathtaking (just as breath taking as one of ours 'dobbing' in someone esle from 20 nm away if that is the way it happened). Did I immediately leap onto PPRUNE and lambast ALL DJ crews as thinking highly of themselves and thinking that they are the best pilots known to man kind. No I didn't and the reason why is that I acknowledge and accept that no airline is perfect and we all have our fair share of wallies that we share the flight deck with.

The arrogance and snide tone from most contributors on this particular thread is the EXACT attitude that they claim ALL QF drivers have. Arrogance, holier than thou, ignorance, willing to 'jump' on percieved transgressions and denigrate perpertrator. And someone mentioned 'people in glass houses.........'

Keep patting yourselves on the back about this one boys and keep telling yourselves whatever it is you want to believe about Qantas crews. Most of us know that we're no better or worse than most other 'first world' carriers from around the world- we just keep striving to be better. That you guys would choose to paint an entire airline on the basis of the occaisional stupid radio comment shows what small minded people pilots can still be- just as small minded as the bloke who was the reason behind this thread to start off with.

Happy New Year. I look forward to sharing the sky in 2003 with perfect pilots like the ones that grace this thread. :rolleyes:

..whatever happened to that lovely attitude of 20-30 years ago where we all looked after each other ? .... if you saw or heard a guy make a mistake of any significance (didn't matter what colour tailfeathers), he was prompted in a nice, discreet manner ... if an impending screw up was obviously on the cards, you did likewise .... and the same applied to ATC interactions.

Has it really got to the stage where everyone is so full of self importance that we forget the main aim of the game ? .. to get to the overnight fun in one piece and without embarrassment ?

Keg

This type of behaviour is alarmingly regular in your airline.

Was or would the Captain be chastised by Management for an obvious breach of airmanship?

If nothing done by management or behaviour like this not discouraged by the pilot group, fair to assume this to be your culture.

On Virgin Blue. After having a few drinks at the Hamo recently, have concluded their cultural evolution will be fascinating.

Was impressed with the co-ordination of one young skipper. He could tell us about himself, chew gum and drink beer all at the same time! Super cool.

I guess I'd be as bitter, envious and frustrated as frank Borman if I'd had the ten or so employment rejection letters from the big Q that he's obviously had.

So was the QF captain short haul or long haul? Having come across from Ansett to Qantas short haul, I find the cultures to be almost the same. Sure there may be one or two who show arrogance, but what airline doesn't have them?

Would it matter EPIRB? Far easier for the feeble minded to tar everyone with the same brush.

Thats real comical Ozzy considering I've only applied with QF once and once only and yes, I got the reapply in 12 months letter after having passed all the selection criteria, so yes I'm honest about my past QF aspirations.

However, I now have the offer of joining an overseas airline this March, so my silly little freind, no bitterness here, though, I like how your total lack of knowledge about someones background leads you to judge their attitude.

Oh, and by the way, I not only have airline experience already gained here, but safety experience gained in safety investigations.

Just because someone loathes another airline, does not mean they are bitter and twisted, though like I said, I like how you join the flock and use the age old boring term. Can't you think for yourself?

Gee Frank, you sound really bitter and twisted about Qantas. It would appear that you've taken your rejection pretty badly.

Hey Frank, why didn't you reapply to Qantas after twelve months?

Must have touched a raw nerve with frank.

To define a group of individuals in its entirety based upon the actions or attitudes of a small minority defies logic and commonsense. Think about what that sort of mentality leads to, Nazi Germany springs to mind.

Maybe that's it, frank Borman, any relation to Martin?