SYD storm landing.
 

Pilots pull off incredible landing in Sydney storm

An interesting media perspective...

Seems like they had no choice. What's that saying about take offs being optional but landings mandatory?

Still, nice work in difficult conditions.

And what about giving diversion a thought,60 mins Holding to think about and evaluate the changing situation ,and if it's NOT changing then move to your alternate , What if the Heroic Landing had gone wrong? No place for Heroics in present day RPT ,particularly for the Countries Flag Carrier Airline. Mithinks a Tea and Bikky session is already being organised.:yuk:

What I don't get is why they then denigrate Virgin. It suggests that Qantas Media probably wrote the story for them. But I don't think it comes across well when this is the quote in the article:

I'm not suggesting that the crew did anything wrong its just that having that quote in the article gives it a different perspective.

Full marks to this crew for doing their job well but, being one of the pax on a delayed flight from Perth which landed only to sit on the tarmac for two hours, then waited another two hours for bags that never appeared, I wouldn't have thought there was much room for bragging. No press releases about our fuel system issues, or the customer relations chaos at Mascot, or the confused delivery of delayed baggage, or .... It was a really difficult night but plenty of lessons to be learned. I'd be pretty cheesed off if I thought the 'hero' story originated from the airline.

If QANTAS participated in this article, the person involved should be sacked.

If conditions were such that the pilots needed to be "heroes" to land, they had no business putting their passengers at risk by trying the approach. From Bindook, it doesn't take much more fuel to go to CBR or WLM that SYD, and if they held for an hour, they could have bugged out early to BNE or MEL, so it's not like they didn't have choices.

More likely it was just a bit turbulent, the crew did a good and safe job while the ride was a bit uncomfortable, and they put it on the deck in "challenging" winds, and a no-nothing SLF reported it inaccurately.

The outrageous bit is QF seemingly getting on board with it- where did the Captains picture come from?

Linkedin, it says in the article, available for any member to copy.

If you put yourself on LinkedIn and Twitter, its only a matter of time before you get noticed!

And it may not be the notice you were after!

Some people are never happy. In the Crash at Chelsea thread posters are getting stuck into the media for using terms such as "hero" and yet here "hero" is being used to have a go at the crew. The picture up front is a lot different from that which a bloke from the cabin with a microphone shoved in his face might have. When sitting in the cabin with little visual reference everything is exaggerated.

>No place for Heroics in present day

It's all about statistics and eventually the really unusual cases will crop up - if there is a 1% chance of unexpected weather at an aerodrome - and there is a 1% chance of bad weather at the alternate. Eventually you end up with 0.01% chance of both destination and alternate being unsuitable. (yes the maths probably isn't correct if there is a correlation in the weather)


At some point you've got to pick the least bad option and make the best of it. (or come up with better alternatives on the fly.)

Were there aircraft landing before and after this flight? If so...where are the articles about their heroic pilots? If not.....why did the QF flight choose to land while everyone else diverted?

The dailymail.co.uk report is worth looking at. Seems as though there was a "window of opportunity" between cells.

It appears Jerem was a F/O on the A380 until recently and I suspect the B737 is his first command having checked out 2 weeks ago !!!

A passenger once reported to the media that I did a go around due to missing another aeroplane on the runway by 20 meters. I actually did a go around at 20' due to gusty wind conditions.

The crew did an approach and landing on a crappy night. On such days one gets in whilst another doesn't. A 767 and an A330 have gone around in front of me when I've gotten in. In my go around in Melbourne I went around whislt the two aircraft either side of me got in. The next one after that went around.

Should they have diverted? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Maybe that was an option up their sleeve anytime until the reverse thrust deployed. I do know that I trust nothing that is written in the media re these events and I trust nothing that a 'company spokesperson' says about these events either.

Sure Keg,but you didn't take a photo from the LHS POST IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA and then add a caption about landing and being stuck in a Horrific Thunderstorm either...did you ?

All comments are valid, even the ones about how great a job the crew did,the issue really is /was "Command" judgement being used,as well as being demonstrated to have been used,Post Flight Social Media postings when combined with previous comments and postings suggest a disturbing undercurrent of bravado,which could have resulted in more serious outcomes:cool:

In fairness neither did Jerem.

My LinkedIn profile has a piccie of me on it so if ever my name ends up in lights I suspect they'll use that piccie- unless one of my FB friends rats me out and they get hold of those.

My point is that sometimes we don't get a choice about what story the media runs with and the narrative that accompanies that story. So let's go easy on 'why did they make an approach' or 'why didn't they divert' comments. Unless it ends up as an investigation, the reality is that most of us will have zero clue as to how that flight really occurred.

Absolutely yes, the results speak for themselves. See Keg's #15, in particular,