SIN SAT 12th AT 1630 local
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering this is a PROFESSIONAL pilots forum I am dismayed at the total lack of common sense / airmanship being exhibited by some. (I have to add that I assume the conditions exactly described as GE existed.) We have had the calm / considered / tutoring approaches - all very easy when its not your wife & kids are not sat behind the four clowns in charge - & the politically correct postings where 'no blame' can exist. To the idiots who point out no rules were broken I point out that an Ops manual cannot cover every conceivable combination of operational issues - hence the Captain on board, who (is supposed to) assimilate the information into one big picture & make a SAFE decision. For those of you who don't understand what a Swiss cheese is think 'Russian Roulette', and for every difficulty with the departure add a round into the chamber. Pretty soon its full up. To dumb it all down further a previous airline CRM used the "3 ambers" method - ie to STOP when those were achieved. (eg XXRA + lightning + TWC)
I recently experience an Oz airport closing down on me for an hour or so recently due TSRA - peeved me a little as a Capt having the departure desicion taken out of my hands - but given the professionalism raised by this thread now begin to understand why.
I can see the danger of Pprune 'rants' agains colleagues doing daft things - that said surely no drama for any respective Flt Safety / training dept to dig a little as a result - & retrain / issue guidance to their inexperienced crews if found lacking before someone gets seriously hurt.
I recently experience an Oz airport closing down on me for an hour or so recently due TSRA - peeved me a little as a Capt having the departure desicion taken out of my hands - but given the professionalism raised by this thread now begin to understand why.
I can see the danger of Pprune 'rants' agains colleagues doing daft things - that said surely no drama for any respective Flt Safety / training dept to dig a little as a result - & retrain / issue guidance to their inexperienced crews if found lacking before someone gets seriously hurt.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GE..I agree with your posts.
Clive.....what a load of old twaddle.Nicely syntaxed etc but please...how many holes in the Swiss Cheese do you want lined up?
And an intersection departure!
Heavy Rain, Tailwind ON limit, Lightning, Windshear.....
And you seriously considering a takeoff?
One question......why?
Suggest drug tests for Jetstar and the other outfit that departed from the intersection on said day....Because you must of been high.
If so...one question.....why?
Clive.....what a load of old twaddle.Nicely syntaxed etc but please...how many holes in the Swiss Cheese do you want lined up?
And an intersection departure!
Heavy Rain, Tailwind ON limit, Lightning, Windshear.....
And you seriously considering a takeoff?
One question......why?
Suggest drug tests for Jetstar and the other outfit that departed from the intersection on said day....Because you must of been high.
If so...one question.....why?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: BNE
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wayan,
Seems you have either misread my post, or have read it early in your research and mixed my message with those of others.
Before relegating my post to that of "a lot of old twaddle" can I respectfully request that you read it again.
My motive was to warn the "thread starter" that as a new contributor to this place he/she should be careful how such "preaching" is formulated as there was a risk that the approach taken could bury a very important message within the usual mud-slinging seen here.
Given the tone of a great number of the posts which followed - I rest my case on that point.
In answer to your question.... No, there is no way I would consider a takeoff in the conditions stated. In fact during my 30 years in Airlines I have been faced with many similar decisions, within Australia, Asia The Americas and Europe, and have taken the same risk averse stance as suggested in the opening post. Hence my praise of GE's mature approach to the conditions!
In support of my case, let me quote from my own post.....
"Having said all that.... great to hear that your approach to the conditions indicates a mature approach to safety. I'm just suggesting you take a similar approach to your posts to avoid a "pprune attack" resulting in the message being lost, which is often the result in this place".
In hindsight, now knowing GE's experience level, I'm sure I do not need to counsel him/her on the pitfalls of the use of this forum as I'm sure he/she can handle him/herself.
I will now gracefully retire from the argument in the hope that my stance is clear.
“There is nothing that will stop the free flow of information as quickly as a dead messenger” (Huntzinger, D. L., 1996. Safety saves money. Flight Safety Australia, 14 – 17.).
Seems you have either misread my post, or have read it early in your research and mixed my message with those of others.
Before relegating my post to that of "a lot of old twaddle" can I respectfully request that you read it again.
My motive was to warn the "thread starter" that as a new contributor to this place he/she should be careful how such "preaching" is formulated as there was a risk that the approach taken could bury a very important message within the usual mud-slinging seen here.
Given the tone of a great number of the posts which followed - I rest my case on that point.
In answer to your question.... No, there is no way I would consider a takeoff in the conditions stated. In fact during my 30 years in Airlines I have been faced with many similar decisions, within Australia, Asia The Americas and Europe, and have taken the same risk averse stance as suggested in the opening post. Hence my praise of GE's mature approach to the conditions!
In support of my case, let me quote from my own post.....
"Having said all that.... great to hear that your approach to the conditions indicates a mature approach to safety. I'm just suggesting you take a similar approach to your posts to avoid a "pprune attack" resulting in the message being lost, which is often the result in this place".
In hindsight, now knowing GE's experience level, I'm sure I do not need to counsel him/her on the pitfalls of the use of this forum as I'm sure he/she can handle him/herself.
I will now gracefully retire from the argument in the hope that my stance is clear.
“There is nothing that will stop the free flow of information as quickly as a dead messenger” (Huntzinger, D. L., 1996. Safety saves money. Flight Safety Australia, 14 – 17.).
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you have it.
I do believe though having operated big tin into and out of Asia for a few years now, the type of incident described by GE is a wake up for some.
If you have two out of three (Rain so loud you struggle to hear the FO, Lightning,Crosswind/Tailwind) I would imagine staying put to be very prudent.
Sounded like there was more than two of these elements present.
Loss of face, OTD etc etc is never an excuse for running of the end of the runway or worse.
If anyone reads Ge's post and does not get the hairs on the back of their neck standing up, you are to jaded or stupid to be making these kind of decisions
I do believe though having operated big tin into and out of Asia for a few years now, the type of incident described by GE is a wake up for some.
If you have two out of three (Rain so loud you struggle to hear the FO, Lightning,Crosswind/Tailwind) I would imagine staying put to be very prudent.
Sounded like there was more than two of these elements present.
Loss of face, OTD etc etc is never an excuse for running of the end of the runway or worse.
If anyone reads Ge's post and does not get the hairs on the back of their neck standing up, you are to jaded or stupid to be making these kind of decisions
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree that policies and procedures have strictly adhered to, weather isn't a matter you always can squeeze into paragraphs.
I can imagine that GE is absolutely correct, I just want to point out it could also be different. I saw too many "clowns" in the tropics, having not really a great idea about how the local weather behaves, thus executing strange decisions, which didn't grant them necessarily more safety.
I remember a crew in front of us from a well renowned international Australian carrier, doing all kind of maneuvres, starting with an approach from the north, asking for vectors all around the airport, just because he saw some red on his radars, ending up trying a bit from the south, realizing he was much too close to the runway and executing a go around. Meanwhile he was blocking everyone else behind him doing a real planned approach, i.e. slip under the first few build ups and discovering that behind there was a clear blue sky.
I see nothing wrong in taxiing through a XXTS, lining up and checking his radar. If you still see nothing but red, then maybe I would wait a few minutes. If you see nothing but red it might also be just plain rain. And if you were not there lined up on the RWY and checked your radar you have no objective reason to blame them. Period. They are responsible for themselves - you didn't have to fly with them. We know that flight safety isn't everywhere the same. I could also tell you stories about airlines in HKG which sound strange to me.
Dani
I can imagine that GE is absolutely correct, I just want to point out it could also be different. I saw too many "clowns" in the tropics, having not really a great idea about how the local weather behaves, thus executing strange decisions, which didn't grant them necessarily more safety.
I remember a crew in front of us from a well renowned international Australian carrier, doing all kind of maneuvres, starting with an approach from the north, asking for vectors all around the airport, just because he saw some red on his radars, ending up trying a bit from the south, realizing he was much too close to the runway and executing a go around. Meanwhile he was blocking everyone else behind him doing a real planned approach, i.e. slip under the first few build ups and discovering that behind there was a clear blue sky.
I see nothing wrong in taxiing through a XXTS, lining up and checking his radar. If you still see nothing but red, then maybe I would wait a few minutes. If you see nothing but red it might also be just plain rain. And if you were not there lined up on the RWY and checked your radar you have no objective reason to blame them. Period. They are responsible for themselves - you didn't have to fly with them. We know that flight safety isn't everywhere the same. I could also tell you stories about airlines in HKG which sound strange to me.
Dani
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
All agreed.
Besides the rain with associated bad vis, in most Asian airports, 1000m of rain will mean a contaminated riunway-Another factor.
This was coup[led with a 1okt crosswind, windshear(associated wind shifts I am assuming) and my favourite-The intersection departure.
All these factors on one departure spells HALFWIT
All agreed.
Besides the rain with associated bad vis, in most Asian airports, 1000m of rain will mean a contaminated riunway-Another factor.
This was coup[led with a 1okt crosswind, windshear(associated wind shifts I am assuming) and my favourite-The intersection departure.
All these factors on one departure spells HALFWIT
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this thread quite interesting to read. And theres just a few small points id like to add.
I can't help but feel from reading the posts that the words 'I assume' and similar expressions seem to be being used a lot, then followed by a opinion stated virtually as fact. Just as an example, in the post above. Perhaps, if the information you're using to base your opinion on is not rock solid, your opinion should not be either. Particularly if you're going to make outlanish statements (eg. the pilots should be tested for drugs) which seems a little far fetched to me, particularly when much of your arguement is based on speculation.
The 'intersection departure' point also seems to be coming up a lot. Just a note that the intersection departure you're talking about is from a taxiway RIGHT beside the full length depature entry point. And for an A320 on a 4,000m runway its not as limiting as the words 'intersection departure' imply, particuarly when the offset is so minor aircraft often roll past this 'intersection departure' point before even applying thrust.
Also, a statement was made above, something along the lines of 'legal has nothing to do with it', and I noticed this sentiment echoed a few times, though not quite so bluntly, through out the thread. To me this statement is a complete anomoly. To my mind, the reason aviation bodies provide us with laws, and companies then add ontop company limitations, is to provide us as pilots a basis on which to make our decisions. If when discussing this incident, legal has nothing to do with it, whats the point of having laws/minimas/company policies at all?
I'm not trying to say that this particular crew made a good, or a bad decision. I was not there on the day, and the information this crew had may have been different to the information we have available to us. The poster of the thread even said he was not able to switch the weather radar on at the time of this aircrafts departure. My comments, though using this thread as an example, are not specifically aimed at this incident, rather looking at the concept as a whole. While I appreciate the value of discussion so we can learn from each other, the extra assumptions/opinions that seem to find their way in and eventually become stated as 'facts' I feel detract from the positive outcomes that would otherwise take place.
In the end, my main point is, perhaps, seated at home in front of our computers, with second hand/incomplete information infront of us, we should not be so hasty to think we are in a position to make a better decision than any crew who is actually there with all peripheral information available.
I can't help but feel from reading the posts that the words 'I assume' and similar expressions seem to be being used a lot, then followed by a opinion stated virtually as fact. Just as an example, in the post above. Perhaps, if the information you're using to base your opinion on is not rock solid, your opinion should not be either. Particularly if you're going to make outlanish statements (eg. the pilots should be tested for drugs) which seems a little far fetched to me, particularly when much of your arguement is based on speculation.
The 'intersection departure' point also seems to be coming up a lot. Just a note that the intersection departure you're talking about is from a taxiway RIGHT beside the full length depature entry point. And for an A320 on a 4,000m runway its not as limiting as the words 'intersection departure' imply, particuarly when the offset is so minor aircraft often roll past this 'intersection departure' point before even applying thrust.
Also, a statement was made above, something along the lines of 'legal has nothing to do with it', and I noticed this sentiment echoed a few times, though not quite so bluntly, through out the thread. To me this statement is a complete anomoly. To my mind, the reason aviation bodies provide us with laws, and companies then add ontop company limitations, is to provide us as pilots a basis on which to make our decisions. If when discussing this incident, legal has nothing to do with it, whats the point of having laws/minimas/company policies at all?
I'm not trying to say that this particular crew made a good, or a bad decision. I was not there on the day, and the information this crew had may have been different to the information we have available to us. The poster of the thread even said he was not able to switch the weather radar on at the time of this aircrafts departure. My comments, though using this thread as an example, are not specifically aimed at this incident, rather looking at the concept as a whole. While I appreciate the value of discussion so we can learn from each other, the extra assumptions/opinions that seem to find their way in and eventually become stated as 'facts' I feel detract from the positive outcomes that would otherwise take place.
In the end, my main point is, perhaps, seated at home in front of our computers, with second hand/incomplete information infront of us, we should not be so hasty to think we are in a position to make a better decision than any crew who is actually there with all peripheral information available.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sinjon
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember if it was the same day but roughly about the same time. BA15 was on arrival with a Trainer 441 and a Cathay 7**. The weather condition was as such described by GE90115BL2.
CAT III Condition if I was not mistaken. Trainer 441 opted to hold over SAMKO while BA15 flew the entire approach. I guess based on that extreme weather conditions, the pilots deemed it safe to come in for the approach and landed followed by the Cathay and then when the weather had improved Trainer 441 requested for the approach.
So i guess its based on the pilots discretion to do what is safe within those limits.
>>Correct me if I am wrong
CAT III Condition if I was not mistaken. Trainer 441 opted to hold over SAMKO while BA15 flew the entire approach. I guess based on that extreme weather conditions, the pilots deemed it safe to come in for the approach and landed followed by the Cathay and then when the weather had improved Trainer 441 requested for the approach.
So i guess its based on the pilots discretion to do what is safe within those limits.
>>Correct me if I am wrong
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi KJSM,
Just a quick reply to your post.
I completely agree with what you're saying that what is the point in having these forums if anyone who wasnt there at the time is not able to comment. That however was not exactly my point. There are lots of positive outcomes that come from discussing incidents like these, and gives us a way to see things from another point of view. I dont, however, believe that excessive speculation and cristicism creates any positive outcomes. Comments such as GE saying something along the lines of 'I bet they used de rate to save the company' is when I believe much of the educational value is lost and people are just making comments for the sake of it. That was my point, not that anyone who wasnt there doesn't have a right to comment.
In regards to the legal aspect, i find it quite ironic that you said that the law isn't black and white. To me its about as black and white as you get. If conditions are above the minimums the law says you can take off, if they're below the law says you cant. Its the airmanship/common sense aspect that to me is where things dont become so black and white. My thought is, what would YOU then consider acceptable? Would 800m vis and 10kts tailwind with no TS be acceptable conditions for you? Or, if the aircraft allowed 20kts tailwind, would that with 5000m vis be acceptable? Perhaps these conditions might be acceptable to you, but un acceptable for someone else. Does that make them wrong? Or you? Or infact, are NEITHER of you wrong, or stupid? That was my point. This crew, on this day, believed the conditions they were presented with acceptable. Whether or not you or I agree with them doesn't make their decision wrong. Although, I agree with you, the reverse is also true, just because its above minimas doesn't make it right. My point being the decision isn't necessarily as black and white as some people seem to think. And as you said why these threads provide us with so much educational value giving us an oppertunity to be able to look at things from another persons perspective.
Snowie
Just a quick reply to your post.
I completely agree with what you're saying that what is the point in having these forums if anyone who wasnt there at the time is not able to comment. That however was not exactly my point. There are lots of positive outcomes that come from discussing incidents like these, and gives us a way to see things from another point of view. I dont, however, believe that excessive speculation and cristicism creates any positive outcomes. Comments such as GE saying something along the lines of 'I bet they used de rate to save the company' is when I believe much of the educational value is lost and people are just making comments for the sake of it. That was my point, not that anyone who wasnt there doesn't have a right to comment.
In regards to the legal aspect, i find it quite ironic that you said that the law isn't black and white. To me its about as black and white as you get. If conditions are above the minimums the law says you can take off, if they're below the law says you cant. Its the airmanship/common sense aspect that to me is where things dont become so black and white. My thought is, what would YOU then consider acceptable? Would 800m vis and 10kts tailwind with no TS be acceptable conditions for you? Or, if the aircraft allowed 20kts tailwind, would that with 5000m vis be acceptable? Perhaps these conditions might be acceptable to you, but un acceptable for someone else. Does that make them wrong? Or you? Or infact, are NEITHER of you wrong, or stupid? That was my point. This crew, on this day, believed the conditions they were presented with acceptable. Whether or not you or I agree with them doesn't make their decision wrong. Although, I agree with you, the reverse is also true, just because its above minimas doesn't make it right. My point being the decision isn't necessarily as black and white as some people seem to think. And as you said why these threads provide us with so much educational value giving us an oppertunity to be able to look at things from another persons perspective.
Snowie
g Sense
