Cairns? Or Darwin perhaps??? :hmm:

Darwin it is:\

Thanks for the information
 

Visual approach guidance lights all show PINK to pilot on final approach. ALCAN replaced accurate but expensive T-VASIS with cheap but near-useless PAPI installation that gets covered by the red bauxite dust. Letter of the law only.


Many thanks. I always wondered why the terminal was so close when we got off...

I'll have a "word" to the Powers that Be and see if I can get those lights changed...

Cheers

That should read; Since 3 fatalities on 13 DEC 1951, VH-URV, De Havilland DH.84 at Yaramunda Qantas has not had a fatal accident.

not being picky, just historically correct - I hope.

So do I understand 13 DEC 1951 where all the other airlines have to count from?
The Qantas story is a myth.
The BKK incident was a good example and this "heavy landing" at Darwin will be watched closely.

If as has been suggested the PAPI's were showing pink why did no one report it?
Can I suggest an inexperienced F/O female pilot banging it down hard!
(or maybe she just likes pink)

We all know the problems with inexperienced Aussie F/O's. :D
Sure Qantas will re-build this wreck to save face. Anyone know where the BKK re-build is now?

Maybe time for Mike Carlton and Steve Price on 2UE Sydney to ask questions!

ALL PAPIs are pink. They are the most useless piece of aviation equipment known to man. Probably designed in Europe. Cheap and nasty. Give me a T VASI any day. :}

Ye Olde Pilot - You may care to look at the question I posed at the bottom of post #221 here, date 13th January,

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...307552&page=12

Prophetic?

I certainly don't. Please expand.

You sure the "Ye" should not read "Grumpy"? :E

.....OPERATED by National Jet folks......Not Qantas........ eye on the ball.......it may have the logo, but it wasn't Qantas... so maybe you should search for National jets history, rather than Qantas's.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck you telling us its a rooster? So they carry Qantas paint and you can only get a seat through QF with a QF flight number but its not Qantas. Qantas don't set the standards by which they operate? You not Dixons love child? You are only one. :E

My dear boy, if you think that every report a Captain submits results in immediate positive action by the responsible authority to rectify the reported fault, omission or deficiency, then please tell me which airline you work for and which contracting state it serves. I shall only fly on that airline henceforth.

hallelujah Ye Olde Pilote. Why didn't any of us think to report the pink PAPI, or the two hectopascal error in the QNH. Geez we're dum. Thanks for pointing us in the rite direcktion.

That would be appreciated - seriously. Les and his team do great work with the resources at their disposal, but the 'four pinks' are a problem for all that use the 'drome.

I dont like our chances of seeing a T-VASIS retrofit, they are significantly more expensive to install and keep in service -- many more lights in the array. If we can solve the problem of the bauxite dust it would be good for all.

Brian Abraham said,
Now that takes the cake!

They seem to work OK if they're set up properly and maintained properly. Admittedly T-VASIs are better but I haven't found PAPIs to be that bad (as in being the most useless piece of aviation equipment) :ooh:

The issue of the write off is because mainline own the aircraft from when they bought Impulse. If it was to be written off it would be chalked up against QF as a hull loss irrespective of who flies it.

Forgive me if this has been clarified earlier but the reference to pink PAPI's is to the ones at Gove not Darwin.

There the things get coated in dust from the nearby mine (the bleedin airport was shifted north so they could further mine at the southern end) which gives all the lights a pink appearance.

Mind you at this time of year they should be getting a good daily wash from the "wet".:ok:

It's not a writeoff. It's not going to be repaired at a cost greater than it's value.

So sorry not to scrap it just to make youse happy. :ugh:

Go to the head of the class Dominic. It is extremely unusual for an incident/accident not to have been caused by organisational failures, the poor driver, whoever he or she may be, is merely the triggering agent. One only has to read the complete report of the BKK over run (since were talking QF) to see those factors at play.

Capn Bloggs - twice now you have stated words to the effect..:rolleyes:

Refer my post #25, search the ASIC registers, and Qantas' own annual report -

QantasLink is 100% owned by Qantas. A tad difficult to hide behind 'the corporate veil' in this situation...

Additionally, QantasLink aircraft are owned by Qantas either in their own right, or via Qantas-owned leasing companies.

BKK Overun
 

In reply to your comment Brian, I think you are completely correct. The BKK overun is an extremely keen example of pilot procedures (perhaps) being abused, but also let us take into consideration the weather conditions on the day of that accident. The flooded runway no doubt played a major part in the miscalculated landing slope. On that occassion i think the pilots did do quite a good job in keeping the aircraft in control for the majority of the sliding and aquaplaining. However all avoidable most likely. I suppose it brings great pride in all Australians to know that we have such a safe and reliable airliner. And once again you are too correct with your analysis into the BKK incident a closer eye reveals alot of errors within the Qantas company (management) but i don't know much about that topic so i can't really say;)