Anyway - back on topic regardless of sledging......couldnt see a great deal of damage to it...left hand engine had cowling off, looked like left hand trailing edge wing to body fairing was missing, and lots of pen marks under the rego on in front of engine...bit hard to see if there was any wrinkling, but in the light there may have been.... otherwise it looked ok, not like an Adam air 737 recently on display.

Alright, let's see the pictures then. They have been conspicuously absent in this thread.

Pink PAPI Pi**es Off Pilots
 

Hi ITCZ:

OK, I have had a word with the powers that be (and Les).

The PAPI lights are inspected every morning. They will be cleaned if required. They are also checked every evening. They will be cleaned again if required.

They will also be cleaned immediately anytime a pilot requests it. If you happen to be in the circuit at the time, please allow a few minutes for this to happen :-)

The subject of T-VASI lights is more problematic, as you surmised. Not only are they a great deal more expensive to install, operate, and maintain; there is also the problem of confusing international pilots.

We quite frequently have aircraft (usually, BizJets) coming in from overseas. Would expecting a pilot to deal with an approach lighting system they may not have seen before, at the end of a long overwater run, in possibly inclement weather, actually add to his problems? The question was asked...

However, please don't take this as a "no". Alcan is rather more safety-obsessed than most other companies around the world. If there is a safety issue here, well... they're not short of money. We just need to make a case, if we want them to spend it.

An issue is the fact that PAPI is a current international standard, and that the Australian CASA considers them appropriate. We would need to be able to make an argument (supported by recognised authorities and blah blah blah...) that the conditions at this airfield would result in greater safety if the lighting were upgraded.

Another issue is that the proportion of landings rejected on approach at this airfield is very low. Most of these are apparently due to low cloud-base, and of course better lighting is unlikely to be effective under such circumstances.

Just to head off the obvious: I was firmly given to understand that asking for an ILS system would NOT be favourably received :_)

Hope this helps

John,

It might be a safe bet that CASA has approved PAPI as an acceptable alternative to T-VASIS based on cost and pressure.

As a pilot who's been flying in and out of Gove for some 14 years, I can only reinforce all that ITCZ has said. And add, that whilst PAPI might be the international standard, I believe T-VASIS to be far superior (I think T-VASIS as an Australian invention pre dates the International Standard PAPI too!).

Rwy 11 is long overdue for an ILS

....and how bout levelling the runway!

So what next?
 

As a pilot who's been flying in and out of Gove for some 14 years, I can only reinforce all that ITCZ has said. And add, that whilst PAPI might be the international standard, I believe T-VASIS to be far superior (I think T-VASIS as an Australian invention pre dates the International Standard PAPI too!).

I never doubted him for a moment. After all, four times a month, I place my life in his hands (or yours!). That's not the issue.

The issue is: "How do we persuade Alcan to spend shareholders' money on this?"

There are only two levers we can pull: Safety, or Cost. We have to be able to show that better lights will make the airport either safer, or cheaper to operate.

And we have to be able to prove it. We need substantiated research.

The first place they are going to turn is CASA. If CASA says we should have new lights, they'll be installed next month!

Cheers

Pictures posted
 

This is fron crikey.com.au an Aussie e-zine






Qantas gives new meaning to "bracket creep"

Ben Sandilands writes:


After giving 84 passengers a new meaning to the term "bracket creep" in a hard landing at Darwin on 7 February, exclusive images of the damage to the Qantaslink Boeing 717 have fallen from a passing jet in front of Crikey Towers.
The jet suffered extensive wrinkling or creep in areas of the fuselage rear of the wing, as shown in these images. A set of tyres also display impact-induced cracking of considerable magnitude.
The jet was hidden from public view by Qantas for days in a Darwin hangar and kept out of the general media until Crikey broke the story on 11 February.
At that time it was a candidate for being the first hull loss of a Qantas jet, or any jet airliner, in Australia. (Qantas "retired" and sold a bent Boeing 707 involved in a steep dive and recovery while flying between Bangkok and Bahrain in 1969.)
This now wrinkled jet was flown for Qantaslink by National Jet, the South Australian contractor currently having its pilot training and checking processes examined as part of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation of the incident.
National Jet won the outsourced flight contract for its excellence and low bid and has been repeatedly endorsed by Qantas as meeting all of its safety and service standards.
The jet was supplied by Allco Leasing, an arm of the seriously compromised Allco Finance Group that was a party to the private equity bid so enthusiastically endorsed by Qantas before it went pear shaped last May, and once stood to participate in the proposed FleetCo spin off that was being pushed by the Airline Partners Australia consortium.
Qantas says the jet, worth about $35 million, will be repaired, rather than cashed out by insurance as a write-off. Industry sources say this might cost it more than $100 million, but pride in this case comes after a heavy fall, and the airline doesn’t want to score its first ever jet hull loss.
Those little wrinkles are going to require very costly cosmetic surgery to smooth out.
Qantas made a similar investment in rebuilding the Boeing 747-400 it punted into a golf course at the old Bangkok airport in 1999, which ripped off an engine, pushed the nose wheel up into a bulge that was punched into the middle of first class, and tore off the main gear.
The bill for those "repairs" is believed to have been well in excess of $100 million.

Update
 

Beaten to the punch!

Pictures Posted (at last)
 

Hmmm - some work to be done there ... but will the repairs be carried out in Oz or offshore? :confused:

As pilots we use a combination of factors to ensure the aircraft is on the correct approach path. Some of these include thrust setting vs rate of descent, three x height, GS, DME, position of rwy threshold on windscreen, all backed up by the PAPI.

Visual aids should not be used below 200ft anyway.

If the aircraft was not stabilised by 1000ft - 500ft agl it should have gone around but if this was a low level windshear issue the availability of either Vasi s or papi is irrelevant.

Half the airports we flew to at night back in the eighties had neither.

Inciter....beaten by seconds! Absolutely correct.

The PAPI is an approach aid. NOT a landing aid.

There are none so blind....

The 717 was flown by a contract crew. They dont have QF seniority numbers, it is a completely separate employer, they cannot be members of AIPA (QF pilot union), the operations manual has "National Jet" written on it, the Air Operators Certificate is issued to National Jet. The engineers that maintain it, the parts inventory to support it, the hangar approvals, etc.

Ok, Teal, just to satisfy you, it is Qantas.

For all the other folk out there whose minds are not yet set like concrete, it is a totally contracted-out op, under a Qantas brand. Should you ever fly on a service provided by the group, just listen to the Cabin PA's from cabin crew and pilots. Qantas, Jetstar and Qantaslink DHC8 are identical. 717 are completely different. Why? Refer post by Bloggs.

30m from a public access gate where the anoraks and plane spotters take photos? Hidden from public view? Pull the other one.
Teal, pay attention.
Absolute rubbish. Industry source? Journo at the next desk with a PPL, more like. This one will cost US$100mil because BKK cost US$100mil? The legal people call that sort of piffle 'similar fact evidence,' a label applied to a variety of wooly logic before it gets binned in the 'inadmissible' can.

:yuk:

===================
John, thanks for taking an interest. I hope you mentioned to Les and his team that we have absolutely no problem with their efforts.

Looks like someones jet has developed cellulite!:}

ITCZ - accept your points - thanks. However, Qantaslink is still 100% owned by Qantas. Moreover, to quote Qantas themselves:
"When flying with QantasLink you can enjoy a range of benefits available to Qantas passengers......"

(Public) Perception is reality..:)

They've done a bit of extra training and all is now well in the landing dept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1AeHxMSCc8

Now that is one awesome landing!!!

:D

Grieving for the fate of the B-717, since they don't make them anymore.

It might have been the same one I was a pax on in Oz. It felt like a very nifty little plane to fly. Our flight was seriously underbooked - we were only at about 15% capacity. I'll probably never be "indulged" that way again.

Life's a short runway - use it all.

This is a rumour published at crikey.com.au this afternoon:

Bloggs, the pilot must have read the "Dummies Guide"to landing a 717 :eek::eek:

Nah, just pulled up 2° at 30ft and closed his eyes...:ugh::=