Search results

If you don't mind, I'll reply on the pilot thread.

The SO would defiinitely be doing the external preflight, if encounters with snakes were common.

No, only one, on the tarmac at Perth.

It's a few years now, but if I haven't lost all of the cells, the rest of the world uses conditional clearances. Sydney did. But Melbourne didn't. And in the 380 it meant a lot of lost take off opportunities, especially when waiting to line up on 16, with ATC waiting for a bloke to get to J.

So, does that make it an ATC error. Or an ATC error abetting a Blackhawk pilot error. Or were they really all poor sods, who were set up by a system that was never really designed, but just brought itself into being. TBH, no matter how I look at this, it just falls into the category of “sooner...

Common enough. As long as they're a few hours apart, they'll be able to use the same callsign. If not, then the delayed aircraft will be assigned a 'delta' suffix.

It's certainly an issue that has to be resolved. The military do accept operations with reduced safety, as a matter of course. But, their standards should never end up being applied to civilian aircraft. The CRJ, for whatever reason, and contrary to what we might expect, was not seen. To be...

It was, but it also had lateral movement at the time, which makes it no threat, whilst the other aircraft on finals had a constant bearing. I don't think that there's much doubt that they never locked on to the dangerous aircraft. From what I understand about flying with goggles, you have to be...

Who listens to the radio? I rarely want to hear what is said on youtube.... Anyway, it's about what could be seen, not heard.

This is a simulation, but I suspect it’s extremely close to reality.

Sounds like the RAAF pilots' course. It averaged 50% failure rate. And then a few more would bite the dust on the operational conversions. At one point QF's 767 command training had something in the order of 70% missing out, though that wasn't the norm. My father had a PhD. He was generally...

Presumably that will ultimately result in others reducing their number of flights/seats by an equivalent amount. And for the sake of openness, it would be interesting to know if anyone associated with this gets any form of free flights (or anything else). As best I can tell none of these...

In part that's simply because QF management has only been investing in JQ vice QF since Joyce took over.

The pilot flying doesn't really need to have the CRJ in sight. In large part that's the job of the other pilot. If either pilot had the correct aircraft in sight, they wouldn't have done a beeline for it.

Look carefully at the background.

From what I gather it actually happened a while back and the video has just come to light, in which case the answer is probably nothing. If they’d known at the time, probably an engineers ‘daily’ inspection of the entire aircraft. I gather he’s no longer employed at the airport, but I think...

A friend of mine got himself involved in this Whisper experiment. Results did look good. But, after a closer look he came to the conclusion that the results were being skewed (for want of a better term), and that it’s basically useless.

A couple more, taken when we went up to Manila to pick up OJK.

Which I guess works until you don't actually have a person to look out the window (for whatever reason), and then it doesn't. The question is how much 'deviance' should be allowed to normalise.

Apparently conflict warnings were so common, that they became normal.