Building a stronger Qantas

[rechoboam]

From the comments:
"Slade Posted at 11:29 AM Today

Chairmans Lounge access secured.

Comment 4 of 5"

 

[Archphoto]

The same incident as reported in the AV herald

Incident: Qatar B773 and Juneyao A320 near Shanghai on Aug 13th 2011, fuel emergency or not

Personally, if paying the extra $$$$ to Qantas' pilots means they have *everyone's* (including those on another plane) utmost safety at the forefront of their minds, I'm all for it.

All too often we hear/read these types of reports - not sure what the mentality is, but if the tower tells you to go into a holding pattern because of an emergency, common sense would hopefully prevail over your ego?!

If paying less means the possibility of hiring *idiots* like this, better increase your insurance policy. Sorry, but cutting corners at this end, could have disastrous results; training of the highest standard costs, and like it or not, most people want somebody at those controls who knows what to do in an emergency - any emergency, including one that may involve another plane needing to land ahead of you because they're running out of fuel.

Hmm, "Circle again and allow plane B to land safely?", or "Hog my landing spot, ignore the tower and land first, after all I was here first." (Insert crash disaster headline here.)

I know which pilot I'd prefer at the pointy end. . . . . . .

 

[QF WP]

From the comments:
"Slade Posted at 11:29 AM Today

Chairmans Lounge access secured.

Comment 4 of 5"

I'd read his cryptic message ... was he meaning the author, who already has CL ?? Idiot, if that's the case

 

[11sjw]

Personally, if paying the extra $$$$ to Qantas' pilots means they have *everyone's* (including those on another plane) utmost safety at the forefront of their minds, I'm all for it.

All too often we hear/read these types of reports - not sure what the mentality is, but if the tower tells you to go into a holding pattern because of an emergency, common sense would hopefully prevail over your ego?!

If paying less means the possibility of hiring *idiots* like this, better increase your insurance policy. Sorry, but cutting corners at this end, could have disastrous results; training of the highest standard costs, and like it or not, most people want somebody at those controls who knows what to do in an emergency - any emergency, including one that may involve another plane needing to land ahead of you because they're running out of fuel.

Hmm, "Circle again and allow plane B to land safely?", or "Hog my landing spot, ignore the tower and land first, after all I was here first." (Insert crash disaster headline here.)

I know which pilot I'd prefer at the pointy end. . . . . . .

Have to agree totally here. Do you want the Garuda pilot (Aviation Safety Network > News > News item )that won't "go round" due to a perceived loss of face or the Qantas Pilot that knows when (s)he's licked and will give it another go?

Again I know which I'd prefer even if it means the ticket costs a few hundred more.

 

[markis10]

There are a stack of eager pilots sitting in Jetstar and other carriers who already fly Airbuses. They are paid much less than $325k, but they aren't falling out of the sky. Why should QF pay more for the same service?

So what? They are flying from A to B safely.

Investigation: AO-2007-044 - Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232

Contributing safety factors
• The pilot in command did not correctly move the thrust levers to the
take-off/go-around position when carrying out the first missed approach
procedure.
• The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for the
go-around. The change resulted in the flight crew being unaware of the flight
mode status of the aircraft during the first part of the first missed approach.
[Significant Safety Issue]

Other safety factors
• The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]
• Flight crew undergoing initial endorsement training with the third party training
provider were not trained until later to the procedures and systems used by the
operator. [Minor Safety issue]
• The aircraft operator did not comply with accepted document change procedures
when modifying the standard operating procedure for the go-around. [Minor
Safety Issue]
• There was no provision in the current CASA Regulations or Orders for third
party flight crew training providers. As such,the responsibility for training
outcomes were unclear. [Minor Safety issue]

Lower paid pilots, third party training organisations not even training for the right company procedures, and what some might consider a very basic issue, using TOGA!

 

[djfuzz]

I'd read his cryptic message ... was he meaning the author, who already has CL ?? Idiot, if that's the case

As a Victorian and a supporter of the Hawthorn Football Club, I do have to wonder whether his ego would fit through the CL doors.

 

[Archphoto]

Have to agree totally here. Do you want the Garuda pilot (Aviation Safety Network > News > News item )that won't "go round" due to a perceived loss of face or the Qantas Pilot that knows when (s)he's licked and will give it another go?

Again I know which I'd prefer even if it means the ticket costs a few hundred more.

Knew there was one involving Garuda - just couldn't remember what the exact details were.

And yes, that particular incident was at the back of my mind when I flew with them once. My colleague and I were *very* relieved when the ladder and banging of the flaps with a hammer was deemed non-responsive and the aircraft grounded for maintenance. Of course being put on the next Garuda flight didn't make us feel any better - would have much preferred VA or J*!!:shock:

(Funny how I *don't* have the same feeling when I fly QF, even when they've had safety issues too.)

 

[goldy]

Have to agree totally here. Do you want the Garuda pilot that won't "go round" due to a perceived loss of face or the Qantas Pilot that knows when (s)he's licked and will give it another go?

As a CPL holder, I couldn't agree more.
I also went to a seminar hosted by the AAAAI featuring Capt Richard de Crespigny talking about the QF32 near disaster and 2 things he said will stick with me forever. Firstly, "When you think you know it all, its time to leave the coughpit" and secondly, "Dont let you're ego get in the way of effective decision making". So for me, a great pilot is one who knows and can identify his or her own limitations and stays on the safe side of them.

 

[russ]

Investigation: AO-2007-044 - Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232

Lower paid pilots, third party training organisations not even training for the right company procedures, and what some might consider a very basic issue, using TOGA!

Higher paid pilots, unable to configure their aircraft for a regular event: landing!

Passing 700 ft on approach into Sydney, the crew commenced a missed approach due to the aircraft being incorrectly configured for landing. During the commencement of the missed approach the "too low gear" GPWS warning activated. The investigation is continuing.

Investigation: AO-2009-066 - Boeing 767-338, VH-OGP, Sydney, NSW, 26 October 2009

 

[11sjw]

Higher paid pilots, unable to configure their aircraft for a regular event: landing!


Investigation: AO-2009-066 - Boeing 767-338, VH-OGP, Sydney, NSW, 26 October 2009

They went around and had another go knowing they stuffed up. The problem here is?????

 

[Archphoto]

They went around and had another go knowing they stuffed up. The problem here is?????

No problem from where I'm sitting right now - better they went around again, than push the envelope and make the front page next day for all the wrong reasons.

I'm all for it being investigated - they need to ascertain why the error happened in the first place. But the fact they took action to prevent a serious accident is to be applauded.

Better to investigate after a go-around, safe landing, than investigate an ignored alarm, resulting in fatalities IMHO.

 

[markis10]

They went around and had another go knowing they stuffed up. The problem here is?????

Its a pending report, with blame/reasons yet to be determined, unlike my example .

 

[oz_mark]

Its a pending report, with blame/reasons yet to be determined, unlike my example .

Wonder why it's taking so long?

 

[russ]

... the fact they took action to prevent a serious accident is to be applauded.

The press coverage says they forgot to put the landing gear down.
Qantas landing gear incident | Jetstar Airbus air speed indicators problem

Are you still applauding?

Having had a look through the ATSB investigations archives, there are very few listings relating to pilot error for any of the major airlines. If Qantas pilots were so much better than non-Qantas pilots, wouldn't that show up in the statistics?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thankfully we aren't in China:idea:.

that's a bit unfair...

you guys in australia had a whole airline grounded for safety reasons. Thank god I don't live in Australia!

 

[markis10]

that's a bit unfair...

you guys in australia had a whole airline grounded for safety reasons. Thank god I don't live in Australia!

And in my professional ATC career I have never had a pilot disobey a clearance!

The press coverage says they forgot to put the landing gear down.
Qantas landing gear incident | Jetstar Airbus air speed indicators problem

Are you still applauding?

Having had a look through the ATSB investigations archives, there are very few listings relating to pilot error for any of the major airlines. If Qantas pilots were so much better than non-Qantas pilots, wouldn't that show up in the statistics?

I think I will wait for the ATSB incident thanks, rather than the press. As for ATSB investigations, very few, hmmm:


Final
Investigation: AO-2007-055 - Procedures related event - Melbourne Airport, VIC, 4 November 2007, HS-TJW, Boeing Company 777-2D7

• The copilot was unsure of the descent clearance, which delayed further descent. This placed the aircraft above the flight management computer (FMC)-computed flightpath.
• The crew did not maintain awareness of the aircraft’s profile during the approach.
• The crew did not fly a 3° constant angle descent.
• The operator’s Continuous Descent Final Approach training had not been provided to the crew. [Safety issue]
• The crew did not conduct a ‘go-around’ as was required by the operator’s procedures when the aircraft was 1,000ft above terrain with a high rate of descent.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1357234/ao2008020.pdf (another A320 )

The crew did not activate the airport lighting prior to departing Launceston outside of the air traffic control tower hours.
 The crew did not detect that the airport lighting was not on during the taxi and takeoff.
 The flight crew’s attention regarding airport lighting matters was probably reduced by time pressure and distractions prior to takeoff.

Investigation: AO-2010-037 - Operational event - VH-*VQZ, Gold Coast aerodrome, 30 May 2010 (another A320)
Botched landing with impact after go around initiated


Investigation: AO-2008-030 - Aircraft proximity event, VH-VOQ and VH-VQS Launceston Aerodrome, Tasmania, 1 May 2008 (another A320 and a DJ737)

Separation Breakdown - crew responsibility

Still to be finalised

Investigation: AO-2011-089 - Incorrect aircraft configuration - Airbus A320-232, VH-VQA, Melbourne Airport, 28 July 2011 (A320)

Incorrect flap setting resulting in missed approach

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2491491/ao2011070_prelim.pdf
Investigation: AO-2011-076 - Operational non-compliance - Airbus A320-232, VH-VNC, 15 km south of Avalon Airport, Vic, 30 June 2011

Tiger below MSALT x 2



You get what you pay for!

 

[Archphoto]

The press coverage says they forgot to put the landing gear down.
Qantas landing gear incident | Jetstar Airbus air speed indicators problem

Are you still applauding?

Having had a look through the ATSB investigations archives, there are very few listings relating to pilot error for any of the major airlines. If Qantas pilots were so much better than non-Qantas pilots, wouldn't that show up in the statistics?

". . . . . . the pilots realised their error and began "go around" procedures. The pilots also received a audio coughpit alert warning them with the words "gear too low".
In a statement, Qantas said it was taking the incident seriously."

Better they took note rather than ignore and land anyway. I'm not saying that Qantas pilots don't make mistakes, but when they occur, they take the necessary actions to remedy.

And yes, I'm still applauding - if it had been elsewhere, saving face might have dictated they take the risk to land regardless. I believe that was the reason for the Garuda crash alluded to earlier in this thread - saving face was more important than passenger safety, and that, in my book, is where Qantas pilots and other airline's pilot differ.

Just my opinion, but a major reason I choose Qantas over other airlines whenever possible, unless routing means I have to fly with another carrier. And even then I'm *very* choosy. . . . . . . :mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

The press coverage says they forgot to put the landing gear down.
Qantas landing gear incident | Jetstar Airbus air speed indicators problem

Are you still applauding?

Having had a look through the ATSB investigations archives, there are very few listings relating to pilot error for any of the major airlines. If Qantas pilots were so much better than non-Qantas pilots, wouldn't that show up in the statistics?

They at least used the correct power setting, it seems, to go around. Guess that's why they get paid more.

 

[ethernet]

Regardless of the bullying and cajoling tactics, used by some pilot sycophants in this thread, there are obviously a number of Qantas customers who feel that Qantas management is on the right track… and fully support their tough stance with long haul pilots.

Personally I would rather see the whole International Division shut down (or off-shored) and local pilots’ jobs terminated, before management should give in.

I completely believe that Qantas management would be able to employ suitably competent pilots at much lower pay rates than they do now.

And that is an extreme I would not wish either. I believe 'suitably competent pilots' from places like Indonesia and certain others were banned from flying into EEC. Others with bright ideas to come in fast, or trim safety fuel margins a tad. Experience saved the day on the Hudson. Those who think 'on paper' qualifications are wrong - things are not always as they seem. I think Tiger achieved this 'aim' and look what happened, and before as well.

Arguably Australian pilots were underpaid when the Aussie was 60 cents, and overpaid at over parity - which is likely to stay, but also increasing competition from sandpit countries offering tax advantages.

Freezing existing (i component of ) wages / conditions seems a better option (experience increments remain), or increasing them IF local pilots work and play fair with imports (why can't QF poach SQ's pilots at the claimed rates?). But the domestic(high taxed bit) also has to rise - so a formula is needed.
Add some flexibility - none of oops this breaks the 'rules by 1/2 hour' nonsense - but again NOT to to the extent of sleepy BA pilots. Can the pilot get more is the co-pilot is an (i) on a lower 'rate', or takes a nap while on 'straight and level, cruising'?

If they don't buy this, expect it to be achieved by stealth (new breakoff airlines - JQ, or sharing with say Air Asia - which has will / done, and will be done some more.

Some operational 'rules' cost more than the pilots, so these hard won gains have to be trimmed where the marginal cost is greatest. In return, management have to take some serious pay cuts, proportionally the same as what they expect the pilots to loose. Don't expect give without give, as the leadership is setting the big piggie example. Maybe the pilots can vote on getting another CEO - better for less.

 

[djfuzz]

Regardless of the bullying and cajoling tactics, used by some pilot sycophants in this thread, there are obviously a number of Qantas customers who feel that Qantas management is on the right track… and fully support their tough stance with long haul pilots.

Personally I would rather see the whole International Division shut down (or off-shored) and local pilots’ jobs terminated, before management should give in.

I completely believe that Qantas management would be able to employ suitably competent pilots at much lower pay rates than they do now.

To say nothing of the QF management sycophants!

Don't know about you, but as a shareholder I'd be highly suspicious of a mob under whose control the share price has slid dramatically, who can't seem to make effective fleet management decisions or adapt to changing circumstances, who continue to talk down the company's prospects and have stopped issuing dividends despite continuing profits, who ignore shareholder resolutions in respect of executive remuneration while endlessly going on about the high cost base of employees that are core to its business, and who prior experience has shown won't blink at the opportunity to give themselves a golden handshake the second they manage to secure a private equity sale.

As a customer, well I think the progressive decline in service levels as both a regular punter and a FF has been gone into enough; and instead of focusing on improving these, we've been told that the international operation will be pared back, routes will be cut, and subsidiaries created in markets that have little to no relevance to us.

Whatever reservations one might have about what the pilots or engineers are after, you need only look to QF's safety record and in particular the QF32 incident to see the value they bring.

Austerity in the face of uncertain circumstances and increasing competition is one thing, but you don't see QF management leading with the kind of example shown by Haruka Nishimatsu of JAL, who took a significant salary cut himself during JAL's toughest times to bring his employees on board with other cost-cutting measures.

Japan Airline Boss Sets Exec Example - CBS News