• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australian flight safety

Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Well-known member
Anyone else notice a larger preponderance of flight incidents involving airliners? Aside from QANTAS' engine troubles (separate issue, but obviously off-shore maintenance is an issue worth keeping an eye on), we had the very well publicised grounding of Tiger Airways, some recent incidents involving basic CRM problems with J* and, a bit further back, some separation incidents, not including the one over the middle of the outback a little while ago.

Tempting to put the blame at inexperience on the part of pilots (J* cadets these days get their hands on the controls as FO's after around 300 hrs) but that's not the whole story as the bloke involved in both Tiger flights was a training captain, many thousands of hours experience. Some are putting the blame at the feet of CASA's 'regulation' of the airlines. Who knows? Just thought a thread would be a good place to put any relevant articles because, well, even we don't have the same influx of LCC's in this country as we've seen in SE Asia (with tragic results), worthwhile just keeping an eye on who's ending up in the news, I reckon.
 
Redbacks

Redbacks

Well-known member
I'd be interested to see data on the ratio of crashes to Km's travelled or number of flights.

Turbulent times in the Australian aviation industry.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Well-known member
Redbacks said:
I'd be interested to see data on the ratio of crashes to Km's travelled or number of flights.

Turbulent times in the Australian aviation industry.
Click to expand...
Having tried for work purposes, getting data from the ATSB is damn-near impossible. They're a yoke.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Well-known member
In terms of engine work, the wide-body (A380, B747) fleet maintenance is done in Singapore and Malaysia, some of the domestic B737 work is done there. It's a bit more complex than that too because Lufthansa have a partnership with QANTAS but they do the work in Melbs so, technically, whilst it counts as 3rd party maintenance, it's locally done. Airframe work is almost all done locally at Avalon and Brisbane.

The issue is made even more complex because QANTAS get the manufacturer, Rolls Royce, to do maintenance too. That's considered by some to be iffy because if there's question marks over the engine itself, as with the Trent 900 (used on the Scarebus), aside from other vested interests, QANTAS are on the hook to keep using them as is and will be more so as B747's are phased out and the widebody fleet becomes exclusively A380 over the next 5 years.

Personally, the biggest issue facing airlines is crew training. The nature of experience is changing and whilst some would say automated cockpit systems make that a non-issue, I don't think anyone can be sure how it'll play out yet. Almost all airlines are going heavily towards the cadet route which results in pilots with a fairly homogenous flying experience (18 months full-time in lighties + sim time = ~300hrs ATPL). While the cadet programs result in new hires who fly with massively experienced captains with huge breadth of experience flying different types in different places and contexts, the centre will hold. Eventually, though, you'll have an airline full of pilots who've only known cadet-style training, captains with 2000hrs in command who've known no other flying than airline flying (fairly strictly controlled). They'll have never experienced getting themselves out of jail flying in a clapped-out C210 out of Kunnanurra trying to avoid inters which closed in on them or being forced to learn how to put down a dr killer in severe crosswind. They'll only know good flying conditions and sims. Again, with cockpit automation, some will say airline pilots won't need any of that but, of course, the one time in a million that you do (AF447?)......

Unrelated but the ATSB is releasing a final report into the Emirates scare in '09 this morning.

Emirates Melbourne 2009 near crash final report due today | Plane Talking
 
Last edited:
Redbacks

Redbacks

Well-known member
Given the amount of risk involved many companies don't want to touch engine maintenance with a 60 ft pole.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Top_Cat said:
In terms of engine work, the wide-body (A380, B747) fleet maintenance is done in Singapore and Malaysia, some of the domestic B737 work is done there. It's a bit more complex than that too because Lufthansa have a partnership with QANTAS but they do the work in Melbs so, technically, whilst it counts as 3rd party maintenance, it's locally done. Airframe work is almost all done locally at Avalon and Brisbane.

The issue is made even more complex because QANTAS get the manufacturer, Rolls Royce, to do maintenance too. That's considered by some to be iffy because if there's question marks over the engine itself, as with the Trent 900 (used on the Scarebus), aside from other vested interests, QANTAS are on the hook to keep using them as is and will be more so as B747's are phased out and the widebody fleet becomes exclusively A380 over the next 5 years.

Personally, the biggest issue facing airlines is crew training. The nature of experience is changing and whilst some would say automated cockpit systems make that a non-issue, I don't think anyone can be sure how it'll play out yet. Almost all airlines are going heavily towards the cadet route which results in pilots with a fairly homogenous flying experience (18 months full-time in lighties + sim time = ~300hrs ATPL). While the cadet programs result in new hires who fly with massively experienced captains with huge breadth of experience flying different types in different places and contexts, the centre will hold. Eventually, though, you'll have an airline full of pilots who've only known cadet-style training, captains with 2000hrs in command who've known no other flying than airline flying (fairly strictly controlled). They'll have never experienced getting themselves out of jail flying in a clapped-out C210 out of Kunnanurra trying to avoid inters which closed in on them or being forced to learn how to put down a dr killer in severe crosswind. They'll only know good flying conditions and sims. Again, with cockpit automation, some will say airline pilots won't need any of that but, of course, the one time in a million that you do (AF447?)......

Unrelated but the ATSB is releasing a final report into the Emirates scare in '09 this morning.

Emirates Melbourne 2009 near crash final report due today | Plane Talking
Click to expand...
Yeah AF447 had a big thing afterwards wrt pilot training. Hours hours hours, and apparently they aren't getting enough nowadays (what with autopilot becoming more and more literally an automated pilot)
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Well-known member
Spark said:
Yeah AF447 had a big thing afterwards wrt pilot training. Hours hours hours, and apparently they aren't getting enough nowadays (what with autopilot becoming more and more literally an automated pilot)
Click to expand...
Yeah, not only are airlines accepting direct entry applicants with fewer hours (1500 will get you into an airline vs the 80's when no-one even looked at you if you had double that) but, like I said, the quality of the hours is becoming a bigger issue. One of the big debates in aviation is whether the next generation of pilots are being bred as actual pilots or system managers. Being a pilot is no easier either way, mate of mine just got an SO spot with Cathay and said in some ways having to monitor and respond to an complex automated system is far tougher than just flying the damn plane. The problem is that when the system fails, you're left with a pilot with inadequate stick-and-rudder skills to get him/her out of jail.

Even then, a darker problem is emerging with respect to automation. In Boeing-like systems, the AP does absolutely nothing without the say-so of the pilots. Airbus systems, different kettle of fish. If the pilot does something that the system detects could put the plane in a dangerous state, it'll over-ride the pilots. Several examples where this has provably crashed planes exist (possibly could include AF296 depending on who you believe) but it's possible that it caused the incident with the QANTAS plane en-route to Perth which lost 1000ft. Probably played a role in AF447 too.

I mean, if the system's getting the right info, all's well but if not, it might go haywire. Can't imagine how tough that would be to deal with let alone if the plane then stops you from doing anything about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top