Tick, flick and publish.

Now that you mention it:- Second the motion

A turd, by any other name, is offensive on your bar stool, or in your pool; but no one else really cares.

The only reason the pathetic, lazy, 140 letters characters illiterate TV ‘reporters or press listen to GT is because he is happy to attach his ‘name’. He becomes a ‘named’ source, just like Byron or a couple of others who could be mentioned; like that Morgan. Suddenly the ABC’s ‘go-to’ man; a.k.a. expert. They can cite a ‘peak body’ and attach a ‘name’; the garbage spewed matters not; it saves a lot of real work. But seriously, who would stop buttering their toast and getting the kids out of the door to watch an ‘edifying’ opinion from GT. These TV folk are not even in the business of ‘entertainment’ let alone 'news'; the program is secondary, solely a vehicle to sell advertising.

I’d bet my favourite socks that those as watch this calibre of ‘entertainment’ have the attention span of a well trained racing rabbit.

“There’s been a tragic aircraft crash in Perth dear”.

“That’s nice dahling; pass the marmalade; and, will you be able to pick up the kids today?

“Yes I can do that; this GT bloke reckons the aircraft flew past the wind and crashed, thought they trained ‘em not to do that, - anymore toast there?”

“No, but there’s bread in the fridge; look I’ll get Mum to pick up the kids; that GT will get to the bottom of it and anyway, the government  do all that ‘stuff’; ‘Oh’ ( delighted squeal) - look!  there’s that new wonder machine to make your feet feel better, watch this and, Oh great; that couple from Tassy got bowled out of MKR; fantastic - I hated that cow”. “Come on Kids, grab you bags and lets go”.

GT gets paid, the program sells and the advertising money rolls in. All they need is a named source.

Do my pub test; walk into any pub you like ask the first bloke you see at the bar about the Perth crash or the Essendon ‘almost’ tragedy; then mention the ‘expert’ opinions on the UP and the ministers response – try it and keep score. Interesting statistics.

My apologies to the ‘Bard’ for dreadful paraphrasing; as penance, for my blasphemy, you may have the full version to wonder at.


'Tis but thy name that is my enemy
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Toot (1 only due MIF in GT).

Correcting the bollocks on aviation MSM - Rolleyes  

I note a recent blog piece by Christine Negroni, copped a lot of flack in the 184 odd comments so far attached:
Quote:WestJet Denies Close Call Caught on Camera at St. Maarten
March 9, 2017 / 184 Comments

[Image: Christine-Garner-photo-WestJet-go-around-1024x565.jpg]Christine Garner captures the WestJet flight. This photo is copyrighted and can be used only with permission from the photographer.

Air travelers to St. Maarten expect a thrilling view approaching Princess Juliana International Airport. But thrills turned terrifying for passengers and observers of WestJet Flight 2652 from Toronto on Tuesday.

When the Boeing 737 descended through the clouds it went well below the minimum descent altitude. The scene of the jet skimming the surface of Maho Bay was captured by aviation photographer Christine Garner,  shooting from the roof of a nearby building. She said she thought the plane was going to crash.

“When this plane came out of the cloud, I was so shocked,” she said. “The surprising thing was he was lower than me. Normally they pass at my height or slightly above.  For once I actually thought he was going to crash into the ocean.”

The pilots on the plane with Disney’s Frozen livery, executed a go-around and it landed about 45 minutes later.

“According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach,” said Lauren Stewart, a spokeswoman for the Calgary-based carrier. Citing FlightAware logs, Stewart said the plane was never lower than 500 feet before the go-around. But professional pilots confirm Garner’s observation that the plane was much closer to the water and I have been told that FlightAware does not have coverage to the ground at SXM.

“I’ll put money on the fact that jet was at 50 feet,” a 737 captain who flies the same aircraft for another U.S. airline told me. “To be that low and not over the runway is downright dangerous.” he said. A captain at an international airline with 20,000 flight hours, who also saw the photo concurred. “It’s quite apparent that aircraft is within half a wingspan of the water.  You can tell by the jet blast trail in the water, the yellow buoy in the water, and the white little building on the cliff. ”

[Image: NTSB-photo-UPS-1354-1024x619.jpg]NTSB photo of UPS Flight 1354

Both pilots referenced recent landing disasters, the 2013 crash of a Lion Air 737 in Bali, Indonesia in which investigators say the plane was below the minimum descent altitude when it hit the water half mile short of the runway. No one was killed.

Later that same year, an Airbus A300 UPS cargo plane crashed 3,300 feet short of the runway in Alabama, at Birmingham–Shuttlesworth International Airport. The captain and first officer who were the only people on the airplane, were killed.

Kyle St. Hilaire, a passenger on the flight, described the first approach saying, “It was a normal flight, and then a normal descent, but we came into rain clouds during the end of it.”  St. Hilaire had been reading a book but when he looked out the window at the clearing sky, he said the plane was “way too close to the water.

“I felt a violent acceleration and an aggressive pitch up, felt like a roller coaster and I’ve grown up on planes.” St. Hilaire reported the plane banked to the right and “during the whole rapid ascent nobody on the plane said much, but it was tense.”

[Image: second-landing-WestJet-001-1024x683.jpg]WestJet 2652’s second approach to SXM is higher. Christine Garner photo used with permission.

The second approach 45 minutes later came in much higher and for the passengers and crew of WestJet Flight 2652, the flight had a happy ending.

As my 737 captain helping me with this story reminded me, its a good thing someone in the cockpit spoke up, because at 50 to 100 feet, if the plane was in a 700 foot per minute descent, “those folks were seconds away from crashing.”

Folks knowledgeable about safety are quick to say that pilots must remember; go-arounds are nothing to be ashamed of. Resisting a missed approach will more likely end in tears.

WestJet declined to answer questions about what kind of special training or airport-specific qualifications are required for pilots flying into Princess Juliana Airport. Instead, Stewart told me the airline has had service into St. Maarten for seven years without incident.

WestJet’s statement about the plane’s altitude isn’t supported by Christine Garner’s photo. To live up to its claims of safe operations the airline should examine what happened and look for the lessons. And it must acknowledge that its seven years of incident-free flying into St. Maarten, ended on Tuesday.
[Image: Two-approaches-Maho-Bay-Christine-Garner...4x1024.jpg]Two flights two very different descent profiles. Garner provides these comparison photos. WestJet is top. Christine Garner copyrighted photos

Profanity, name-calling and personal insults will not be tolerated in the comments section. They will be removed.

And for my vote for No1. comment of the blog... Wink

[Image: d69c52f650990f6c4cf83e95368d8951?s=32&d=mm&r=g] Picman says:
March 19, 2017 at 3:12 pm

With few exceptions the comments here demonstrate little other than the general absence of facts. Many don’t seem to know much about flying airliners. Fortunately some of those who do have recognised that little is actually known about the specific flight.

About the only established FACT is that witnesses both on the ground and in the aircraft were seriously alarmed by a go-around by a Westjet aircraft that was initiated at a much lower altitude than would be expected from the aircraft’s position on the approach.

When asked about it, it appears that the airline’s spokesperson initially flatly denied that any alarm was justified, and implied that the flight had been entirely routine. Maybe the spokesperson was as uninformed about what actually happened as anyone else who hadn’t been a witness. Maybe they DID know more than those witnesses, but downplayed any significance to avoid adverse comment. If so, it didn’t work, as it seems to have been the trigger for this blog article – which has resulted in more comment not less.

According to the Canadian TSB (quoted in the Aviation Herald), the known facts are simply that “during the approach to Runway 10 at TNCM, the aircraft descended too low on final and the flight crew executed a missed approach. A second approach was conducted and the aircraft landed without further event.”

A missed approach is not a reportable safety event, but the TSB has opened a “class 3 investigation”. Reasons for doing this could include significant public expectation that the TSB should independently make findings as to cause(s) and contributing factors; or the potential for better understanding the latent unsafe conditions contributing to a significant safety issue.

Even if the TSB didn’t need a report for a go-around, possibly one might have been required by the airline. So the absence of one may have been the reason for the initial official comment. That will no doubt be part of the TSB investigation. But for an airline spokesperson to use data from FlightAware and not official internal information seems less than professional.

Other factual data seems to be that there was significant deterioration in the weather about the time of the incident – a drop in temperature and pressure, and a spike in wind speed, a major drop in visibility, and rain showers at the airport itself. However, there is no suggestion of major thunderstorm activity.

The airline’s statement on the 14th says “In this case, our crew experienced rapidly changing weather conditions and as a result descended below the normal glide path on the approach to the landing. The crew recognized the situation, and the regularly trained and desired outcome was obtained – a safe missed approach to a safe landing.”

What this does not make clear is whether the descent was as a result of the weather itself (e.g. downdrafts or windshear), or action the crew took as a result of the weather change. A deliberate descent below the glide path would certainly be something to question. Either way it provides an incentive for the TSB to look into it. Until more facts are made public, anything else is speculation.

Whatever shows up in the investigation seems likely add to concerns about the way pilots make the transition from instrument approaches to visual cues – especially without instrument vertical guidance. The Lionair and UPS accidents cited are but two of many dozens of such events over the decade or so. Fortunately WestJet did not join that list as an actual accident, but merely a nasty fright for many people.
Then today this was brought to a head by a twitter handle called NYCAviation, who  incidentally also run their own blog website:
Quote:Negroni: @forbes @AirlineFlyer


NYC: "...WestJet is correct in lauding its pilots making the right call..."

It took 2 articles for you to admit pilots did right, safe thing.

NYC: @cnegroni You don't think "close call," "skimming the surface," citing crashes and quotes from clueless pax is misleading & sensationalist?

Negroni: Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but there is no judgment of pilot performance pro or con in any of the articles I wrote.

NYC: @cnegroni Calling it an incident, which is factually incorrect by official definition, isn't a judgement?

@cnegroni Comparing it to fatal crashes, even though the safety process WORKED here, is incredibly sensationalist and offensive to air pros.
NYC Aviation also went to the trouble of doing a rebuttal blog piece to the original Negroni article Wink :
Quote:Was WestJet’s “Scary” Approach Really As Bad As It Seemed?

By: David J. Williams

[Image: IMG_9274.jpg]

On March 07, 2017, WestJet 2652 was on approach and made a go-around short of the runway at Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM/TNCM) in St. Maarten. What followed has become a bit of a media sensation, with photos, an accusatory article, and video all making the rounds. Media sources that don’t usually cover aviation events have shared the “shocking” images with their readers and viewers, leaving them to draw their own conclusions about what they are seeing. This has mostly led to the public wrongly chastising the pilots for doing exactly what they should have done: abandoning an unsafe and unstable approach by going around.

Most runways at major airports are served with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) that provides the airplane radio signals to align it with an extended centerline of the runway. The ILS also provides a 3 degree descent path, or “glide slope”, to the touchdown zone of the runway.

Five miles out, the airliner will be laterally aligned with the runway, 1500 feet above the runway elevation, and descending at a rate of 700 feet per minute following the 3 degree glide slope at a speed of 165mph. The airplane will cross 50 feet over the threshold of the runway, and touch down on the runway approximately 1500 feet later. These landings are the simplest and safest, and on many runways, can be accomplished with the autopilot on all the way through the touchdown.

The runway at St. Maarten is basically the same size as Laguardia’s runways, and like runway 31 at LaGuardia, it lacks an ILS. Pilots approaching SXM from the west will descend down to 600 feet above the water, and if clear of the clouds and with the runway insight, will resume a descent to the runway. Without the aid of the glide slope, pilots with use visual references including a multi-colored light beside the runway called a PAPI.

[Image: IMG_4723.jpg]
A 737 abeam the PAPI at SXM. Photo by Ben Granucci, NYCAviation

The term “stable approach” is usually defined by each airline, and the airline instructs the crews to go-around if an approach is not “stable” by a specific altitude. Generally this altitude is 500 feet above ground level in good weather and 1000 feet in marginal or poor weather days. In addition, if an approach becomes “unstable” below this altitude, the approach is to be promptly abandoned and a go-around performed.

The specifics of the term “stabilized” are defined by each airline. Generally it means the airplane is on the proper horizontal and vertical path for landing, the landing gear and the flaps are in the landing position, the speed is within a small range, and the engine power is in the normal range for that approach.

For a reason or reasons not presently known, the WestJet flight was too low on the approach. The crew did exactly the right thing, and followed their training and company procedure and went around, later returning to the airport for a safe landing. Realizing the problem or error, the crew did the safest thing and didn’t try to salvage the approach.

What was truly dangerous about this event was the public reaction.

In addition to the public chastising these pilots for doing exactly the right thing, the public celebrates other photos and videos showing airplanes at St. Maarten leveling off just above the water and coming in at the same altitude as the WestJet flight, but continuing for landing. These pilots improperly are continuing with these high-risk, un-stabilized approaches and yet are hailed as adept pilots. Continuing with un-stabilized approaches, and either neglecting to go-around or choosing to go-around only after the situation further deteriorates, places the airplane is a very high risk situation, as the information in the accident databases can attest. Asiana 214 was one of the most recent entries into this category.

[Image: IMG_9456-620x413.jpg]
An MD-80 making one of the lower approaches we’ve seen over Maho Beach. Photo by Ben Granucci, NYCAviation

Currently WestJet management, its pilots, and Transport Canada inspectors are going through the information and data from this flight. With a just safety culture, all parties will have an open and constructive and forthcoming dialogue to prevent future occurrences. From this, information will be disseminated to the aviation community, training may be changed to address a problem, and pilots will be better informed and prepared if they are to encounter similar situations.

After going around, the crew held for 40 minutes before retuning to land at 3:17 PM. The crew should be commended for the decision to go-around and returning to the field for a safe landing. Had they continued as many other pilots have, we might have been talking about the accident that occurred at 2:34 PM on March 07, 2017. Because of what happened in St. Maarten, customers should have confidence in WestJet and not scorn.

[i]David Williams is an aviation historian and former airline pilot living in New York City[/i]

Chocfrog for David Williams and NYCAviation... Wink

MTF...P2 Cool

The ATSB & HVH PR machine kicks into gear?? Dodgy

After the angry rant I just received from "K" after he had wrote this week's SBG...

HVH - "..The other point I might add is the ATSB is very much the canary in the mine—and let me tell you, we will sing.."

Speak softly; yonder, as I think, he walks.  

...I may be tempting fate, however the following GT bollocks headline simply cannot be ignored because it seems to support the growing evidence that HVH and his fan club is mobilising some sort of pre-emptive PR campaign... Huh

(Warning: Bucket will be required - Confused )

GT tweet: https://twitter.com/GeoffreyT_Air/status...5511018498

  Australia's crash investigator among world's best. @MH370Search2 @ATSBnews @MAS @BoeingAirplanes @NewsAirbus

11:51 PM - 19 Jan 2018

&..GT BOLLOCKS Dodgy : https://t.co/bCwirdnYLt

Australia’s crash investigator among the world’s best
Geoffrey Thomas

January 19, 2018
[Image: gen-MH370-search_1.jpg]

Australia's crash investigator the ATSB has led an international team in the search for MH370
Ridiculed by some sections of the media, Australia’s crash investigator and its international partners have done an outstanding job in calculating the most likely location of MH370 as a new search begins.

Labelled as bungling Canberra bureaucrats by some media,  the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is, in fact, one of world’s most highly respected air crash agencies and the new search team is going to where it says MH370 is most likely located.

And it has not been searching for MH370 alone.

When an aircraft has an accident, international law requires that many parties are involved – namely the maker of the plane, its engines and the respective countries’ crash investigators.
In this case, it involved Boeing, which builds the 777; Rolls- Royce which makes the engines on the Malaysia Airlines models; the US National Transportation Safety Board and  air accidents investigation bodies from the UK, Malaysia, and China.

China is involved because MH370 was a code-share flight with China Southern which is why there were 153 Chinese aboard.

Assisting has been the Thales Group of France, makers of the satellite that tracked MH 370;  Inmarsat, the satellite the operator; the CSIRO; Geoscience Australia and Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group.

Continual unjustified criticism of the ATSB in such a high profile case does enormous damage not only to that agency but Australia’s standing in the world – particularly in aviation.

According to one of the world’s most respected crash investigators with the NTSB and now noted aviation commentator Gregory Feith, Australia’s performance in the leading the search has been great.

“The Malaysians were out of their depth with MH370 and were lucky Australia took over,” Mr Feith told AirlineRatings.com last year.

And the continual criticism of the ATSB has been agony for the relatives who have been on the most torturous roller coaster ride.

Of course, the muddling by the Malaysian Government since this tragedy started 1,415 days ago has been fuelled the tsunami of conspiracy theories.

But finding MH370 in the next few weeks will not stop the doubters.

Even the recovery of the black boxes may not give total closure.

It is likely that MH370 will always be aviation’s Mary Celeste.

Sshhh... Undecided - No comment except to say...errr...INCOMING!!

[Image: a-hyk_kK.jpeg]

MTF...P2 Cool

I religiously believe everything he says, 'cos he's a, you know, expert. Dodgy Dodgy Dodgy

N.B. - Posted by proxy - for P9.

Oh dear; AMSA will be pleased.

“The Malaysians were out of their depth with MH370 and were lucky Australia took over,” Mr Feith told AirlineRatings.com last year."

The implication is that the ATSB did a super job; which is bollocks. The AMSA and those involved in the initial search did do a great job while Beaker sat indoors practicing his knitting. There was nothing but praise, from all quarters for the calm, professional way AMSA and the entire search crew did their work, it was world class.

But the ATSB – ye gods. Were it not for Foley, the entire ATSB pantomime would have sickened even the most tolerant of ‘experts’. Beaker was deep in the do-do following the Pel-Air inquiry and needed to try and regain some form of credibility. What GT is inferring is that the shellacking ATSB is still getting has to do with MH 370 and nothing related to  their collusion with CASA in the Pel Air debacle, their refusal to recover the CVR and the endless stream of piss poor accident reports.

The ATSB is now under the management of the ex CASA decision maker, who sat bang smack in the middle of the Pel-Air debacle, the potential for serious conflict of interest cannot be entirely ruled out. To put this man in charge of the ATSB while the second report on Pel-Air was still being ‘drafted’ was a ministerial mistake.

This is why Hood is almost permanently in the media, preferring to be seen wearing his Canary yellow Hi-Viz vest. It is PR campaign, cynically orchestrated to convince the public that ATSB is a wonderful thing, even better now with Hood at the Helm.

It’s up to you, but personally the simple fact that Hood needs to descend to a level where he has to enlist the likes of GT to sing his praise’s smacks of desperation. The stench of Pel-Air did not exit the building when Beaker departed. Hood’s deep involvement with the Pel-Air scandal has not, as yet, been fully and publically examined.

The questions Thomas ought to be asking are: is Hood a fit and proper person to run the ATSB? Did the ATSB act corruptly during the Pel-Air debacle? Apart from making carefully selected, pre prepared statements on MH 370 and cooperating with Malaysia – what, exactly did the ATSB contribute to the search and investigation?  

We (Australia) used to have a superb ATSB, great accident and incident report, safety recommendations and proper oversight. How this once great outfit degenerated into a PR agency for airlines and ministers happened is not a thing of mystery; it is a sad tale, deserving of serious governmental attention. Will it receive that attention? You know it won’t.

The public will read the media, believe all is well, GT said so. The minister will relax and the party continues. I could have saved ten minutes and scribbled a simple written a one liner – Just duck off GT and take your bloody mates with you.

Toot – pass the bucket when your done P2 – toot.

A bucket – full of Canary pooh.

GT – “[the] Australian Transport Safety Bureau is, in fact, one of world’s most highly respected air crash agencies and the new search team is going to where it says MH370 is most likely located.

Did you ever, in all your days read a more deliberate, cynical, misleading, construed load of old BOLLOCKS. For a start – there is NO BLOODY “CRASH” to investigate – they can’t find the ducking aircraft you pathetic, steaming pile of mouse droppings. IF the ATSB ‘know’ (as it say’s it does) where the aircraft is located – then why, for crying out loud did they not produce ‘this flawless’ evidence beforehand and why has the wreck not been located? Beaker at least had his Mum and her tea leaf readings to guide him – Hood and the ATSB may only claim GT as their guiding light; and a fat lot of good that will do ‘em. Jesus wept.

GT – “Continual unjustified criticism of the ATSB in such a high profile case does enormous damage not only to that agency but Australia’s standing in the world – particularly in aviation.”

Umm; wanna rephrase that GT, to at least resemble some remote version of ‘fact’. For a start the ATSB has, for almost a decade now been noted and named for what it is. They threw in the towel after Lockhart and have been, through MoU and other dubious practices, a glove puppet for CASA and a PR agency for the major airlines. If there has been ‘enormous’ damage done, then it is of the ATSB’s doing. Check with ICAO – we have; they can’t even get the that reporting right. Read some of the spurious nonsense produced under Beaker, passed off as ‘Safety Reports’. Check out Pel-Air and the Hood/Dolan involvement in that little how-d-do. ATSB is a laughing stock and, you know what, they achieved that all by themselves. ATSB under Beaker was preposterous, but under Hood it becomes a risible, monstrous liability, to both politicians and aviation safety alike.

The criticism was brought on themselves. Self inflicted. Gods know their Pel Air performance set a new all time low benchmark for the domestic market – this low tide mark was reduced again by the ASS Report; brought even lower by the Canadian peer review; then, to crown it all, they followed up with an equally risible ‘second attempt’ Pel-Air report. But, it was the MH 370 performance which put the finishing touches to the deep, self dug hole. Whoever put Beaker in charge dropped a large bollock – but bringing in Hood was the castration stroke.

Toot – finally back ‘on line’ toot. (Bloody Fraudband).

Goodness Kharon, steady on old chap, you'll blow your Kaffooful valve.
All GT is guilty of was not putting a disclaimer in at the end;
you know the one;

"This is paid articled produced with material supplied by the interested party.
The author takes no responsibility for the accuracy of this material"

"K" - Choc frog TB; LOL.

Another classic:

This time from the keyboard of one Declan Gooch. P2 has tacked the (useless) article onto the end a Bruce Rhoades story – HERE -. The story deserves a place in TF&P forum as a classic example of why the media need to either stop attempting to report on matters aeronautical; or, alternatively, get their act together, look a little deeper and get a handle on why aviation standards are going down the tubes in the land of Oz. One can easily identify the lack of ‘grasp’ and fundamental NFI from the following poorly constructed sentence:-

“On the morning of March 29, 2017, a Piper PA-31-350 being flown by a Vortex Air pilot clipped a truck as it was landing at Barwon Heads, near Geelong in Victoria.”

The sentence implies that the truck was landing; which, in the first instance is grossly incorrect. For Mr. Gooch’s benefit, we should state that last we looked, trucks may fly, but they do not land at airports. While I’m at the blackboard perhaps we should consider the rather serious safety implications which Mr. Gooch has failed not only to report, but has clearly not understood, pissing what could have been a very good story up the wall.

Nearly every airport has public roads running near it; often quite close to the boundary fence. There is (mostly) a healthy (mandated) distance between ‘the road’ and that fence. Bearing in mind that the driver of a vehicle (a) is usually watching the road and not staring at the sky; and (b) the geometry of vehicular vision prevents that observation, © the ‘danger area’ and time in that area is a very narrow band.

Not so for the aircraft; on a normal, stable approach to landing forward vision may be restricted by the aircraft nose high attitude, particularly during the last 200 feet of a landing. However; there are some very convenient (large) marks painted on runways – to wit,  the ‘touch-down’ zone. These marks ensure that the aircraft is within the runway confines and nominally on the correct glide path, providing a very safe margin betwixt roads, fences and obstacles, (moving or otherwise) beneath the approach path.  Even if they are not there, say on a grass runway; basic training ensures that a margin, between runway start and touch zone is always allowed (to be sure, to be sure)...

What Gooch has failed to mention is the very dangerous gross ‘under-shoot’ of the approach path; which, standing alone is pretty serious; but the two potential killers fail to get a mention. The first is a question in two parts – (i) why did the pilot allow the undershoot to develop; (ii) why was the situation not corrected? Which leads to a further side bar; why was the potential for collision with a vehicle not realised? Trucks, (for the benefit of tape) are not invisible: at a descent rate of 500 feet per minute (standard) from 250 feet the pilot had a whole, luxurious 30 seconds to correct the glide path; at 125 feet there was a long 15 seconds available to add another 10 feet to the glide path; a 62.5 feet there was seven long seconds to ease up and step over the truck – which was not static.  The truck was moving through the ‘kill zone’ at speed; so the dynamics – risk of collision - was barely more than four heartbeats. A two second warning is a lifetime at aircraft speeds; any instrument pilot will tell just how fast 50 a foot loss or gain of altitude can occur.

Which brings us to the nub: had the aircraft been a tiny 10 foot higher – no penalty. 10 foot lower – another fire ball, bouncing down the runway toward carnage. Lucky just don’t cover it. There are gaping holes in the safety net which cannot be covered by more law and the ridiculous ‘tick-a-box’ training methods enforced by CASA. Herein a classic case for human factors and training investigation. Too deep for trashy journalism though.

There mini rant over – I feel better having got that off my chest; I just wish these journo types would either STFU or get the story right. Aye, steam off, kettle on.

Toot – toot……….

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)