Jetstar plane 'came within 38 feet of hitting ground'

[openseat]

It seems Fairfax can match News.

Jetstar plane 'came within 38 feet of hitting ground'

There are, however, some very legitimate concerns in the poor implementation by Jetstar of new procedures which caused the confusion in the 'Go Around'.

 

[maninblack]

It seems Fairfax can match News.

Jetstar plane 'came within 38 feet of hitting ground'

There are, however, some very legitimate concerns in the poor implementation by Jetstar of new procedures which caused the confusion in the 'Go Around'.

I think that this is a legitimate news story and sounds like dodgy behavior from JQ management too.

 

[anat0l]

The underlying problems with the procedures is quite a concern.

It appears to have been corrected, but the fact it could have led to a much worse outcome in the first place is very concerning.

 

[samh004]

It did have it’s wheels down when it came that close though, they just had some issues going back up.

 

[oz_mark]

Investigators found Jetstar had changed the standard flying procedures without conducting a risk assessment into what effect the changes might have.

It's interesting that Qantas has been caught out with this before (see the BKK golfing incident). The concern is that other procedures may have been changed without adequate risk assessment.

 

[docjames]

This is a much better report ( say compared with the cairns "near miss"!!)

certainly a worry that JQ seemed to, if not cover up, at least fail to report or recognize the seriousness, and their obligation to report the incident.

Agree, shades of the bkk incident. Worrying indeed.

 

[haydensydney]

I seem to be the only one around that doesn't think this is that big of a deal.

There was an issue, the passengers survived, the airline has changed their procedures - so why are we all on a witch hunt? Ben Sandilands is so worked up over this he is basically frothing at the mouth.... lol

 

[markis10]

I seem to be the only one around that doesn't think this is that big of a deal.

There was an issue, the passengers survived, the airline has changed their procedures - so why are we all on a witch hunt?

Because it was a change of procedures that were a contributing factor in this case, should we really draw comfort from another change of procedures?

 

[NYCguy]

Because it was a change of procedures that were a contributing factor in this case, should we really draw comfort from another change of procedures?

Perhaps if JQ reverts to the actual procedures recommended by the manufacturer and stops fiddling with them?

The ATSB report makes some interesting observations:

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]
Other key findings
• The aircraft operator did not comply with the incident reporting requirements of
its safety management system, which was part of its operations manual, or with
the reporting requirements of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

The points above paint JQ as a pretty dodgy 320 operator. This was well and truly a near-miss, with the aircraft and passengers coming rather too close to ending up as small pieces scattered around a smoking crater. "Significant safety issue" literally means what it says!

 

[tuppaware]

I always thought that in the airbus a320 - if the pilot pulls back on the joystick the throttles automatically advance to TOGA power in landing decent mode?

 

[straitman]

Because it was a change of procedures that were a contributing factor in this case, should we really draw comfort from another change of procedures?

The other thing that seems to be overlooked here is that the change of procedures must, by definition, be approved by CASA :!:

Operators cannot simply change procedures as they deem fit.

 

[munitalP]

I seem to be the only one around that doesn't think this is that big of a deal.

There was an issue, the passengers survived, the airline has changed their procedures - so why are we all on a witch hunt? Ben Sandilands is so worked up over this he is basically frothing at the mouth.... lol

I'll buy you a verve next time I see you.... I think Ben Sandilands is an absolute tool, but I am not allowed to say that here so I retract the statement "I think" and replace it with "oh gosh, maybe"... there, not a personal attack...

All posts that relate to ANYTHING Sandilands says should be banned from AFF

Benny boy, send me a PM - stop hiding behind an avatar

Mr!

(Gordon)