Media at QANTAS again.

[Karl M]

Now this is getting Ridiculous!

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24928904-5013605,00.html

How does the media think that an incident from 10 years ago can have an effect today?
Makes me MAD.:mad:

[Mario Facchini]

the article is by the tellyoucrap.

they will draw on anything to sensationalise a story.

in other words......They have NFI !!!

[Marty H]

Same aircraft has a trailing edge flap issue at present and is parked at D6 here in MEL was supposed to depart at 17:00 operating QF9 but is now not due to leave until 2330.

[AdamC]

more the case of passengers or passneger that have NFI.

[Owen H]

And people wonder why some of us have no respect whatsoever for the media. :mad:

[D Chan]

by the time you've read the 4th paragraph, which refers to the Qantas spokesman's comments, any reader wouldve realised that they've wasted their time reading that far into the article.

[Mick B]

"The incident of Thursday was a cargo-door defect which was rectified and flew a few hours later, and the incident when the plane ran off a runway in 1999 was something to do with the pilot," she said.

WTF????? Pretty simplified view to just blame the whole thing on the crew!

[Marty H]

WTF????? Pretty simplified view to just blame the whole thing on the crew!


It was pilot error though.

[Gareth Forwood]

Has anyone noticed that the grammar throughout the article is terrible? By the end I was half expecting to read "and like such as the Iraq"

[Greg F]

Wow now that was a pointless article!
with no real meaning and as somebody said terrible grammar!

I filled in the comments bit and sent to them It WONT be published!!

Another piece of sensational journalism!
Apart from being a load of rubbish article with no real meaning just Qantas bashing, Maybe Sophie should have her grammar checked before publication........top job guys

[Adrian B]

Funny, I know three other people who also wrote similar comments, plus mine, and surprise surprise, none of them were published.................

[Karl M]

Wow now that was a pointless article!
with no real meaning and as somebody said terrible grammar!

I filled in the comments bit and sent to them It WONT be published!!

Another piece of sensational journalism!
Apart from being a load of rubbish article with no real meaning just Qantas bashing, Maybe Sophie should have her grammar checked before publication........top job guys

Haha, Nice work Greg!

[Greg F]

Funny, I know three other people who also wrote similar comments, plus mine, and surprise surprise, none of them were published.................

I bet if we wrote something along the lines of

Qantas was once a great airline but now that all the maintenance is done offshore the airlines safety has slipped and they always have serious problems.
I will never fly this airline again they are unsafe and a disaster waiting to happen!

We would get published!!!!!!!!!

[Dan Hammond]

Funny and straight to the point good on yah Greg :D

[Mick B]

It was pilot error though.

Marty, have you done any study in human factors at all? The article made a bold statement that "it was something to do with the pilot" and you simply dismiss it as "pilot error".

Accidents happen because of a chain of events all lining up and this accident was a classic example. Have a read of the accident report and enlighten yourself -

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/AAIR/pdf/aair199904538_001.pdf

[Marty H]

Marty, have you done any study in human factors at all? The article made a bold statement that "it was something to do with the pilot" and you simply dismiss it as "pilot error".

Accidents happen because of a chain of events all lining up and this accident was a classic example. Have a read of the accident report and enlighten yourself -

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/AAIR/pdf/aair199904538_001.pdf

When the aircraft was approximately 10 ft above the runway, the captain instructed the first
officer to go around. As the first officer advanced the engine thrust levers, the aircraft’s
mainwheels touched down (1,002 m along the 3,150 m runway, 636 m beyond the ideal
touchdown point). The captain immediately cancelled the go-around by retarding the thrust
levers, without announcing his actions. Those events resulted in confusion amongst the
other pilots, and contributed to the crew not selecting (or noticing the absence of) reverse
thrust during the landing roll. Due to a variety of factors associated with the cancellation of
the go-around, the aircraft’s speed did not decrease below the touchdown speed (154 kts)
until the aircraft was 1,625 m or halfway down the runway.

If that isnt pilot error I dont know what is.

[Ray P.]

Sounds more like a CRM issue to me. As for the story, I wonder which disgruntled QF employee is feeding this stuff to the media. I am sure that this increased media attention is the product of an employee who is not happy with QF's outsourcing of maintenance.