Safety Culture at Middle Eastern Carriers

[typhoonpilot]

You could have damage away from the coverage area from the TAIL STRIKE EICAS. Put another way, this airplane had an accident, then flew for 14 hours.

Seemed like a little more than that. Seems like are were willing to roast both the crew and the airline before knowing all the facts.

In the end, maybe they will deserve your harsh words but I think it might be nice to give fellow pilots a little leeway until all the facts are ascertained.


TP

 

[Seggy]

Seemed like a little more than that. Seems like are were willing to roast both the crew and the airline before knowing all the facts.

In the end, maybe they will deserve your harsh words but I think it might be nice to give fellow pilots a little leeway until all the facts are ascertained.


TP

Just reiterating that it was an accident aircraft (per the FAA classification) and flew another 14 hours.

 

[typhoonpilot]

That definition probably fits under:

Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair......


TP

 

[Seggy]

An airplane was involved in an accident and flew for 14 hours then.

 

[Cav]

Union or no union, to act as though there is no culture of intimidation in certain parts of the world is absurd. To pretend that such culture doesn't impact line operations is a typical management/training dept BS example of being out of touch with line operations. To a certain degree that last part is inevitable at any airline anywhere in the world.

 

[USMCmech]

I don't want to get into the typhoonpilot vs Seggy catfight.

However, I will propose that the protection of union representation is a huge benefit to maintaining a good safety culture. However, I don't think that it a mandatory prerequisite in 100% of cases. There are some organizations that have good safety culture that are not unionized. The military has a good safety culture and, given the risky nature of the flying they do, has a pretty good safety record.

OTOH, even with a union in place the underling society can still create a horrible safety culture. Depending on the environment, management can still run roughshod over a unionized workforce.

ALPA can't fix the underlying Middle Eastern culture no matter how hard they try.

 

[Seggy]

However, I will propose that the protection of union representation is a huge benefit to maintaining a good safety culture. However, I don't think that it a mandatory prerequisite in 100% of cases. There are some organizations that have good safety culture that are not unionized. The military has a good safety culture and, given the risky nature of the flying they do, has a pretty good safety record.

Agreed.

OTOH, even with a union in place the underling society can still create a horrible safety culture. Depending on the environment, management can still run roughshod over a unionized workforce.

Agreed.

ALPA can't fix the underlying Middle Eastern culture no matter how hard they try.

Agreed.

But, they can fight their expansion and protect the US Airline industry.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I feel compelled to observe that we're talking about fractions of a percentage (in real terms) of safety "gain". Like, when does "some risk" become "too much risk"? In my estimation, only when it's stupid. As in, like, it could easily be otherwise with not great cost. Now, I happen to be one of those guys who thinks that there's a significant gain in "safety" with not a whole lot of loss in cost when "safety culture" is instituted. But this fantasy that you can go blast off and treat the compressible air as though it's water-you-can-also-breathe-when-necessary-but-also-won't-kill-you-like-water-would has to go. Driving an airplane around is not, in point of fact, like driving a car. We're sort of insulated from this because engineers have done such a great job of making airplanes absurdly safe, but hurtling around in the upper atmosphere is not something a Cro-Magnon would do if he/she had a choice about it. The notion that one can just assume that they're going to the fricking stratosphere but they've got a big complaint coming if it isn't just like riding a Greyhound strikes me as absurd in the worst, most Kardashian way.

Now, with that said, it does seem to me as though being able to land the damned thing in clear and a million in a perfectly functioning airplane without an ILS isn't too much to ask. There's a position between those two things. I'm in it.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Driving an airplane around is not, in point of fact, like driving a car. We're sort of insulated from this because engineers have done such a great job of making airplanes absurdly safe, but hurtling around in the upper atmosphere is not something a Cro-Magnon would do if he/she had a choice about it. The notion that one can just assume that they're going to the fricking stratosphere but they've got a big complaint coming if it isn't just like riding a Greyhound strikes me as absurd in the worst, most Kardashian way.

Now, with that said, it does seem to me as though being able to land the damned thing in clear and a million in a perfectly functioning airplane without an ILS isn't too much to ask. There's a position between those two things. I'm in it.

People consider me a free-willed Cro-Magnon and I hurtle around. 'Course I do, likewise, often find myself in a position between two things... to wit, a rock and a hard place.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.




TP

 

[BobDDuck]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.

That's why aerodata temporary runway length codes are 3 characters. Pretty amazing that this slipped through the design process of whatever takeoff data software they use.




TP

 

[Beep]

Unconfirmed surveillance camera footage.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.




TP

If they were ALPA, this wouldn't have happened?

Now that you explained it like that TP, it makes perfect sense how this could have happened. Very confusing nomenclature that allowed T1 to be something other than the intersection.

 

[mrivc211]

And SKW pilots as late as 2015*.

* yes, I know nobody cares how we did it on the Brasilia. But it was sort of cool being involved with the process, because when a plainly and obviously incorrect result was arrived at, you went "um," and threw the manifest away and started over.

My record was 3. But mostly because my hand writing sucked.