8 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

The concept of a single-seat operations environment begs the important question of where the experienced pilots would come from.  You can't just assume them into existence, and they don't grow on trees!

True enough, but they can be trained on trees! Fire up the old Jenny and bring back the Link trainers!

Seriously though, I fully agree that both seats need to be filled, not just for safety and effective CRM, but primarily for OTJ training of new pilots!

7 hours ago, Garys said:

Except for the bankok incident which was 100% pilot error. 😇

Fatalities.... ZERO 

On 1/20/2023 at 2:46 AM, Christopher Low said:

I cannot see the logic (or even the necessity) to reduce the number of pilots on the flight deck. Two seems to be the best number to me as far as flight safety is concerned.

I agree, as a passenger I feel more comfortable with at least two up front. If one of them dies or becomes ill or incapacitated during the flight at least there’s one pilot up front to land the plane, and that has happened before. I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable being on a flight that was completely automated with no one up front.

3 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Fatalities.... ZERO 

Thats not the point though is it. Not all crashes have fatalities but they are still crashes none the less. The aircraft didn't go off the end of the runway because it wanted to play a round of golf.

Any other airline would have written that aircraft off. The cost of repair was almost the same as buying a new aircraft off the line. Only reason it wasnt was because it wanted to try and keep its reputation. If you search you can still find slideshots of the repairs, pretty impressive what the guys achieved.

Edited January 21, 20233 yr by Garys

On 1/20/2023 at 10:50 PM, dmwalker said:

What happens if that one pilot needs to pee?

ive had an ASR came in once in the office (many years ago) for when an f/o had to dive out into the LAV after sterile flightdeck had started due to having a bad stomach

On 1/22/2023 at 12:45 AM, Garys said:

Thats not the point though is it. Not all crashes have fatalities but they are still crashes none the less. The aircraft didn't go off the end of the runway because it wanted to play a round of golf.

Any other airline would have written that aircraft off. The cost of repair was almost the same as buying a new aircraft off the line. Only reason it wasnt was because it wanted to try and keep its reputation. If you search you can still find slideshots of the repairs, pretty impressive what the guys achieved.

Really not sure what you are trying to debate. Air New Zealand had Mount Erebus, still a national embarrassment, they also had three others involving fatalities, Air Canada had Gimli Glider, although no one died it is a great example of forcing the Metric System on an Airline without proper training or implementation (they got off lucky), but also Air Canada had 6 others with fatalities including National Icon Stan Rogers may he RIP. American Airlines has too many to list, British Airways also too many to list, as does Air France has some very notable ones including Concord and Flight 447. Who else it there??? SAS - that would be a yes, Italia, another yes, Who can forget Malaysian Airlines??? Also notable, this list will go on as their are not many countries without a major aviation disaster.

But yea you want to argue that the incident in Bangkok has some kind of severity matching what other nations and nations flag carrier have been through? I disagree, QANTAS has a great history and track record all things considered I stand by what I've said, not debatable 

On 1/21/2023 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Kane said:

 I think QANTAS is still one of the only legacy airliners that has never had a crash during the modern jet era, impeccable safety record.

There's also an element of luck to it too.  They will at some point get one. Unfortunately, law of probability. 

19 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Really not sure what you are trying to debate.

I'm not really debating anything, other than exactly what you wrote..... Qantas has never had a crash. Well fact is - yes they have and that single accident was pilot error and cost a hundred million to repair 

Qantas has never had a crash v Qantas has never had a fatality.  There is a big difference between the two but as Fluffy said Its been more luck. Looking at QF 747 ops alone, the Bangkok accident would have resulted in deaths or serious injury if the R/H uppdereck was used for evacuation. Then they had the Oxygen Bottle explode midair with the bottle not only penetratiing the fuselage causing a rapid decompression but half the bottle penetrated the cabin floor right at the 2 door. That could have just as easily hit a passenger ot flight attendant sitting in the seat with fatal results.

I hope that clears things up.

Edited January 25, 20233 yr by Garys

Automation is never going to be a better solution.  Anything electronic/computerized is vulnerable to being hacked.  It is impossible to make something hack-proof.

On 1/25/2023 at 3:38 PM, Garys said:

I'm not really debating anything, other than exactly what you wrote..... Qantas has never had a crash. Well fact is - yes they have and that single accident was pilot error and cost a hundred million to repair 

Qantas has never had a crash v Qantas has never had a fatality.  There is a big difference between the two but as Fluffy said Its been more luck. Looking at QF 747 ops alone, the Bangkok accident would have resulted in deaths or serious injury if the R/H uppdereck was used for evacuation. Then they had the Oxygen Bottle explode midair with the bottle not only penetratiing the fuselage causing a rapid decompression but half the bottle penetrated the cabin floor right at the 2 door. That could have just as easily hit a passenger ot flight attendant sitting in the seat with fatal results.

I hope that clears things up.

Sure but I think you are reading far too much into what I said....

"I THINK QANTAS is still one of the only legacy airliners that has never had a crash during the modern jet era, impeccable safety record."

Being from New Zealand what you are saying is not a national embarrassment like the Mount Erebus Disaster. You've taken my quote far too seriously.

Reality is QANTAS went through the golden age of Jetliners without a disaster, they successfully operated the 707 which had 174 hull-loss accidents with a total of 3,039 fatalities, none of those fatalities from QANTAS, also the 747-200, 747SP etc etc etc, back then those had a higher frequency of disasters and QANTAS got through that era pretty much unscathed.

I live on an island in the South Pacific, from where I am sitting this is a beautiful sunny afternoon with an ocean view, therefore NOT DEBATABLE, it is just being far too literal, I think I'll have a beer instead 🍻 

 

16 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Being from New Zealand what you are saying is not a national embarrassment like the Mount Erebus Disaster.You've taken my quote far too seriously.

And it has never meant to be. You have misread everything I have written by a country mile. If you look back at my reply I simply pointed out the Bangkok accident, which either you didnt know or had forgoten about.  I never once mentioned or implied anything negative about its safety record. All I have said is 3 things. well 4 if you include a little luck

1. They have had a crash

2. It was pilot error

3. You dont need a fatality for an accident to be called a crash.

Any comparison of severity to any other accident has never and will never come from me in this conversation. I have no idea where you got that from. As I said Country Mile.

Losing a cricket match to you should have won is embarrassing. Enjoy your Beer. 

 

Edited January 26, 20233 yr by Garys

18 hours ago, Garys said:

 

And it has never meant to be. You have misread everything I have written by a country mile. If you look back at my reply I simply pointed out the Bangkok accident, which either you didnt know or had forgoten about.  I never once mentioned or implied anything negative about its safety record. All I have said is 3 things. well 4 if you include a little luck

1. They have had a crash

2. It was pilot error

3. You dont need a fatality for an accident to be called a crash.

Any comparison of severity to any other accident has never and will never come from me in this conversation. I have no idea where you got that from. As I said Country Mile.

Losing a cricket match to you should have won is embarrassing. Enjoy your Beer. 

 

My only reply at this point is this, because you are still not getting it, semantics, I'm going with the Rain Man  🤣

 

Edited January 27, 20233 yr by Matthew Kane

Movie scenes are great and going full defensive for an airline that would no sooner lose your luggage reminds me of a scene from Tropic Thunder 

Enjoy your weekend and thanks for the laugh.

Edited January 27, 20233 yr by Garys