I swear, did they not realize how DANGEROUS that was? The pilots could have received false information as a result! Thank goodness everyone on board made it in one piece!
Aircraft have unbelievable amounts of redundancy specifically for cases like this. If these ports were a big issue, they would’ve turned around. Here’s a great video on the Malaysian aircraft they mentioned, which is notable to me considering it happened at my home airport: th-cam.com/video/f80WwpNuaxg/w-d-xo.html This was a much more serious incident, involving three sensors critical for flight. Even then, there was still a backup, which enabled them to land safely.
Ya thats a good question but there have been many instances when pilots overlook the outside check and assume that if something was right earlier than it should be the same no matter how many indications they get.
This incident is similar to Aeroperu flight 603. A piece of tape brought down that flight because the static ports were blocked by it. Moreover, the flight happened during the night and above the ocean, worsening the situation.
Hi, Umm... I'm shocked really, I can understand why engineers would cover critical flight sensors and exterior flight aids, however it is unacceptable that proper procedures are not being followed and that includes the all important walk around done by the flight crew before flight, I sincerely hope that this issue have been resolved.
Yes that’s true…there should be some warning like “static port covered, remove before flight” in PFD !! It’s something like a Camera lens…that you remove the lens cover before taking a photograph…haha
You would think in this day and age that using tape to cover ports on aircraft would have been replaced with a push on plug cover that has a long enough tag that even blind Freddy could see it.
They need to randomly put "remove before flight" stickers (but without actually covering the port) to incentivize pilots to actually check them during pre flight inspection. The fact that the ports are so rarely found covered, while a good thing in itself, causes a well known psychological bias that makes inspections ineffective.
That is a very good strategy. Bias of expectation used in a good way, because they will expect to find a random number of stickers instead of expecting no stickers at all
Even the beat employees can have an off day but I hope there is better communication between maintenance and crew with regards inspection procedure in future. At least it was a mistake to learn from that they were lucky enough to get away with.
Yikes, luckily it wasn't the more cirtical static ports that help provide airspeed and altitude information, but that's still no excuse, someone has to be severely dealt with. Also, why is a more junior pilot conducting the walkaround check? I know he authorised this second officer to do it, but from my knowledge, its usually the captain who does it. They have more experience to look out for things like this.
@@PASquared it's not for a quick turn around. Pilots are required to take a rest after a certain amount of flying time. It is airline dependant but there's a cap that ICAO puts before pilot flying is required to rest. A quick turnaround would be illegal after 14 hours of flying. This 5 man crew alternates between the first officer's and captains seats when the captain and first officer go on rest.
@@aussieaussieaussieoioioi9450 and your point is....has fuck all to do with the facts I stated. Virgin, Rex.....have never had a fatal record and a mother fact you won't like, Virgin rated higher than Qantas for safety
That's a great way to discourage people from being honest about their mistakes. Nobody died and nothing of value was lost, so nobody's on the hook for manslaughter or criminal negligence. The problem here isn't a bad person, it's poor communication, procedure, and oversight. Those are all institutional problems that need fixing within the organization, not excuses to fire someone.
The good news is, lots of people are tasked with checking things. The bad news is, people sometimes assume that the last guy checked it.
I swear, did they not realize how DANGEROUS that was? The pilots could have received false information as a result! Thank goodness everyone on board made it in one piece!
It was a frieght flight
@@aussieaussieaussieoioioi9450 Why do you think freight flights are empty? There's still multiple pilots and flight crew.
Aircraft have unbelievable amounts of redundancy specifically for cases like this. If these ports were a big issue, they would’ve turned around. Here’s a great video on the Malaysian aircraft they mentioned, which is notable to me considering it happened at my home airport: th-cam.com/video/f80WwpNuaxg/w-d-xo.html This was a much more serious incident, involving three sensors critical for flight. Even then, there was still a backup, which enabled them to land safely.
Why didn’t the pilots notice it on their exterior check ?
They didnt have to bc it shouldnt have been covered anyways
Ya thats a good question but there have been many instances when pilots overlook the outside check and assume that if something was right earlier than it should be the same no matter how many indications they get.
@@toogoodatall960 but why didn't the pilots notice it? That's the question. Your answer is to whether they had to or didn't have to notice it.
@@sithabelamandlawenkosiwodu6298
Idk they probably didnt have to check at this location
@@toogoodatall960 noted. Thanks.
So many people said they check or were supposed to have been checked the aircraft. This is seems like the height of carelessness or negligence.
"When you assume, you make an ass of you and me." -Peter from Mentor Pilot
This incident is similar to Aeroperu flight 603. A piece of tape brought down that flight because the static ports were blocked by it. Moreover, the flight happened during the night and above the ocean, worsening the situation.
Imagine telling someone that your job description is LAME
such a LAME job
Hi, Umm... I'm shocked really, I can understand why engineers would cover critical flight sensors and exterior flight aids, however it is unacceptable that proper procedures are not being followed and that includes the all important walk around done by the flight crew before flight, I sincerely hope that this issue have been resolved.
Yes that’s true…there should be some warning like “static port covered, remove before flight” in PFD !! It’s something like a Camera lens…that you remove the lens cover before taking a photograph…haha
they do this to prevent items from blocking the ports.
@@gradynace7557 by items I guess you mean either insects or FOD.
You would think in this day and age that using tape to cover ports on aircraft would have been replaced with a push on plug cover that has a long enough tag that even blind Freddy could see it.
Perhaps redesigned such that airflow at sufficient speed will remove the covers in any case.
@@techo61 and not suck them into the engines 😳😱
They need to randomly put "remove before flight" stickers (but without actually covering the port) to incentivize pilots to actually check them during pre flight inspection. The fact that the ports are so rarely found covered, while a good thing in itself, causes a well known psychological bias that makes inspections ineffective.
That is a very good strategy. Bias of expectation used in a good way, because they will expect to find a random number of stickers instead of expecting no stickers at all
"World's safest airline" ~ Skytrax
All that inspection process and none of them caught the pitot covers. Lol…
A pattern is developing which is not good news for Qantas. Hopefully they will take drastic action to turn this around.
I blame it on Foster's.
Shouldn’t it have thrown EICAS messages? And wasn’t there a 757 that crashed because of the same issue (AeroPeru 603 I believe it was)
Even the beat employees can have an off day but I hope there is better communication between maintenance and crew with regards inspection procedure in future. At least it was a mistake to learn from that they were lucky enough to get away with.
Yikes, luckily it wasn't the more cirtical static ports that help provide airspeed and altitude information, but that's still no excuse, someone has to be severely dealt with. Also, why is a more junior pilot conducting the walkaround check? I know he authorised this second officer to do it, but from my knowledge, its usually the captain who does it. They have more experience to look out for things like this.
Wow - a captain, two first officers, and two second officers. Seems a little extreme! Five pilots - how may are actually busy the 14 hours?
It's probably so they could have a quick turnaround? Just guessing
@@PASquared it's not for a quick turn around. Pilots are required to take a rest after a certain amount of flying time. It is airline dependant but there's a cap that ICAO puts before pilot flying is required to rest. A quick turnaround would be illegal after 14 hours of flying. This 5 man crew alternates between the first officer's and captains seats when the captain and first officer go on rest.
They all fly the plane at one pint or another, so it seems extreme don’t get me wrong, but it’s all with good reason
Lol, love that the crew members were tagged
Flashback to Aeroperu flight 603...
Qantas ... a serious blight on their flight crews, culture and integrity.... give them a wide berth
Im sorry they have not had a fatal accident in the entire jet era
@@aussieaussieaussieoioioi9450 and your point is....has fuck all to do with the facts I stated. Virgin, Rex.....have never had a fatal record and a mother fact you won't like, Virgin rated higher than Qantas for safety
@@signature1990 simple fact is they haven't been through two different ages of flight
Oh no🤦♂️. That was quite embarras
I think there’s a typo at 1 minute and 13 seconds where it says Septmeber. Sorry if I’m wrong. +love your vids
1:10 - 1:19
And to think that it’s happened more than once!
Somebody’s pre-flight was less than adequate?
Well… that’s confidence building????
Oh wow!
Summary: Everybody F'ed Up.
what happen?
Aeroperu 603 2.0?
Qantas is so luck they have avoided so many crashes
OMG! Australia where are you going!
The ceo for Qantas is an airbus lover and will be an all airbus before anyone knows it.
Dear Simple Flying: Please set Closed Captions (CC) to OFF by default. Thank you.
Tape??
Yes, tape. Nothing strange about that, tape is used to cover specific openings/ports for stuff like washing or sealing off ports for testing.
For qantas fine work the federal government most likely gave them more money 💰
It’s pronounced LAMY and AMY.
your voice sounds different, Mr. Narrator!
✈️👀
These incidents in no way put me off flying Qantas. Everybody is entitled to an off day.
Don’t watch adds don’t support them ether
Completely unacceptable and incompetent. Hopefully all the negligent employees are no longer in the airline industry.
That's a great way to discourage people from being honest about their mistakes.
Nobody died and nothing of value was lost, so nobody's on the hook for manslaughter or criminal negligence. The problem here isn't a bad person, it's poor communication, procedure, and oversight. Those are all institutional problems that need fixing within the organization, not excuses to fire someone.
@@shingshongshamalama You are correct, fortunately no major harm or damage was caused by this gross lack of professionalism.
employees at airlines are wack