Qantas Frequent Flyer - QF suspends pilots

QANTAS has stood down two pilots after a Boeing 767 landing in Sydney came within 700ft of the ground before the flight crew realised they had not lowered the plane's undercarriage.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/pilots-suspended-after-plane-came-within-700ft-of-runway-before-crew-realised-landing-gear-was-not-lowered/story-e6frfhb6-1225794237804

Okay, so I am usually one to stick up for QF in these situations, but how do you miss something that important in a pre-landing checklist?!

Luckily their "The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown" did not last long enough... They did not have 200kms available like those NW pilots had the other day :-)

Lets wait for the outcome of the investigation before drawing conclusions (or is that too PPRUNe'ish?)

Lets wait for the outcome of the investigation before drawing conclusions (or is that too PPRUNe'ish?)

What do you want to wait for? They have admited fault, the article says that clearly. "But Qantas said yesterday that a crew failing to lower the undercarriage was extremely rare and it was taking the incident seriously. "The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown," a spokeswoman said." Maybe they were checking e-mails on their laptops? Or ACARS messages and already negotiating next flight?

FYI

Operating Aircraft: VH-OGP

"Passing 700 ft on approach into Sydney, the crew commenced a missed approach due to the aircraft being incorrectly configured for landing. During the commencement of the missed approach the "too low gear" GPWS warning activated."

the aircraft being incorrectly configured for landing.

I like that, almost as good as the 'controlled flight into terrain'

What do you want to wait for? They have admited fault, the article says that clearly.Where do you get that from? The article absolutely does not say that.Maybe they were checking e-mails on their laptops? Or ACARS messages and already negotiating next flight?Or maybe there were doing something else that was also required and also flight critical, and then didn't return to the appropriate place in the procedure or checklist?

Errors induced by the interruption of procedures and checklists by other flight-critical tasks is a big topic at the moment - as I'm sure you already know.

Where do you get that from? The article absolutely does not say that..

FROM: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/pilots-suspended-after-plane-came-within-700ft-of-runway-before-crew-realised-landing-gear-was-not-lowered/story-e6frfhb6-1225794237804

"The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown," isn't that clear enough?

"The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown," isn't that clear enough?

Sorry, are you suggesting the media is 100% correct all the time? They may well be in this case, but many have learnt not to place high reliance on the media for facts.

Good thing that chap ran out and fired a flare at the threshold, what?

Sorry, are you suggesting the media is 100% correct all the time? They may well be in this case, but many have learnt not to place high reliance on the media for facts.

No, I am not, but in this particular case I have heard the spokesperson to say that on the radio...

"The flight crew knew all required procedures but there was a brief communications breakdown," isn't that clear enough?No, absolutely not. "Communications breakdown" does not mean that anyone was at fault, let alone that anyone has admitted to it.