Originally Posted by
jb747
...Qantas uses the Airbus and Boeing manuals in an unadulterated form. They come straight from the maker, and are not changed all. There was a time in the past (10 plus years ago) when we did rewrite them, and they were vastly superior to the factory offerings. But, these days, even changing the spelling of one word (and the Airbus manual is full of Fringlish) requires a long drawn out process with the maker.
Which 'several' reports are they?
We have to go all the way back to Dec 13, 2010 for
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...-2008-003.aspx which includes in the summary: "The investigation identified a number of safety issues in regard to the protection of aircraft systems from liquids, and other factors including the provision of information to flight crews." and in the final report under Findings includes: "
Significant safety issueThe flight crew quick reference handbook did not include sufficient information for
the flight crew to appropriately manage operations on standby power.
-
Action taken by the aircraft operator
As a result of this occurrence, the aircraft operator:
• evaluated the provision of additional formal guidance to 747-400 flight crew for operations on standby power, including a review of Section 6 – electrical of the non-normal checklist within the 747-400 quick reference handbook (QRH). On 30 April 2009, the aircraft operator reported that it did not plan any changes to the QRH unless recommended to do so by the aircraft manufacturer
• has drafted an addition to the 747-400 flight crew operations manual to provide guidance to flight crews on the effect and management of multiple AC electrical bus loss, including battery life, major systems affected, and recommended crew actions."
QF had to make a lot of changes in the past year due to that incident with a 744, including changing the repair/inspection process for A330s and B767s.
The pilot error in not declaring Pan or Mayday could have been serious (as well as additional error in not doing the correct post-landing check prior to taxi. Lots more to consider, but overall QF did well with this when it could have been much worse.
Good thing that ATSB publishes their reports, so pax can see what the airlines and manufacturers are doing (or not doing). Too bad that QF decided to limit discussion of this event to 744 pilots, when really all pilots would benefit from the core principles, at least to a level of being aware of the incident and the lessons learned from it. I am, as a pax, and would hope the pros would have a greater interest and understanding.