Freedom Boeing 737 grounded
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would never want Quim in the right seat beside me!!!!!
But thats ok, because he's in the back seat. WHERE HE BELONGS.As an Australian pilot, he is not like us.NO ******* IDEA. Straight from instructing with a couple of charter hours chucked in before he got the lucky start.
We are all subject to ""Human factors"".Quim must be good!!!
But thats ok, because he's in the back seat. WHERE HE BELONGS.As an Australian pilot, he is not like us.NO ******* IDEA. Straight from instructing with a couple of charter hours chucked in before he got the lucky start.
We are all subject to ""Human factors"".Quim must be good!!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hilarious thing with you MOR and QUIM and many others is that you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. You have been in the industry 5 minutes and think you know it all. YOU DON'T and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I lost count of the times at Heathrow and CDG (Paris for you cadets) where the mighty Oz kangaroo took a wrong turn or didn't adhere to instructions...........then only make it worse by trying to BS their way out of it. I know you blokes are told how great you are. Try not to believe too much of that brain washing lads. Have the capacity to self critique and be your own worst critic. It may one day save you embarrassment (or a lot worse).
Time to wrap this up woomera. Just going around in another endless cycle of diatribe.
I lost count of the times at Heathrow and CDG (Paris for you cadets) where the mighty Oz kangaroo took a wrong turn or didn't adhere to instructions...........then only make it worse by trying to BS their way out of it. I know you blokes are told how great you are. Try not to believe too much of that brain washing lads. Have the capacity to self critique and be your own worst critic. It may one day save you embarrassment (or a lot worse).
Time to wrap this up woomera. Just going around in another endless cycle of diatribe.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness me MOR! Is that it? Is that really your excuse for a reply? You sound just like a kid in an "am so.... am not" debate.
Read my posts Nong, nowhere did I condone deliberate violations.
Agreed Spermbank,
wrap it up while the cock n'ballers are still riding high on the gravy train!
Read my posts Nong, nowhere did I condone deliberate violations.
Agreed Spermbank,
wrap it up while the cock n'ballers are still riding high on the gravy train!
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 6th Oct 2004 at 11:26.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sperm Bank
Yes, well. Actually been in the industry for 20 years (over 12 of them in and out of CDG, as it happens). Even saw a few unfortunates come to grief on Quebec when it was first built. You know where that is at CDG, right?
Also spent the last 6 years as a training Captain, trying to teach people (successfully) not to make these sorts of basic errors. Some of us are professional in our outlook, if you find that arrogant, well I really couldn't care less. Aviation requires a "zero tolerance" approach to obeying SOPs. Maintaining the centreline is an SOP. Not moving if you can't see where you are going is an SOP. Knowing the different meanings of green and blue lights is an SOP (in any decent airline, anyway).
The hilarious thing with you MOR and QUIM and many others is that you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. You have been in the industry 5 minutes and think you know it all... ... lost count of the times at Heathrow and CDG (Paris for you cadets)
Also spent the last 6 years as a training Captain, trying to teach people (successfully) not to make these sorts of basic errors. Some of us are professional in our outlook, if you find that arrogant, well I really couldn't care less. Aviation requires a "zero tolerance" approach to obeying SOPs. Maintaining the centreline is an SOP. Not moving if you can't see where you are going is an SOP. Knowing the different meanings of green and blue lights is an SOP (in any decent airline, anyway).
Last edited by MOR; 6th Oct 2004 at 14:44.
Nunc est bibendum
I know you blokes are told how great you are.
I don't mind people slagging off at each other over comments made on here but I get pretty cranky when people allege things about my airline that I KNOW is not the case. You're as bad as a journo. Throw what you consider to be 'facts' out in the open in the theory that to apologise is easier (and in smaller print) then actually knowing what you are talking about in the first place.
What a shocker from a whole bunch of people. To be honest, no one on here has the foggiest as to what happened unless the blokes or blokettes concerned out themselves.
With all the glare from the night lights, the crew may have believed that they WERE on the centreline. Sure, stop if you're unsure of your position but maybe they'd had a long crappy day with delays and any other plethora of contributing factors and had a 'reasonable belief' that they were on the centreline. Anyway, I'm sure the investigation when it comes out will tell us the full deal. Until then it would be nice if we could keep the name calling to a minimum.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Sunfish,
For those with the slings and arrows, pots and kettles, pride and falls, should all be subjects for your contemplation gentlemen.
Please play nice. We all play in the same sandpit guys.
We have all either done or come close to doing something career challenging in our journey through life, which is only after all, a lifelong learning experience for us all.
That's why we have the accumulated wisdom called SOPS.
SQ, WIP and Taipei had some hard lessons on maneuvering around WIP at night.
We can keep on learning and modifying, but it wasn't the first and wont be the last.
So until someone has something new to offer on this subject and can open a new thread on it, why don't we give it a rest.
For those with the slings and arrows, pots and kettles, pride and falls, should all be subjects for your contemplation gentlemen.
Please play nice. We all play in the same sandpit guys.
We have all either done or come close to doing something career challenging in our journey through life, which is only after all, a lifelong learning experience for us all.
That's why we have the accumulated wisdom called SOPS.
SQ, WIP and Taipei had some hard lessons on maneuvering around WIP at night.
We can keep on learning and modifying, but it wasn't the first and wont be the last.
So until someone has something new to offer on this subject and can open a new thread on it, why don't we give it a rest.
The assumption always seems to be, from the usual subjects, that the crew were unprofessional dickheads who stuffed up and that they would never make a mistake like that.
Surely a more constructive approach would be to assume that the crew were highly experienced, professional and doing their utmost to get things right and have an uneventful day at the office. That then begs the question what would cause such a crew to end up in such a situation? Then we can ask of ourselves ...If it can happen to them how can I make sure it doesn't happen to me?
That way we learn about the dynamics of the incident what led up to it etc. Human factors, remember that? Or was it just an exam to be completed and forgotten about.
Until we know ALL of the FACTS, not just what we can observe from the photograph or by taxying past, then we are just speculating.
Surely a more constructive approach would be to assume that the crew were highly experienced, professional and doing their utmost to get things right and have an uneventful day at the office. That then begs the question what would cause such a crew to end up in such a situation? Then we can ask of ourselves ...If it can happen to them how can I make sure it doesn't happen to me?
That way we learn about the dynamics of the incident what led up to it etc. Human factors, remember that? Or was it just an exam to be completed and forgotten about.
Until we know ALL of the FACTS, not just what we can observe from the photograph or by taxying past, then we are just speculating.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank youIcarus2001 .
Why dont we restart an old/new way of thinking.
That is; we don't respond to a thread unless we have something either interesting, positive (and it is possible to take an opposing view in this mode without reverting to a subjective personal attack) or new to add to it.
It might take a little more thought but it does raise the standard no end.
Just a thought.
Why dont we restart an old/new way of thinking.
That is; we don't respond to a thread unless we have something either interesting, positive (and it is possible to take an opposing view in this mode without reverting to a subjective personal attack) or new to add to it.
It might take a little more thought but it does raise the standard no end.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, just to clarify, and in a "positive" way to keep the woomerii happy, let me just say that I do not for a minute think that this crew were "unprofessional dickheads". However, they did "stuff up", and it is far more useful to accept that, and learn from it, than try to excuse it or ignore it. Nobody is looking for a witchhunt, but it is important to call a spade a spade.
All of aviation is based on learning from the mistakes of those who have gone before. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever to simply say "there but for the grace of God go I", because all the research on the subject (that I have read) clearly indicates that you don't go "there" if you learn from others, and always stick to simple rules (aka SOPs). We are masters of our own destiny.
The difference between pilots who make career-ending mistakes, and those who get to retirement with no major problems, is that the second group have had the self-discipline to ALWAYS act prudently, even when tired or stressed; to always take the safest possible option. To always be SURE, not to guess. Even if the research in this area did not indicate this (which it overwhelmingly does), I have seen it with my own eyes far too often, and have lost some colleagues as a result.
These days, when we sim-check potential new hires, we always test their decision-making in this area (as all enlightened airlines do, including, I am sure, Freedom).
If it is somehow unpalatable to say on PPRuNe that somebody has made a mistake, because this is apparently not "positive" enough, little will ever be learned. Debate can be (should be) carried out with both positive and negative inputs. It should always be done with courtesy and restraint, and that is what the real issue has always been with this particular forum. Sad to see political correctness having it's day, but not surprising I suppose. Is it time for the group hug yet?
All of aviation is based on learning from the mistakes of those who have gone before. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever to simply say "there but for the grace of God go I", because all the research on the subject (that I have read) clearly indicates that you don't go "there" if you learn from others, and always stick to simple rules (aka SOPs). We are masters of our own destiny.
The difference between pilots who make career-ending mistakes, and those who get to retirement with no major problems, is that the second group have had the self-discipline to ALWAYS act prudently, even when tired or stressed; to always take the safest possible option. To always be SURE, not to guess. Even if the research in this area did not indicate this (which it overwhelmingly does), I have seen it with my own eyes far too often, and have lost some colleagues as a result.
These days, when we sim-check potential new hires, we always test their decision-making in this area (as all enlightened airlines do, including, I am sure, Freedom).
If it is somehow unpalatable to say on PPRuNe that somebody has made a mistake, because this is apparently not "positive" enough, little will ever be learned. Debate can be (should be) carried out with both positive and negative inputs. It should always be done with courtesy and restraint, and that is what the real issue has always been with this particular forum. Sad to see political correctness having it's day, but not surprising I suppose. Is it time for the group hug yet?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wellington
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg gets to heart of this matter. Most incidents of this kind occur when highly professional crews believe that they are following SOPs but, for some reason have their sensory perceptions distorted.
The frequency with which such misperceptions occur is a direct function of conditions in the external environment or the internal mental state of the crew. The probabilities are researched and measureable.
Anyone who leaps to the assumption that this incident was due to incompetence has simply forgotten their human factors stuff. It MAY be the case that the individuals acted incompetently or recklessly, but the probabilities are far greater that it was:
(a) perception distorting factors in the immediate operational environment (as some have suggested; and/or
(b) multiple distractions leading to cognitive overload; and/or
(c) systemic failings in the airline, airport or ATC operating and training procedures (manifesting themselves in (a) or (b) situations).
In my work in the industry (and in other safety critical industries) a good indicator of individual and collective professionalism is the ability and willingness to consider (or wait for others to consider) all these possibilities prior to making judgements about cause.
A significant human factors problem occurs when there is a cultural predisposition in the company or regulatory authorities to default to individual blame. This is because it raises the background stress levels for everybody and therefore increases the frequency with which environmentally triggered misperception (lapses) or incorrect procedures (mistakes) occurs.
The frequency with which such misperceptions occur is a direct function of conditions in the external environment or the internal mental state of the crew. The probabilities are researched and measureable.
Anyone who leaps to the assumption that this incident was due to incompetence has simply forgotten their human factors stuff. It MAY be the case that the individuals acted incompetently or recklessly, but the probabilities are far greater that it was:
(a) perception distorting factors in the immediate operational environment (as some have suggested; and/or
(b) multiple distractions leading to cognitive overload; and/or
(c) systemic failings in the airline, airport or ATC operating and training procedures (manifesting themselves in (a) or (b) situations).
In my work in the industry (and in other safety critical industries) a good indicator of individual and collective professionalism is the ability and willingness to consider (or wait for others to consider) all these possibilities prior to making judgements about cause.
A significant human factors problem occurs when there is a cultural predisposition in the company or regulatory authorities to default to individual blame. This is because it raises the background stress levels for everybody and therefore increases the frequency with which environmentally triggered misperception (lapses) or incorrect procedures (mistakes) occurs.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Whoaaa there Politically correct we are not. 
K:
Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say. 
By all means let's have robust discussion but the tendency has developed for those who disagree either way to personalise the issue with pejorative comment or "this airline is safer than the other, because they aren't us" routines.
I was in fact trying to work out how to introduce a discussion thread on how we might work out an industry system that deals equitably with the consequences of an action based on a line of yours which rang out of the rest of the stuff on this thread, well for me anyway;
I agree, absolutely, but what about the others.
Do you want to have a go? I think it would be a cracker??
Rongotai
Thank you.
Don't you hate it when someone is posting whilst you are composing, or in my case decomposing.
I think that is what we are all trying to get to in our own clumsy way.
Whoaaa there
Politically correct we are not. K:
If it is somehow unpalatable to say on PPRuNe that somebody has made a mistake, because this is apparently not "positive" enough, little will ever be learned. Debate can be (should be) carried out with both positive and negative inputs. It should always be done with courtesy and restraint, and that is what the real issue has always been with this particular forum. Sad to see political correctness having it's day, but not surprising I suppose. Is it time for the group hug yet?
By all means let's have robust discussion but the tendency has developed for those who disagree either way to personalise the issue with pejorative comment or "this airline is safer than the other, because they aren't us" routines.
I was in fact trying to work out how to introduce a discussion thread on how we might work out an industry system that deals equitably with the consequences of an action based on a line of yours which rang out of the rest of the stuff on this thread, well for me anyway;
Sometimes, the responsibility of being the captain involves simply raising your hand and saying "I screwed up".
Do you want to have a go? I think it would be a cracker??
Rongotai
Thank you.
Don't you hate it when someone is posting whilst you are composing, or in my case decomposing.
I think that is what we are all trying to get to in our own clumsy way.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wellington
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To try and take up MOR's challenge:
The issue for me is whether the objective of incident investigation is to reduce the frequency of critical incidents (make the industry safer) or determine who was at fault (to identify who to punish or sue). If you lean too far one way you let incompetent performance off the hook. If you lean too far the other way you increase the frequency with which competent people make errors.
It is my view that at present we are generally too far towards the fault finding end of things. A significant consequence of this is that very few people feel safe in putting their hands up when they make a mistake. Thus we:
(a) lose the opportunity to learn from the mistake;
(b) have greater difficulty in distinguishing between the prudent and imprudent pilots (because the imprudent will never put their hands up, no matter what, whereas the prudent will if they know they are going to be treated justly).
I find it very hard to understand why the aviation industry has a problem with this. Selection, training and induction procedures, and line checking are generally superb. If that is so, how can we believe that there are lots of cowboys out there?
If there are a lot of imprudent pilots, then I must be seriously wrong and training and induction is desperately in need of review. If I am right, and if most employed pilots are of high quality, then why is there such an easy willingness to slag off individuals when something goes wrong?
So my current judgement is that there is a cultural problem in the industry (not universally, but in many airlines) that is making it very hard for otherwise competent pilots to discuss their errors in an open way that would allow for continuous improvement in training and operational procedures.
The issue for me is whether the objective of incident investigation is to reduce the frequency of critical incidents (make the industry safer) or determine who was at fault (to identify who to punish or sue). If you lean too far one way you let incompetent performance off the hook. If you lean too far the other way you increase the frequency with which competent people make errors.
It is my view that at present we are generally too far towards the fault finding end of things. A significant consequence of this is that very few people feel safe in putting their hands up when they make a mistake. Thus we:
(a) lose the opportunity to learn from the mistake;
(b) have greater difficulty in distinguishing between the prudent and imprudent pilots (because the imprudent will never put their hands up, no matter what, whereas the prudent will if they know they are going to be treated justly).
I find it very hard to understand why the aviation industry has a problem with this. Selection, training and induction procedures, and line checking are generally superb. If that is so, how can we believe that there are lots of cowboys out there?
If there are a lot of imprudent pilots, then I must be seriously wrong and training and induction is desperately in need of review. If I am right, and if most employed pilots are of high quality, then why is there such an easy willingness to slag off individuals when something goes wrong?
So my current judgement is that there is a cultural problem in the industry (not universally, but in many airlines) that is making it very hard for otherwise competent pilots to discuss their errors in an open way that would allow for continuous improvement in training and operational procedures.
Rongotai some good points well made.
I think that particularly within the walls of this forum people know that there are cowboys out there but they also know that they work for other companies!
The mindset seems to be that the name on the side of the aircraft makes a difference to the abilities and attitudes of individual up the front. So by that logic the poor unfortunate Ansett Captain now working for Jetstar or Virgin Blue is now a cowboy until proven otherwise.
If that is so, how can we believe that there are lots of cowboys out there?
The mindset seems to be that the name on the side of the aircraft makes a difference to the abilities and attitudes of individual up the front. So by that logic the poor unfortunate Ansett Captain now working for Jetstar or Virgin Blue is now a cowboy until proven otherwise.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comes from a post on another forum
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:19 pm Post subject:
Using my skills as a modern day Sherlock Holmes I would summize that he was taxiing along his well worn route without a care in the world, probably counting the sheep in an adjacent paddock, and at the last minute realized that he should have read his Notams informing him that there was works in progress on the Melbourne Apron. Having realized at the last minute, he carried out a 180 degree maneuver to his starboard side expecting the first officer to give him some idea how close he was to the shoulder. The problem was that the first officer was still eyeing off a good looking sheep in the paddock, either way he was bound to end up in the poo.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do LCC's employ inferior pilots?
There are those who would like to think so, why?, because generally LCC's pay less and therefore threaten the conditions of those in the 'established' airlines. At every opportunity they point out deficiencies in their competitors operating standards.
The facts do not support their assertions, LCC's do not have a poorer safety record than any other airlines.
It would appear there are some who need to asses why it is they are 'angry' at LCC's and perhaps direct their energies towards a more productive outcome.
KEG, I regret to inform you that on my first day at QF, our course were told by a management pilot that we were there because we were 'the cream of the crop'. Needless to say both myself and the other 'experienced' pilots were highly embarrassed, however I could not wonder what thoughts were going through the minds of the somewhat greener coursemembers.
I have had stories relayed to me of similar comments being made to other courses.
However, since then I have not heard any similar suggestions from crew or otherwise.
There are those who would like to think so, why?, because generally LCC's pay less and therefore threaten the conditions of those in the 'established' airlines. At every opportunity they point out deficiencies in their competitors operating standards.
The facts do not support their assertions, LCC's do not have a poorer safety record than any other airlines.
It would appear there are some who need to asses why it is they are 'angry' at LCC's and perhaps direct their energies towards a more productive outcome.
KEG, I regret to inform you that on my first day at QF, our course were told by a management pilot that we were there because we were 'the cream of the crop'. Needless to say both myself and the other 'experienced' pilots were highly embarrassed, however I could not wonder what thoughts were going through the minds of the somewhat greener coursemembers.
I have had stories relayed to me of similar comments being made to other courses.
However, since then I have not heard any similar suggestions from crew or otherwise.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wellington
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having close personal (including family) and professional links with flight crew in both LCC's and legacy carriers in Europe and the US, I can see no evidence that there are any significant differences between the basic professionalism and professional competencies in LC's and LCC's.
What I do see is commercial pressures that impacted first on ops management in LCC's, now being equally applied in LC's. These commercial pressures are translating into an increased frequency of human error incidents triggered by the processes described in my earlier post that are, to some extent, being offset by advances in flight deck technologies (for example TCAS).
My belief (intuitive, not proven) is that this has created a sort of fool's paradise that has made it easier for airline management to believe that they can put greater pressure on crews because the technology is sidelining them.
I believe this to be a fool's paradise because I don't think that the compensating safety gains from technology will continue to be significant, whereas oil prices and competition is increasing the pressures on management to look for savings (and even more so looking to personnel savings because of their high technology investment).
I believe that the result of all this is that we are seeing the beginning of a trend towards increasing frequencies of critical incidents in phases of flights where flight crew (and others such as ATC and engineering) judgement is most significant. That means primarily on the ground and close to airports. Whether or not this forecast is correct will become clear in another year or so, but just look at the figures on runway incursion incidents and you'll see what I mean.
(personal disclosure - Son flying for an LC and a daughter in law for an LCC - so I'm not an apologist for either side!)
What I do see is commercial pressures that impacted first on ops management in LCC's, now being equally applied in LC's. These commercial pressures are translating into an increased frequency of human error incidents triggered by the processes described in my earlier post that are, to some extent, being offset by advances in flight deck technologies (for example TCAS).
My belief (intuitive, not proven) is that this has created a sort of fool's paradise that has made it easier for airline management to believe that they can put greater pressure on crews because the technology is sidelining them.
I believe this to be a fool's paradise because I don't think that the compensating safety gains from technology will continue to be significant, whereas oil prices and competition is increasing the pressures on management to look for savings (and even more so looking to personnel savings because of their high technology investment).
I believe that the result of all this is that we are seeing the beginning of a trend towards increasing frequencies of critical incidents in phases of flights where flight crew (and others such as ATC and engineering) judgement is most significant. That means primarily on the ground and close to airports. Whether or not this forecast is correct will become clear in another year or so, but just look at the figures on runway incursion incidents and you'll see what I mean.
(personal disclosure - Son flying for an LC and a daughter in law for an LCC - so I'm not an apologist for either side!)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to lighten the mood a bit. I have a bogged story.
I flew into Maroochy for the first time in a Saratoga that I had only just graduated to from arrows. Got detailed taxi instructions to the GA parking area where the ground controller instructed me to park on the grass right next to the hard stand. I did not want to upset anyone so I made a wide arc and onto the grass I went (Coming from bk our grass is hard with a clay base not black sand) there were red/white cones way away on the other side and the grass looked hard enough. I got about 10 feet and stopped bogged. After about a minute of take off power I decided I was not going anywhere and sheepishly requested a tow from ground. He polity asked the safety officer to come on over. (I am sure they were all laughing at me inside the tower) and by this time there was RPT landing and more people looking. After about 10 minutes the safety officer arrived jumped out of his ute with a large grin on his face and handed me a small 2 foot long shovel He gave a little laugh and said Why didn’t you park on the hard stand got in his car and drove off chuckling.
I had to laugh even though I was embarrassed. I did learn two lessons.
Don’t taxi a Saratoga through sandy grass.
Don’t laugh at someone else unless you are happy for them to be laughing at you one day.
I flew into Maroochy for the first time in a Saratoga that I had only just graduated to from arrows. Got detailed taxi instructions to the GA parking area where the ground controller instructed me to park on the grass right next to the hard stand. I did not want to upset anyone so I made a wide arc and onto the grass I went (Coming from bk our grass is hard with a clay base not black sand) there were red/white cones way away on the other side and the grass looked hard enough. I got about 10 feet and stopped bogged. After about a minute of take off power I decided I was not going anywhere and sheepishly requested a tow from ground. He polity asked the safety officer to come on over. (I am sure they were all laughing at me inside the tower) and by this time there was RPT landing and more people looking. After about 10 minutes the safety officer arrived jumped out of his ute with a large grin on his face and handed me a small 2 foot long shovel He gave a little laugh and said Why didn’t you park on the hard stand got in his car and drove off chuckling.
I had to laugh even though I was embarrassed. I did learn two lessons.
Don’t taxi a Saratoga through sandy grass.
Don’t laugh at someone else unless you are happy for them to be laughing at you one day.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
Oh no, you mean you want me to THINK...???
Rongotai
With the greatest possible respect, and respecting your rights as an individual, and with the exercise of the greatest possible restraint... I'm not entirely sure you understand the aviation industry very well. I suspect your ideas come from a different industry, with different priorities.
Firstly, the object of incident/accident investigations is to find out what happened. What is later done with this information, is another matter - and that is what is determined by the airline culture.
Now the investigation process is aided by two vital bits of equipment, the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Flight Data Recorder. This removes the possibility of either avoiding the icy finger of blame, or lying, in the majority of cases. I am sure that the CVR will be quite revealing in this case... probably a few uncertain exchanges followed by "oh sh*t".
Almost ever reasonably serious incident or accident is officially investigated by the CAA. In almost all other cases, the airline will carry out an internal investigation, the scope of which is determined by their procedures, which are themselves part of the Operations Manual and therefore approved by the CAA (in other words, they are essentially law). For this reason, an airline internal investigation should first of all try and determine what happened.
In more minor cases where a formal investigation may not take place, the apportioning of blame is very straightforward - the Captain is in command at all times, and the buck stops with him or her. Of course that also applies where there is a formal investigation. If the Captain did not actually cause the incident, he or she can be considered to be at fault for not adequately monitoring the other pilot - harsh, some may say, but that is how a command gradient works.
For this reason, one of the more attractive aspects of union membership is the legal protection you get!
There are several ways in which pilots can confidentially admit to errors - most aviation authorities sponsor these. CHIRP in the UK is one example. So that answers your "current judgement".
Secondly, don't mistake the microcosm of NZ aviation for what happens in the rest of civilisation - we are behind the curve in many ways when it comes to Human Factors - in fact, woefully so in some areas. Coming back after 20 years away, that much was painfully obvious!
Oh, and by the way, there are cowboys in all airlines, the selection procedures are not as reliable as you think they are (don't get me started on that one!), and line checks in many airlines can be pretty casual. Simulator checks are generally a lot tougher.
Finally, say what you like about LCC's but, in Europe in any case, they spend a lot on training. MUCH more than they need to.
Do you want to have a go? I think it would be a cracker??
Rongotai
With the greatest possible respect, and respecting your rights as an individual, and with the exercise of the greatest possible restraint... I'm not entirely sure you understand the aviation industry very well. I suspect your ideas come from a different industry, with different priorities.
Firstly, the object of incident/accident investigations is to find out what happened. What is later done with this information, is another matter - and that is what is determined by the airline culture.
Now the investigation process is aided by two vital bits of equipment, the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Flight Data Recorder. This removes the possibility of either avoiding the icy finger of blame, or lying, in the majority of cases. I am sure that the CVR will be quite revealing in this case... probably a few uncertain exchanges followed by "oh sh*t".
Almost ever reasonably serious incident or accident is officially investigated by the CAA. In almost all other cases, the airline will carry out an internal investigation, the scope of which is determined by their procedures, which are themselves part of the Operations Manual and therefore approved by the CAA (in other words, they are essentially law). For this reason, an airline internal investigation should first of all try and determine what happened.
In more minor cases where a formal investigation may not take place, the apportioning of blame is very straightforward - the Captain is in command at all times, and the buck stops with him or her. Of course that also applies where there is a formal investigation. If the Captain did not actually cause the incident, he or she can be considered to be at fault for not adequately monitoring the other pilot - harsh, some may say, but that is how a command gradient works.
For this reason, one of the more attractive aspects of union membership is the legal protection you get!
There are several ways in which pilots can confidentially admit to errors - most aviation authorities sponsor these. CHIRP in the UK is one example. So that answers your "current judgement".
Secondly, don't mistake the microcosm of NZ aviation for what happens in the rest of civilisation - we are behind the curve in many ways when it comes to Human Factors - in fact, woefully so in some areas. Coming back after 20 years away, that much was painfully obvious!
Oh, and by the way, there are cowboys in all airlines, the selection procedures are not as reliable as you think they are (don't get me started on that one!), and line checks in many airlines can be pretty casual. Simulator checks are generally a lot tougher.
Finally, say what you like about LCC's but, in Europe in any case, they spend a lot on training. MUCH more than they need to.
