Merged: Senate Inquiry
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Senate Inquiry
All,
The industry meetings and work undertaken by many individuals and organisations, including the unions and Senator Xenophon, have been successful in winning a Senate Inquiry.
Don't waste this rare opportunity to have a say in the legislative process of the Australian Aviation Industry.
Put (constructive) pen to paper and submit your thoughts by 28 October in accordance with the instructions below. Submissions may be made in-confidence by attaching a covering letter outlining the reason/s for requested anonymity.
IMHO, failure to make a submission to this critical inquiry is bordering on professional negligence...and it certainly means an individual has no grounds for further whining on PPRuNe.
Lets all participate and keep the momentum going!
Cheers,
PG
Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.
(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;
(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;
(h) reporting of incidents to aviation authorities by pilots, crew and operators and the handling of those reports by the authorities, including the following incidents:
(i) the Jetstar incident at Melbourne airport on 21 June 2007, and
(ii) the Tiger Airways incident, en route from Mackay to Melbourne, on 18 May 2009;
(i) how reporting processes can be strengthened to improve safety and related training, including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010; and
(j) any other related matters.
The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is 28 October 2010.
The committee invites you or your organisation to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the bill.
The committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. Submissions can be lodged via the Senate online submission system at https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions, by email to '[email protected]' or by post to:
Committee Secretary
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Please note that submissions become committee documents and are only made public after a formal decision by the committee. Persons making submissions must not release them without the committee's prior approval. Submissions are covered by parliamentary privilege but the unauthorised release of them is not.
Please ensure that any submissions or attachments you wish to remain confidential are clearly marked as such. A covering letter, clearly outlining the specific reasons for requesting confidentiality, should also be attached to the submission. Please contact the Secretariat if you require further advice on any issues with regard to confidentiality.
In the event that the committee determines to hold public hearings for the inquiry, the committee's website will be updated to provide advice on dates and locations.
For further information about the inquiry see Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety or phone 02 6277 3511.
Yours sincerely,
Jeanette Radcliffe
Committee Secretary
The industry meetings and work undertaken by many individuals and organisations, including the unions and Senator Xenophon, have been successful in winning a Senate Inquiry.
Don't waste this rare opportunity to have a say in the legislative process of the Australian Aviation Industry.
Put (constructive) pen to paper and submit your thoughts by 28 October in accordance with the instructions below. Submissions may be made in-confidence by attaching a covering letter outlining the reason/s for requested anonymity.
IMHO, failure to make a submission to this critical inquiry is bordering on professional negligence...and it certainly means an individual has no grounds for further whining on PPRuNe.
Lets all participate and keep the momentum going!
Cheers,
PG
Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.
(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;
(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;
(h) reporting of incidents to aviation authorities by pilots, crew and operators and the handling of those reports by the authorities, including the following incidents:
(i) the Jetstar incident at Melbourne airport on 21 June 2007, and
(ii) the Tiger Airways incident, en route from Mackay to Melbourne, on 18 May 2009;
(i) how reporting processes can be strengthened to improve safety and related training, including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010; and
(j) any other related matters.
The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is 28 October 2010.
The committee invites you or your organisation to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the bill.
The committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. Submissions can be lodged via the Senate online submission system at https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions, by email to '[email protected]' or by post to:
Committee Secretary
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Please note that submissions become committee documents and are only made public after a formal decision by the committee. Persons making submissions must not release them without the committee's prior approval. Submissions are covered by parliamentary privilege but the unauthorised release of them is not.
Please ensure that any submissions or attachments you wish to remain confidential are clearly marked as such. A covering letter, clearly outlining the specific reasons for requesting confidentiality, should also be attached to the submission. Please contact the Secretariat if you require further advice on any issues with regard to confidentiality.
In the event that the committee determines to hold public hearings for the inquiry, the committee's website will be updated to provide advice on dates and locations.
For further information about the inquiry see Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety or phone 02 6277 3511.
Yours sincerely,
Jeanette Radcliffe
Committee Secretary
Last edited by Popgun; 6th Oct 2010 at 23:21. Reason: mentioned anonymity...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not everyone reads pprune.
Suggest encouraging your union to advise/encourage all its members to be involved. Put it on the notice board at work call/email/sms/mms your friends.
An important moment in our industry. Here is the chance we all wanted.
An important moment in our industry. Here is the chance we all wanted.
There are some facts in life that are irrefutable. I wonder if Alice is talking about Australia and the Queen is talking about our region.
We are becoming a small fish in a much bigger sea and regardless of how big the 'tanty' we shall certainly see major changes. Interesting!
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
`Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'
`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 2
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here is your chance everyone, the terms of reference is broad enough, and the current Senate is not hostile to having a real go with Government now a minority government you will never get a better chance.
Back it up with letters to your favourite Senator asking them to make sure that this enquiry is not forgotten like the last one was.
Go for it one and all!
Back it up with letters to your favourite Senator asking them to make sure that this enquiry is not forgotten like the last one was.
Go for it one and all!
Taken from this article....
Xenophon wins inquiry on safety and training | The Australian
Surely we can do better than 60! The hiring of cadets is a blatant attempt to save a few $ at the cost of experience, which in this country we have an abundance of. I know that, and you know that. Surely it can't be too hard to convince pollies of this as well.
Xenophon wins inquiry on safety and training | The Australian
Senator Xenophon said he had received a strong response to publicity flagging his intention to call an inquiry, with more than 60 emails from pilots worried that training standards were under threat.
Surely we can do better than 60! The hiring of cadets is a blatant attempt to save a few $ at the cost of experience, which in this country we have an abundance of. I know that, and you know that. Surely it can't be too hard to convince pollies of this as well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ CAA Pilot Requirements
Hi there,
Here is some information for people in Australia wishing to make a point when writing to the Australian Senate with regard to the impending inquiry.
Below is the current NZ CAA pilot minimum requirements with respect to Part 121, 125 and 135 and can be viewed in their entirety on the NZ CAA website under 'rules'. It is interesting to note that the Jetstar cadets will be flying domestic operations within NZ with experience far below these requirements. I understand that they will be operating under the Australian AOC, however I believe that this loophole will be viewed with much suspicion by NZ CAA. Jetstar NZ has already been instructed to utilise NZ CAA alternate minima requirements, rather than their Australian AOC alternate minima requirements that were significantly below those required by the NZ CAA.
Parts 121, 125 and 135 refer to the size of the aircraft and/or the number of passengers able to be on board (info avail on NZ CAA).
121.509 Second-in-command experience
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that any person designated as second-in-command of an air operation—
(1) is suitably trained and qualified on the aeroplane type; and
(2) is capable, in the event of the pilot-in-command being incapacitated—
(i) of operating the aeroplane safely under the prevailing and anticipated forecast weather conditions; and
(ii) of deputising for the pilot-in-command; and
(iii) of landing the aeroplane at the intended destination or a suitable alternate.
121.511 Pilot experience
The certificate holder shall ensure that each person acting as a pilot, other than as pilot-in-command, of an aeroplane, prior to commencing the training specified in Subpart I or Subpart M—
(1) has acquired at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of flight time in air operations; and
(2) has acquired at least 25 hours of night flight experience; and
(3) holds a current instrument rating.
121.513 Pilot operating limitations
(a) Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that, subject to paragraph (b), the pilot-in-command conducts each take-off and each landing.
(b) A second-in-command of an aeroplane performing an air operation may conduct the take-off and landing if—
(1) the pilot-in-command meets the appropriate requirements of 121.583, 121.585, or 121.587; or
(2) the second-in-command has completed the requirements of 121.571 and then accumulated at least 100 hours of flight time, or 75 operating cycles, in air operations, in the aeroplane type being flown; or
(3) the certificate holder has nominated the aerodrome as a general-category aerodrome in its exposition, and the appropriate take-off or landing report provided to the flight crew indicates that—
(i) the prevailing ceiling or visibility is better than the ceiling and visibility minima for that aerodrome when considered as an alternate; and
(ii) the runway to be used is clear of water, snow, slush, rubber accumulation, or similar conditions, that could adversely affect aeroplane performance; and
(iii) the crosswind component for the runway to be used is less than 50% of the demonstrated flight manual limit; and
(iv) windshear has not been reported in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
125.509 Pilot-in-command IFR experience requirements
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall not use a person as pilot-in-command of an aeroplane in an air operation performed under IFR unless that person has at least—
(1) 1200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(2) 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours can be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 50 hours of night flight time.
135.509 Experience requirements for IFR pilots
A holder of an air operator certificate must not designate a person as pilot-in-command of an aircraft performing an air operation under IFR under the authority of the certificate, unless the person—
(1) has at least 750 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 150 hours of cross-country flight time which must include at least 50 hours cross-country flight time conducted under an IFR flight plan; and
(2) 50 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours may be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 25 hours of night flight time.
Here is some information for people in Australia wishing to make a point when writing to the Australian Senate with regard to the impending inquiry.
Below is the current NZ CAA pilot minimum requirements with respect to Part 121, 125 and 135 and can be viewed in their entirety on the NZ CAA website under 'rules'. It is interesting to note that the Jetstar cadets will be flying domestic operations within NZ with experience far below these requirements. I understand that they will be operating under the Australian AOC, however I believe that this loophole will be viewed with much suspicion by NZ CAA. Jetstar NZ has already been instructed to utilise NZ CAA alternate minima requirements, rather than their Australian AOC alternate minima requirements that were significantly below those required by the NZ CAA.
Parts 121, 125 and 135 refer to the size of the aircraft and/or the number of passengers able to be on board (info avail on NZ CAA).
121.509 Second-in-command experience
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that any person designated as second-in-command of an air operation—
(1) is suitably trained and qualified on the aeroplane type; and
(2) is capable, in the event of the pilot-in-command being incapacitated—
(i) of operating the aeroplane safely under the prevailing and anticipated forecast weather conditions; and
(ii) of deputising for the pilot-in-command; and
(iii) of landing the aeroplane at the intended destination or a suitable alternate.
121.511 Pilot experience
The certificate holder shall ensure that each person acting as a pilot, other than as pilot-in-command, of an aeroplane, prior to commencing the training specified in Subpart I or Subpart M—
(1) has acquired at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of flight time in air operations; and
(2) has acquired at least 25 hours of night flight experience; and
(3) holds a current instrument rating.
121.513 Pilot operating limitations
(a) Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that, subject to paragraph (b), the pilot-in-command conducts each take-off and each landing.
(b) A second-in-command of an aeroplane performing an air operation may conduct the take-off and landing if—
(1) the pilot-in-command meets the appropriate requirements of 121.583, 121.585, or 121.587; or
(2) the second-in-command has completed the requirements of 121.571 and then accumulated at least 100 hours of flight time, or 75 operating cycles, in air operations, in the aeroplane type being flown; or
(3) the certificate holder has nominated the aerodrome as a general-category aerodrome in its exposition, and the appropriate take-off or landing report provided to the flight crew indicates that—
(i) the prevailing ceiling or visibility is better than the ceiling and visibility minima for that aerodrome when considered as an alternate; and
(ii) the runway to be used is clear of water, snow, slush, rubber accumulation, or similar conditions, that could adversely affect aeroplane performance; and
(iii) the crosswind component for the runway to be used is less than 50% of the demonstrated flight manual limit; and
(iv) windshear has not been reported in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
125.509 Pilot-in-command IFR experience requirements
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall not use a person as pilot-in-command of an aeroplane in an air operation performed under IFR unless that person has at least—
(1) 1200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(2) 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours can be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 50 hours of night flight time.
135.509 Experience requirements for IFR pilots
A holder of an air operator certificate must not designate a person as pilot-in-command of an aircraft performing an air operation under IFR under the authority of the certificate, unless the person—
(1) has at least 750 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 150 hours of cross-country flight time which must include at least 50 hours cross-country flight time conducted under an IFR flight plan; and
(2) 50 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours may be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 25 hours of night flight time.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most stringent rules apply
Mr Baxter,
Jetstar and everyone else has to abide by the most stringent rules - see s7(c) and s28BD of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 6.
There is no room for the accountants running Jetstar or any other AOC to gain any competitive advantage through State differences. I am sure CASA would be auditing each Australian AOC for compliance with all foreign requirements as part of their audits of International AOCs....
except, of course, the one issued to fly more than 12 miles off the coast that begin and end in Australian territory within entering any other State's territory
Stay alive,
Jetstar and everyone else has to abide by the most stringent rules - see s7(c) and s28BD of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 6.
There is no room for the accountants running Jetstar or any other AOC to gain any competitive advantage through State differences. I am sure CASA would be auditing each Australian AOC for compliance with all foreign requirements as part of their audits of International AOCs....
except, of course, the one issued to fly more than 12 miles off the coast that begin and end in Australian territory within entering any other State's territory
Stay alive,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Fonz...60 is a disgrace!
The biggest threat to our industry in a generation demands action from EVERYONE!
Have your say guys...and encourage your mates to have their say as well. The time for lethargy, complacency and plain old laziness has passed.
If you've got the time to read this board, you've got the time to make a submission to the Inquiry.
PG
The biggest threat to our industry in a generation demands action from EVERYONE!
Have your say guys...and encourage your mates to have their say as well. The time for lethargy, complacency and plain old laziness has passed.
If you've got the time to read this board, you've got the time to make a submission to the Inquiry.
PG
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.......................................and include examples where the 'manage it in house' approach has totally blindsided the regulatory process.
Risk ........Risk......... Risk....... are key themes and we ALL have to make sure that the pollies and the public see the likes of the JQ Execs advocating this nonsense to be nothing more than the Lady McBeths of aviation.
(gives the phrase "bloody Bruce" a whole new meaning eh!)
Get your submissions and letters in - we can do much better than 60!
AT
Risk ........Risk......... Risk....... are key themes and we ALL have to make sure that the pollies and the public see the likes of the JQ Execs advocating this nonsense to be nothing more than the Lady McBeths of aviation.
(gives the phrase "bloody Bruce" a whole new meaning eh!)
Get your submissions and letters in - we can do much better than 60!
AT
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Buchanan is responsible for the biggest resurgence in union membership. I would have to say that would probably have to be the only positive thing this knob has actually done for this industry.
He might not think his ideas will affect the industry right now, and it most probably won't, but it will definately in the future.
The only reason he is continually trying to cut costs in salaries and terms and conditions is because all other costs are going up and pilots are an easy target. The real reason that ge keeps going on about remaining competitive in the world is that the low cost model DOESN'T work! Even Ryan Air are saying they need to put their prices up to survive and they get paid by the airports to fly into them!
The senate enquiry will be great to expose this guy once and for all. He has no idea what the industry is like, he has no idea expats are being paid much more in these "Asian" countries that he needs to remain competitive with. This guy would have to be the biggest single twit that aviation in this country has ever seen! I bet you a pilot had shagged his missis and he's pissed at pilots!
He might not think his ideas will affect the industry right now, and it most probably won't, but it will definately in the future.
The only reason he is continually trying to cut costs in salaries and terms and conditions is because all other costs are going up and pilots are an easy target. The real reason that ge keeps going on about remaining competitive in the world is that the low cost model DOESN'T work! Even Ryan Air are saying they need to put their prices up to survive and they get paid by the airports to fly into them!
The senate enquiry will be great to expose this guy once and for all. He has no idea what the industry is like, he has no idea expats are being paid much more in these "Asian" countries that he needs to remain competitive with. This guy would have to be the biggest single twit that aviation in this country has ever seen! I bet you a pilot had shagged his missis and he's pissed at pilots!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deal sealed?
I have a prediction to make.
Most pilots are going to sit idle and not submit anything to the Inquiry. In the meantime, Big Business will hire the very best people to present compelling submissions. This will seal the deal forever and the last opportunity to reverse the downward spiral will be nothing but a distant memory.
Ask your union what they are doing. Have they encouraged members to put pen to paper? I've heard nothing from mine. Not a good sign people.
Jetstar backs Senate safety inquiry into pilot training | The Australian
Steve Creedy From: The Australian October 15, 2010 12:00AM
JETSTAR chief Bruce Buchanan welcomes a Senate inquiry into pilot training and incident reporting as a chance to get facts on the table.
Mr Buchanan said this week that the Qantas Group would be putting a submission to the inquiry that would cover Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink.
It would also be happy to send representatives to the inquiry if required.
"It's good to get the facts out," Mr Buchanan said. "What we need to separate here is what's the union political agenda and what's the real issues on the table. And there are real issues and it's good to get them out on the table and debate and discuss them."
The Senate committee inquiry was championed by independent senator Nick Xenophon and will look at several issues hotly debated by pilots.
These include the consequences for safety from reductions in pilot flight hour requirements, as well as whether Australia should adopt recent US requirements that a pilot operating regular public transport (RPT) services has at least 1500 flight hours.
It will also look at how regulators are dealing with advancing technology, pilot recruitment, and whether pay-for-training schemes affect safety and incident reporting in Australia.
Mr Buchanan said some of the issues reported during the debate on training had lacked substance and were misleading.
He had no problem with changes if something was not right, but the debate so far had not pointed to "anything of substance that we can see at the moment".
He found that many of the matters being wound into the debate, such as a 2007 Jetstar incident and commentary about pilots reporting directly to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, were bizarre. "That's what got us into hot water -- we copied word-for-word what the pilots reported to us and gave it to the ATSB," Mr Buchanan said.
"It was only internal checking that actually registered an anomaly. The concept of a pilot having free access to the ATSB was what occurred in this instance."
Mr Buchanan rejected inferences that it was somehow in the interest of airlines to bypass safety. He said the Qantas Group had always been a passionate believer that safety was the first priority.
Unions also have been expressing fears that Jetstar is using its pan-Asian network to slash wages and conditions.
Mr Buchanan called for debate about the broader prospects for Australian aviation and what that meant in terms of a strong local base.
"We're in a business where we've got declining market share in international traffic and declining relevancy," he said. "That should be the bigger concern for the unions and the employees.
"We as a nation, if we're not careful, will cease to be competitive with the rest of the world."
He said competitiveness was not about safety, which was one of the Qantas Group's competitive strengths. "Competitiveness is about how we band together and create a stronger, viable business . . . and also the flow-on benefits to the rest of the tourism industry," he said.
Yep, I'd be laughing to if I were in their shoes.
Most pilots are going to sit idle and not submit anything to the Inquiry. In the meantime, Big Business will hire the very best people to present compelling submissions. This will seal the deal forever and the last opportunity to reverse the downward spiral will be nothing but a distant memory.
Ask your union what they are doing. Have they encouraged members to put pen to paper? I've heard nothing from mine. Not a good sign people.
Jetstar backs Senate safety inquiry into pilot training | The Australian
Steve Creedy From: The Australian October 15, 2010 12:00AM
JETSTAR chief Bruce Buchanan welcomes a Senate inquiry into pilot training and incident reporting as a chance to get facts on the table.
Mr Buchanan said this week that the Qantas Group would be putting a submission to the inquiry that would cover Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink.
It would also be happy to send representatives to the inquiry if required.
"It's good to get the facts out," Mr Buchanan said. "What we need to separate here is what's the union political agenda and what's the real issues on the table. And there are real issues and it's good to get them out on the table and debate and discuss them."
The Senate committee inquiry was championed by independent senator Nick Xenophon and will look at several issues hotly debated by pilots.
These include the consequences for safety from reductions in pilot flight hour requirements, as well as whether Australia should adopt recent US requirements that a pilot operating regular public transport (RPT) services has at least 1500 flight hours.
It will also look at how regulators are dealing with advancing technology, pilot recruitment, and whether pay-for-training schemes affect safety and incident reporting in Australia.
Mr Buchanan said some of the issues reported during the debate on training had lacked substance and were misleading.
He had no problem with changes if something was not right, but the debate so far had not pointed to "anything of substance that we can see at the moment".
He found that many of the matters being wound into the debate, such as a 2007 Jetstar incident and commentary about pilots reporting directly to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, were bizarre. "That's what got us into hot water -- we copied word-for-word what the pilots reported to us and gave it to the ATSB," Mr Buchanan said.
"It was only internal checking that actually registered an anomaly. The concept of a pilot having free access to the ATSB was what occurred in this instance."
Mr Buchanan rejected inferences that it was somehow in the interest of airlines to bypass safety. He said the Qantas Group had always been a passionate believer that safety was the first priority.
Unions also have been expressing fears that Jetstar is using its pan-Asian network to slash wages and conditions.
Mr Buchanan called for debate about the broader prospects for Australian aviation and what that meant in terms of a strong local base.
"We're in a business where we've got declining market share in international traffic and declining relevancy," he said. "That should be the bigger concern for the unions and the employees.
"We as a nation, if we're not careful, will cease to be competitive with the rest of the world."
He said competitiveness was not about safety, which was one of the Qantas Group's competitive strengths. "Competitiveness is about how we band together and create a stronger, viable business . . . and also the flow-on benefits to the rest of the tourism industry," he said.
Yep, I'd be laughing to if I were in their shoes.
Last edited by Mr. Hat; 15th Oct 2010 at 01:03.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't let complacency win!
Exactly right BBB! So come on guys, don't allow complacency to win the fight.
We have less than 2 weeks to get our submissions in to the Senate Inquiry.
Challenge your mates and the guys/gals you fly with...ask them if they have submitted something...and if not, WTF NOT!!!
PG
We have less than 2 weeks to get our submissions in to the Senate Inquiry.
Challenge your mates and the guys/gals you fly with...ask them if they have submitted something...and if not, WTF NOT!!!
PG
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 65
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulatory affairs
Forget having an inquiry into airline safety. Go and read the Strategic thread. An inquiry into the australian regulator is more urgent and should come first.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASAweary
CASA only ever played at SMS and I'm not convinced they really have embraced the future of safety regulation
The safety risks of pilot P-platers and new style airline managers raised in Senate – Plane Talking
CASA only ever played at SMS and I'm not convinced they really have embraced the future of safety regulation
The safety risks of pilot P-platers and new style airline managers raised in Senate – Plane Talking
Australia’s largest pilot union has warned that the indifference of airline managements and young pilots to training standards and experience is dragging down safety from its previously high level in this country.
It has sent a Statement of Concern on Diminishing Flight Standards to senators in advance of the impending Senate Inquiry into these matters.
Headed Are we handing the keys of the Ferrari to a bunch of P-platers the paper by the Australian and International Pilots Association says the operational safety of the country’s major airlines is falling.
The president of the association, Captain Barry Jackson, said this morning that there was a ‘total disconnection between new managements at airlines and the high safety cultures of the past that Australians are lead to believe in today.’
The AIPA paper says pilot conditions and training arrangements are being made “the playthings of young MBAs trying to make their mark in the business world.”
The Senate inquiry, instigated by the South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon, will consider tough new standards for pilot training and experience levels in Australia following the US reaction to the Colgan crash at Buffalo in February 2009, which killed 50 people after two badly trained and fatigued pilots lost control of a Q400 turboprop.
The US Federal Aviation Administration subsequently lifted the minimum experience level for a first officer flying for a major American carrier to 1500 hours, compared to as little as 250 hours in Australia.
In the paper, AIPA says :
“We must make a stand to protect the safety of the public and ourselves…There is growing evidence that we have stagnated at safety levels achieved in 2003 and may even be going slowly backwards.
“Very low air fares have increased the demographic pool of potential air travellers and created a significant demand for increased capacity that appears set to continue.
“However the expectation of the public is generally that the cheap fares come without any reduction in safety.”
AIPA says the current emphasis on streamlined and lower flight time progression to a pilot job with a major airline is fraught with compromises, exacerbated by shifting the costs to the would be pilots through courses run by third party training solutions providers who are compromised by the need to churn out ‘qualified’ pilots to the carriers who award them contracts.
The statement makes no secret of AIPA’s industrial agenda in terms of protecting Australian pilot jobs in Australia but also expresses what many have recently spoken about in recent times as serious failures in the cultural attitudes of new pilot recruits and the low cost carrier management styles of all the major Australian carriers, which despises and exploits those trying to fast track their careers in them.
It has sent a Statement of Concern on Diminishing Flight Standards to senators in advance of the impending Senate Inquiry into these matters.
Headed Are we handing the keys of the Ferrari to a bunch of P-platers the paper by the Australian and International Pilots Association says the operational safety of the country’s major airlines is falling.
The president of the association, Captain Barry Jackson, said this morning that there was a ‘total disconnection between new managements at airlines and the high safety cultures of the past that Australians are lead to believe in today.’
The AIPA paper says pilot conditions and training arrangements are being made “the playthings of young MBAs trying to make their mark in the business world.”
The Senate inquiry, instigated by the South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon, will consider tough new standards for pilot training and experience levels in Australia following the US reaction to the Colgan crash at Buffalo in February 2009, which killed 50 people after two badly trained and fatigued pilots lost control of a Q400 turboprop.
The US Federal Aviation Administration subsequently lifted the minimum experience level for a first officer flying for a major American carrier to 1500 hours, compared to as little as 250 hours in Australia.
In the paper, AIPA says :
“We must make a stand to protect the safety of the public and ourselves…There is growing evidence that we have stagnated at safety levels achieved in 2003 and may even be going slowly backwards.
“Very low air fares have increased the demographic pool of potential air travellers and created a significant demand for increased capacity that appears set to continue.
“However the expectation of the public is generally that the cheap fares come without any reduction in safety.”
AIPA says the current emphasis on streamlined and lower flight time progression to a pilot job with a major airline is fraught with compromises, exacerbated by shifting the costs to the would be pilots through courses run by third party training solutions providers who are compromised by the need to churn out ‘qualified’ pilots to the carriers who award them contracts.
The statement makes no secret of AIPA’s industrial agenda in terms of protecting Australian pilot jobs in Australia but also expresses what many have recently spoken about in recent times as serious failures in the cultural attitudes of new pilot recruits and the low cost carrier management styles of all the major Australian carriers, which despises and exploits those trying to fast track their careers in them.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but, Do we really need CASA.
Why not give the Federal Police an aviation related branch. At least investigations into an alleged 'breach' of regulation would be properly investigated, by trained professionals who are governed by code of conduct and ethical standards.
Why not expand the ATSB to oversight 'safety' related matters. At least we would get a logical, reasoned opinion as to why a thing is deemed 'unsafe'.
That only leaves the clerical details which could, with modern technology be done on a cost effective basis.
The only safety the present crew seem interested in is 'legally safe' prosecutions. They don't seem to able to do that very well either, looking down the long, sad and probably expensive list of judgements against them.
The negative impact on aviation safety that this body has must be of serious concern to this industry. The total cost, including 'legal' fees measured against the minuscule positive safety based outcomes and improvements offered is truly staggering.
Now we have to fund the cost of yet another inquiry and probably a Royal Commission. They need to hang their collective heads in shame.
Why not expand the ATSB to oversight 'safety' related matters. At least we would get a logical, reasoned opinion as to why a thing is deemed 'unsafe'.
That only leaves the clerical details which could, with modern technology be done on a cost effective basis.
The only safety the present crew seem interested in is 'legally safe' prosecutions. They don't seem to able to do that very well either, looking down the long, sad and probably expensive list of judgements against them.
The negative impact on aviation safety that this body has must be of serious concern to this industry. The total cost, including 'legal' fees measured against the minuscule positive safety based outcomes and improvements offered is truly staggering.
Now we have to fund the cost of yet another inquiry and probably a Royal Commission. They need to hang their collective heads in shame.