At Last - A Voice of Reason
Jabiman
Main differences between European and Australian operations that make cadets in the RHS of a LCC jet more risky in Oz:
Lack of Radar and ATC coverage in areas of operation (eg: Tassie, Ballina, Sunshine Coast ...etc)
Lack of ILS and approach procedures except major airports
Operations to short and thin runways
Poor regulations covering the issue
Cadet systems can obviously be made to work when operations use smaller regional turboprops that slow up quickly and need little energy management, or in Europe where there is full ATC/radar and using ILS everytime. But on more complex jets operating into smaller strips on visual approaches and NPAs a cadet program would need to be funded and supported with costly levels of high supervision and observing in higher risk Australian operations. Myself and most others I speak with believe that these risk mitigation measures will be viewed as expensive and many will ultimately fall by the wayside for JQ as a cost-cutting-focused LCC. Also Manila-based crewing is likely to eventually pair up crews regardless to make the schedule. Yet again the overloaded PIC will be left as the final defense in the accident chain. These are the the main points of concern.
Main differences between European and Australian operations that make cadets in the RHS of a LCC jet more risky in Oz:
Lack of Radar and ATC coverage in areas of operation (eg: Tassie, Ballina, Sunshine Coast ...etc)
Lack of ILS and approach procedures except major airports
Operations to short and thin runways
Poor regulations covering the issue
Cadet systems can obviously be made to work when operations use smaller regional turboprops that slow up quickly and need little energy management, or in Europe where there is full ATC/radar and using ILS everytime. But on more complex jets operating into smaller strips on visual approaches and NPAs a cadet program would need to be funded and supported with costly levels of high supervision and observing in higher risk Australian operations. Myself and most others I speak with believe that these risk mitigation measures will be viewed as expensive and many will ultimately fall by the wayside for JQ as a cost-cutting-focused LCC. Also Manila-based crewing is likely to eventually pair up crews regardless to make the schedule. Yet again the overloaded PIC will be left as the final defense in the accident chain. These are the the main points of concern.
Last edited by Roller Merlin; 3rd Dec 2010 at 13:10.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roller Merlin
I have sat on the sideline bemused for some time now. Your post really takes the cake.
Let me preface with the comment that I do not see an overwhelming need for a cadet system in Oz, given the considerable number of GA and military pilots available to the airlines.
That said, it is my view that the emphasis of the argument is in the wrong area. It is not a safety issue as much as it is a social equity issue. Australian airlines should be employing suitable pilots on Australian conditions to operate in Australia. If they wish to set up an overseas operation, fine. But they should be prohibited from using those overseas crew to man what are essentially domestic operations. The regulator is complicit if they allow this to happen.
Your assertion that Aus conditions are somehow more onerous than those experienced OS is just laughable. Try 350 hour ex cadets in the RHS of an MD80, F100, 737 or similar, running shorthaul in and out of military and civil aerodromes in weather you can only dream of. PAR and ASR approaches to minima on to 2000m (non grooved)runways in snow sleet and ice. Or perhaps the ARC to LLZ/DME approach (round dials not glass)to the minima passing over terrain that sets off the GPWS, and viz on the minima. 600ft circling approaches at night in hilly terrain and black holes. Use the hospital as a marker because you will lose sight of the runway end due to the big hill between you and the threshold.
I have the T shirt. The ex cadets did a really good job. Procedurally spot on, and most handled the aircraft well. A few initially had issues close to the ground, but just a few.
The people who kill passengers are invarialy relatively low time LHS, or those with "know it all" CRM issues.
The low time RHS be he GA, cadet or military, is not the problem. The problem is a lack of regulation that allows inappropriate pairing of crews.
I would much rather be down the back with a seasoned LHS taking a newbie RHS than to be behind a lowtime combination in the front.
In days gone by the 10-15 years spent in the RHS gave a great basis for a safe career. Sadly that does not still occur, and we are seeing the result. Low time wunderkind barely out of school in the LHS paired with a low time RHS. Disaster in the making.
If there is to be an hours limitation imposed, I suggest it would be more appropriate to apply something like a 6000 hour combined total time in a two pilot cockpit, and a supervised training certification for anyone sitting with a RHS less than 1000.
SS
I have sat on the sideline bemused for some time now. Your post really takes the cake.
Let me preface with the comment that I do not see an overwhelming need for a cadet system in Oz, given the considerable number of GA and military pilots available to the airlines.
That said, it is my view that the emphasis of the argument is in the wrong area. It is not a safety issue as much as it is a social equity issue. Australian airlines should be employing suitable pilots on Australian conditions to operate in Australia. If they wish to set up an overseas operation, fine. But they should be prohibited from using those overseas crew to man what are essentially domestic operations. The regulator is complicit if they allow this to happen.
Your assertion that Aus conditions are somehow more onerous than those experienced OS is just laughable. Try 350 hour ex cadets in the RHS of an MD80, F100, 737 or similar, running shorthaul in and out of military and civil aerodromes in weather you can only dream of. PAR and ASR approaches to minima on to 2000m (non grooved)runways in snow sleet and ice. Or perhaps the ARC to LLZ/DME approach (round dials not glass)to the minima passing over terrain that sets off the GPWS, and viz on the minima. 600ft circling approaches at night in hilly terrain and black holes. Use the hospital as a marker because you will lose sight of the runway end due to the big hill between you and the threshold.
I have the T shirt. The ex cadets did a really good job. Procedurally spot on, and most handled the aircraft well. A few initially had issues close to the ground, but just a few.
The people who kill passengers are invarialy relatively low time LHS, or those with "know it all" CRM issues.
The low time RHS be he GA, cadet or military, is not the problem. The problem is a lack of regulation that allows inappropriate pairing of crews.
I would much rather be down the back with a seasoned LHS taking a newbie RHS than to be behind a lowtime combination in the front.
In days gone by the 10-15 years spent in the RHS gave a great basis for a safe career. Sadly that does not still occur, and we are seeing the result. Low time wunderkind barely out of school in the LHS paired with a low time RHS. Disaster in the making.
If there is to be an hours limitation imposed, I suggest it would be more appropriate to apply something like a 6000 hour combined total time in a two pilot cockpit, and a supervised training certification for anyone sitting with a RHS less than 1000.
SS
Last edited by scam sniffer; 3rd Dec 2010 at 15:39.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this interesting website re US pilot issues:
The Ugly - The Truth About the Profession
The Ugly - The Truth About the Profession
Flags of Convenience/Cabotage
This is one of the largest threats to the airline pilot profession in my opinion, and may ultimately relegate the U.S. airline industry to the fate of the U.S. cruise ship industry and merchant marine. If this were to happen- and make no mistake, the airline industry wants this to happen- there would be no point in pursuing an airline pilot career in the U.S.
Let me give you some background.....Have you ever been on a cruise? If you have, you most certainly would have noticed a few things. One, there weren't many Americans working on that ship and two, the ship you were on wasn't a U.S. flagged ship. Why, do you ask? The cruise lines are typically "American" companies, aren't they? Certainly they would be regulated by U.S. law and hire American employees? It's pretty simple. Why should major U.S. cruise lines deal with all those pesky U.S. laws concerning labor and maritime regulation when you can flag your ship in Liberia and deal with the much more friendly and less regulated Liberian government? And that's exactly what the cruise ship industry does- they flag their ships in countries of convenience and follow that country's much less restrictive labor and maritime laws. But what does this have to do with the U.S. airline industry?
Airline CEOs would want nothing more than to take their airlines, "flag" them in a 2nd or 3rd world nation, and hire foreign nationals from those countries (and others) to fly, operate, and maintain their airplanes. Certainly an Indonesian pilot could live on $20,000 a year......and probably less! Why pay a U.S. flight attendant $30,000/year when a Lithuanian flight attednant will work for $10,000/year? Why pay a U.S. A&P mechanic $60,000 a year when a Chinese one will work for $25,000 a year! See where I'm going with this?
Currently, there are laws concerning cabotage and foreign ownership that prevent this from happening. However, right now the airline industry is fighting to loosen foreign ownership of U.S. airlines and cabotage rules. This would be the beginning of the end to this industry as far as U.S. citizens are concerned, just like it was for the U.S. maritime industry. Yes, it will be great for consumers because airline tickets will be cheaper, but not so good if you hope to make a living as an airline pilot.
Narrow Profit Margins....and Labor is an Airline's Largest Controllable Cost!
The vast majority of companies that make up the U.S. airline industry are not like other "normal" companies in the U.S. Airlines operate on extremely, and I mean extremely, narrow profit margins. A net profit margin of 1% is a good year for most airlines, whereas healthy companies in other industries on average earn margins 5 times higher! The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this narrative, but the narrow margins that airlines earn, and the fact that the airline industry is extremely volatile due to these virtually nonexistent profits, means that the ills of the industry get taken out on you, the employee pilot.
Why you, the pilot? Well, because labor is an airline's highest controllable cost. And of the airline's labor costs, you, the pilot, as a highly trained professional, are their highest earning employees. So who do you think airline management goes to FIRST when it's time to tighten the airline's belt? You, the pilot!
So what does this mean to you? It means that every time the U.S. economy sneezes, the airlines catch a cold. It means that when your company does catch that cold, through no fault of your own, you as an airline employee pilot will be expected to "cough up" some dough to help your airline through it's difficult economic times- which will happen often, trust me. Airline management knows that you can't go anywhere (see "handcuffed" above), and they know that you know that you'll have to start over at another airline at the bottom rung, so you don't want your existing airline to fail. Therefore, it's likely your airline's management will come to visit the pilot group, hat in hand, first. And more than likely, you will give.
Another way this manifests itself is with new, domestic airlines. It's very difficult for a new airline to make it in this dog-eat-dog industry. The management teams at these upstart airlines know there even during good economic times, there is a persistent, large oversupply of pilots available for employment in the U.S. So when they start a new airline, what do they do? They take their largest controllable cost (labor) and cut it to the bone! They offer extremely low wages, sometimes 50% below the "going rate" in the industry. They then use those low wages to undercut the competition in an attempt to steal market share. This has a tendency to drag down wages at other airlines, and the downward spiral in airline pilot wages, benefits, and working conditions deteriorate. The advent of the "low cost airline" that we have seen over the past decade have been wonderful for consumers, as they have driven down average airfares. Unfortunately, they haven't been so good to the airline pilot profession. Decades of hard fought gains on behalf of the profession have eroded over the years, and with yet another new generation of "low cost carriers" starting operations in recent years, the downward pressure on wages, benefits, and quality of life will probably continue.
This is one of the largest threats to the airline pilot profession in my opinion, and may ultimately relegate the U.S. airline industry to the fate of the U.S. cruise ship industry and merchant marine. If this were to happen- and make no mistake, the airline industry wants this to happen- there would be no point in pursuing an airline pilot career in the U.S.
Let me give you some background.....Have you ever been on a cruise? If you have, you most certainly would have noticed a few things. One, there weren't many Americans working on that ship and two, the ship you were on wasn't a U.S. flagged ship. Why, do you ask? The cruise lines are typically "American" companies, aren't they? Certainly they would be regulated by U.S. law and hire American employees? It's pretty simple. Why should major U.S. cruise lines deal with all those pesky U.S. laws concerning labor and maritime regulation when you can flag your ship in Liberia and deal with the much more friendly and less regulated Liberian government? And that's exactly what the cruise ship industry does- they flag their ships in countries of convenience and follow that country's much less restrictive labor and maritime laws. But what does this have to do with the U.S. airline industry?
Airline CEOs would want nothing more than to take their airlines, "flag" them in a 2nd or 3rd world nation, and hire foreign nationals from those countries (and others) to fly, operate, and maintain their airplanes. Certainly an Indonesian pilot could live on $20,000 a year......and probably less! Why pay a U.S. flight attendant $30,000/year when a Lithuanian flight attednant will work for $10,000/year? Why pay a U.S. A&P mechanic $60,000 a year when a Chinese one will work for $25,000 a year! See where I'm going with this?
Currently, there are laws concerning cabotage and foreign ownership that prevent this from happening. However, right now the airline industry is fighting to loosen foreign ownership of U.S. airlines and cabotage rules. This would be the beginning of the end to this industry as far as U.S. citizens are concerned, just like it was for the U.S. maritime industry. Yes, it will be great for consumers because airline tickets will be cheaper, but not so good if you hope to make a living as an airline pilot.
Narrow Profit Margins....and Labor is an Airline's Largest Controllable Cost!
The vast majority of companies that make up the U.S. airline industry are not like other "normal" companies in the U.S. Airlines operate on extremely, and I mean extremely, narrow profit margins. A net profit margin of 1% is a good year for most airlines, whereas healthy companies in other industries on average earn margins 5 times higher! The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this narrative, but the narrow margins that airlines earn, and the fact that the airline industry is extremely volatile due to these virtually nonexistent profits, means that the ills of the industry get taken out on you, the employee pilot.
Why you, the pilot? Well, because labor is an airline's highest controllable cost. And of the airline's labor costs, you, the pilot, as a highly trained professional, are their highest earning employees. So who do you think airline management goes to FIRST when it's time to tighten the airline's belt? You, the pilot!
So what does this mean to you? It means that every time the U.S. economy sneezes, the airlines catch a cold. It means that when your company does catch that cold, through no fault of your own, you as an airline employee pilot will be expected to "cough up" some dough to help your airline through it's difficult economic times- which will happen often, trust me. Airline management knows that you can't go anywhere (see "handcuffed" above), and they know that you know that you'll have to start over at another airline at the bottom rung, so you don't want your existing airline to fail. Therefore, it's likely your airline's management will come to visit the pilot group, hat in hand, first. And more than likely, you will give.
Another way this manifests itself is with new, domestic airlines. It's very difficult for a new airline to make it in this dog-eat-dog industry. The management teams at these upstart airlines know there even during good economic times, there is a persistent, large oversupply of pilots available for employment in the U.S. So when they start a new airline, what do they do? They take their largest controllable cost (labor) and cut it to the bone! They offer extremely low wages, sometimes 50% below the "going rate" in the industry. They then use those low wages to undercut the competition in an attempt to steal market share. This has a tendency to drag down wages at other airlines, and the downward spiral in airline pilot wages, benefits, and working conditions deteriorate. The advent of the "low cost airline" that we have seen over the past decade have been wonderful for consumers, as they have driven down average airfares. Unfortunately, they haven't been so good to the airline pilot profession. Decades of hard fought gains on behalf of the profession have eroded over the years, and with yet another new generation of "low cost carriers" starting operations in recent years, the downward pressure on wages, benefits, and quality of life will probably continue.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going thru my log book, as a C@T captain, I checked out 49 F/O's and 80 Captains. Does this give me some creadence? Give me every time a GA pilot or a RAAF pilot (providing he is not the ace of the base) Do NOT give me a cadet pilot whose daddy flew with Ansett. Yes, I come from the old school, yes I believe a pilot must earn their wings bush bashing, (and scaring the shi% out of themselves on more than one occasion,) do I believe in Airmanship, you betcha. Looking at the A380, what did we have? A PIC from the RAAF, a F/O and S/O from GA, (as I understood it) two C@T Captains Both GA, ( as I heard it) (please correct me if incorrect) five people who worked together, confronted with confusing information, a serious situation, and a ****load of problems. Experience, airmanship, and faith in each others ability, got her home safely, and a I cannot heap enough praise on these pilots. No Sim, is ever going to load this much crap on you, only experience will, and ALL of you will face at some time of your career, a potential disaster, regardless of which airline you fly. Twenty five thousand hours later, and to my very last flight, I never once trusted the bastards, and always remembered my old flying instructors advise, "dont be suprised when they don't take off, be surprised when they do" For my entire career, it kept me in good stead. For all of that, there is no better career for those who cannot think of doing anything else, getting paid for doing something you love, was always amazing to me, and probably to you, safe flying all of you.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teresa
I couldn't agree more.
The point I was attempting to make was that in this case, a social equity issue is being fought on fallacious safety grounds. Yes I too would prefer to have those guys you have mentioned. However in many parts of the world, as you well know, that supply of experienced guys is not available. The alternative is made to work, and it succeeds.
To fight this disgraceful behaviour, of the company, on grounds of safety is in my view inaccurate and is demonstrably so. It is only a matter of time before someone trots out statistics that will in all probability exonerate the inexperienced RHS, and place blame on inexperienced LHS coupled with poor training an AND a low time RHS. To base an argument on perceptions that may be demonstrated to be incorrect is fraught with danger.
Stick to what can be defended. This is more of a social/industrial issue than a safety issue. Australian jobs, Australian conditions, and immigration/industrial laws to protect Australian employees.
As one who has been checked by you, (F/O annual line check), I acknowledge your credibility. However I believe you are fighting with emotion rather than reason.
( And BTW I still think being critical of someones flight plan (because of a crossout and overwrite), is a bit rich from someone with your illegible handwriting. Thankgoodness for CFP's and wordprocessors)
SS
I couldn't agree more.
The point I was attempting to make was that in this case, a social equity issue is being fought on fallacious safety grounds. Yes I too would prefer to have those guys you have mentioned. However in many parts of the world, as you well know, that supply of experienced guys is not available. The alternative is made to work, and it succeeds.
To fight this disgraceful behaviour, of the company, on grounds of safety is in my view inaccurate and is demonstrably so. It is only a matter of time before someone trots out statistics that will in all probability exonerate the inexperienced RHS, and place blame on inexperienced LHS coupled with poor training an AND a low time RHS. To base an argument on perceptions that may be demonstrated to be incorrect is fraught with danger.
Stick to what can be defended. This is more of a social/industrial issue than a safety issue. Australian jobs, Australian conditions, and immigration/industrial laws to protect Australian employees.
As one who has been checked by you, (F/O annual line check), I acknowledge your credibility. However I believe you are fighting with emotion rather than reason.
( And BTW I still think being critical of someones flight plan (because of a crossout and overwrite), is a bit rich from someone with your illegible handwriting. Thankgoodness for CFP's and wordprocessors)
SS
Last edited by scam sniffer; 5th Dec 2010 at 23:19.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dununda
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly well written article, a comprehensive summary of the trends of the industry within this country.
As a student with an education background in both aviation and business and intending to embark on a career behind the scenes within this dynamic industry, I dare say that an article like this is just as important as any lecture or tutorial.
Hopefully it is read by most of those who currently have a hand in airline management, although my feeling is that, by most, it will simply be skimmed over and put into the backlog.
mins
As a student with an education background in both aviation and business and intending to embark on a career behind the scenes within this dynamic industry, I dare say that an article like this is just as important as any lecture or tutorial.
Hopefully it is read by most of those who currently have a hand in airline management, although my feeling is that, by most, it will simply be skimmed over and put into the backlog.
mins
