At Last - A Voice of Reason
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here-frickin-here.
Part of the whole paradigm is that there is that there are a HUGE number of very experienced Australian pilots NOT flying for Australian Airlines, as the T&C differential between what is available overseas and what is paid in Australia is so huge.
J* et al would rather artificially create a skill shortage and come up with a money-spinning cadet scheme, than pay what is required to entice the skills they need back on shore.
Part of the whole paradigm is that there is that there are a HUGE number of very experienced Australian pilots NOT flying for Australian Airlines, as the T&C differential between what is available overseas and what is paid in Australia is so huge.
J* et al would rather artificially create a skill shortage and come up with a money-spinning cadet scheme, than pay what is required to entice the skills they need back on shore.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The author is a current Australian airline pilot. The Age has withheld the name.
After Jetstar fired Joe, they in very poor form fired off an email to all staff about how they sacked someone for speaking to the media......Clearly we all know the article concerned.
How sad it is a company can threaten and intimidate on freedom of speach, especially when it was the truth and a balanced well written article.
I hope Joe wrote this one because he can not be sacked twice, so if not whoever you are cover your ar$e.
J
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little has been said about Joe's dismissal. I for one was surprised even at Jetstar's actions, I thought they may have shown some restraint, but with individuals such as nutbag running the the 'remains' department nothing would shock me.
Its a sad indictment on our industry when a guy really who was being nothing more than a 'whisteblower' has been sacked. Jeez they must be insecure. There were laws passed federally that prevents this but I guess because Joe was a signatory to the EBA, Jetstar believe they can get away with it.
I hope, no I know, that AIPA will be going Jetstar, I just hope that all Jetstar pilots see this company for what they are and all join a union with some clout and stand up for guys such as Joe. Jetstar keep getting away with murder and at some stage, we the pilot group have to say enough is enough. Even those blokes that take crap SIN conditions, you will not be protected by the purple circle forever, have a look at what this once proud industry has now become. Its a disgrace, I'm ashamed to be a part of it and the only other thing I can say is....I am an army of one.
Its a sad indictment on our industry when a guy really who was being nothing more than a 'whisteblower' has been sacked. Jeez they must be insecure. There were laws passed federally that prevents this but I guess because Joe was a signatory to the EBA, Jetstar believe they can get away with it.
I hope, no I know, that AIPA will be going Jetstar, I just hope that all Jetstar pilots see this company for what they are and all join a union with some clout and stand up for guys such as Joe. Jetstar keep getting away with murder and at some stage, we the pilot group have to say enough is enough. Even those blokes that take crap SIN conditions, you will not be protected by the purple circle forever, have a look at what this once proud industry has now become. Its a disgrace, I'm ashamed to be a part of it and the only other thing I can say is....I am an army of one.
Why is it that articles like this never seem to make the front of News.com.au yet somehow "Travellers snap up airfares for under $20" makes it to the Travel section?!
I think I need some suggestions on where to get the real news from now on as News.com.au appears to be a bit of a misleading name.
I think I need some suggestions on where to get the real news from now on as News.com.au appears to be a bit of a misleading name.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“There was more than 60,000 hours of combined flying experience present…..”
Correct, although grammatically dubious. Is the author suggesting that this is why the outcome was successful?
“…..more than 25,000 hours between them”
Again, correct. However, aircraft depressurize and descend every week without requiring “25,000” hours of experience to accomplish it.
QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community.
Correct, although grammatically dubious. Is the author suggesting that this is why the outcome was successful?
“…..more than 25,000 hours between them”
Again, correct. However, aircraft depressurize and descend every week without requiring “25,000” hours of experience to accomplish it.
QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, correct. However, aircraft every week without requiring “25,000” hours of experience to accomplish it.
QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community.
QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
You are correct Professor. QF pilots are no more experienced than the general airline community. And that is the point.
But if people like you get your way, that will change. Jetstar will be the first Australian based jets to have L-platers on the flight deck. You would have no idea, but 200-1500 hour airline pilots are L-platers, no matter how well they are trained.
The accidents/incidents will come, as sure as night follows day. A crew will lose situational awareness going into Queenstown perhaps? A tired captain will make a bad decision and his FO will have no background, no frame of reference to question that decision. People will die, lives will be wrecked, but as long as people like you grow richer, who cares?
Unless you happen to be on one of those flights. Tell us all-seeing omnipotent one.. which flight would you rather be on?
But if people like you get your way, that will change. Jetstar will be the first Australian based jets to have L-platers on the flight deck. You would have no idea, but 200-1500 hour airline pilots are L-platers, no matter how well they are trained.
The accidents/incidents will come, as sure as night follows day. A crew will lose situational awareness going into Queenstown perhaps? A tired captain will make a bad decision and his FO will have no background, no frame of reference to question that decision. People will die, lives will be wrecked, but as long as people like you grow richer, who cares?
Unless you happen to be on one of those flights. Tell us all-seeing omnipotent one.. which flight would you rather be on?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A cheap seat at the front of a 777 :-)
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which flight would you rather be on?
If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crux of this whole debate is the quality of the training, whether it is a 200 hour puppy farm graduate or a 2 to 3,000 hour former GA driver.
Playing devil's advocate here but won't a new FO, whatever their background, have the same problem? It is an awfully big jump from GA to a B737 or A320 with a totally new set of parameters to deal with and any new start is going to be struggling for a time.
I have read comments on here from a number of pilots who have had low time FOs' trained by the European schools and most have stated that they were not a problem; they knew their systems and could handle the aircraft to the point there was little or no difference between them and FOs' who had come through the traditional route to the right hand seat.
I also appreciate that these people were talking about normal operations but I suggest that any new FO is going to be in the same boat when it comes to an emergency because their training for that is going to be at the same level whatever their background.
As a personal aside I am currently working in an uncertified B737 simulator (no it is not Microsoft) that reasonably accurately represents the handling of a 737-800. It is very noticeable that clients who have a GA background (mostly PPL holders) do worse in handling it than people who with no aviation training. In nearly every case it is the inertia factor that they struggle with and that is with me taking care of the throttles and speed control.
The ATSB has noted in two incident reports that the quality of training by third party organisations was an issue but in both cases their criticism was directed at the airline as they had both gone with the cheapest training expense and had not done any post-training for their specific procedures.
I agree that aviation safety in Australia is being threatened but I don't agree that it is because of cadet schemes, rather it is because the airlines are not emphasising the quality of training that is required.
and his FO will have no background, no frame of reference to question that decision
I have read comments on here from a number of pilots who have had low time FOs' trained by the European schools and most have stated that they were not a problem; they knew their systems and could handle the aircraft to the point there was little or no difference between them and FOs' who had come through the traditional route to the right hand seat.
I also appreciate that these people were talking about normal operations but I suggest that any new FO is going to be in the same boat when it comes to an emergency because their training for that is going to be at the same level whatever their background.
As a personal aside I am currently working in an uncertified B737 simulator (no it is not Microsoft) that reasonably accurately represents the handling of a 737-800. It is very noticeable that clients who have a GA background (mostly PPL holders) do worse in handling it than people who with no aviation training. In nearly every case it is the inertia factor that they struggle with and that is with me taking care of the throttles and speed control.
The ATSB has noted in two incident reports that the quality of training by third party organisations was an issue but in both cases their criticism was directed at the airline as they had both gone with the cheapest training expense and had not done any post-training for their specific procedures.
I agree that aviation safety in Australia is being threatened but I don't agree that it is because of cadet schemes, rather it is because the airlines are not emphasising the quality of training that is required.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett has it right I suggest.
It would be useful around about now to get away from the emotion, myth and rhetoric in the “hours” debate and have develop this discussion into an arena for those with varying experiences to share their history and stories.
Good for us all to hear experiences of those who have flown with low hour F/Os on jets. The good and the bad.
I was a cadet, going onto the F27 with only 200 hours. I only had about 4500 hrs when I got my command, barely 100 actual PIC by myself (in singles) but I had been through years of a good check and training system and probably 2000 sectors, of which I would have flown half.
I later flew with very low time F/Os in demanding short-medium haul European routes and then again with an Asian carrier on short haul routes with former cadet F/Os. Yes it was almost single pilot IFR in lots of ways but they were well trained and learned fast. It’s a challenge briefing the young guy in the RHS about the forthcoming descent to 700 ft minimums then the night circling approach in drifting snow and mist, but if he is well selected and well trained to listen and learn with solid SOPs rusted on, then it’s a great learning time at very very adequate standards. I would rather have a well-trained former cadet than an ex-fighter pilot with his own agenda and knowing it all.
(Must say in passing that doing 40-50 sectors a month in very challenging conditions, arctic winters, monsoon summers, short haul and lots of military traffic is good for the soul and for training. I learned far more there about being a PIC than ever before and certainly an hour in that world is worth 10 of those I spent in cruise in my beloved 777 over the night skies of the Pacific).
A young Sherm on the F27 heard many stories about the hiring profiles of the Captains he flew with. Not a few stories about rapid hiring phases where pilots went from low hour instructors on the Chipmunk to Viscount or DC-4 F/Os. The key then, as now, was the quality of training on both seats. I remember that the then Chief Check and Training Captain, Frank Fischer (any like him left?) said that they had done research into hiring profiles and found that it really didn’t matter what your background and experience was, after 8 years with the airline pretty much everyone would be at the same standard. And that was with simulators far less capable than now, before LOFT and CRM, and probably only 2-300 sectors a year.
The point I am trying to make is that Plovett is right: we should separate the quality of the training (in the left seat as well as the right) from the simple issue of hours. If the training is good then hours in the RHS are far less relevant. If not, yes, problems will come inevitably. If pilots get promoted into the LHS with too few sectors or too little training (and it’s sectors that count for a new A320 or 737 Captain, not hours) then there will be problems.
All the "hours in the cockpit matter when something goes wrong" anecdotes don't mean much. The "hours" didn't help stop the hull loss (ish) of the Qantas 744 at Bangkok, the 737 that came within minutes of running out of fuel, the 737 nearly lost flying an approach into a microburst at BNE, the A330 that nearly ran out of gas trying endlessly to get into foggy SYD. Every airline has such stories and good airlines learn from them and train for avoidance in future. How many hours were in the cockpit in two eminently avoidable horrific accidents, KLM at Teneriffe, Air France at Toronto?
Training-and all that goes with it is what matters: and "what matters" includes good management, generous fuel policy and few MELs, good CRM/TEM training and practice, good FOQA system, quality SMS, confidential self-reporting, "Just" culture in practice, not just theory.
Be good to hear the paths travelled and experiences of others before we too quickly get a bandwagon going that is contrary to the way many leading world airlines operate, and quite successfully.
It would be useful around about now to get away from the emotion, myth and rhetoric in the “hours” debate and have develop this discussion into an arena for those with varying experiences to share their history and stories.
Good for us all to hear experiences of those who have flown with low hour F/Os on jets. The good and the bad.
I was a cadet, going onto the F27 with only 200 hours. I only had about 4500 hrs when I got my command, barely 100 actual PIC by myself (in singles) but I had been through years of a good check and training system and probably 2000 sectors, of which I would have flown half.
I later flew with very low time F/Os in demanding short-medium haul European routes and then again with an Asian carrier on short haul routes with former cadet F/Os. Yes it was almost single pilot IFR in lots of ways but they were well trained and learned fast. It’s a challenge briefing the young guy in the RHS about the forthcoming descent to 700 ft minimums then the night circling approach in drifting snow and mist, but if he is well selected and well trained to listen and learn with solid SOPs rusted on, then it’s a great learning time at very very adequate standards. I would rather have a well-trained former cadet than an ex-fighter pilot with his own agenda and knowing it all.
(Must say in passing that doing 40-50 sectors a month in very challenging conditions, arctic winters, monsoon summers, short haul and lots of military traffic is good for the soul and for training. I learned far more there about being a PIC than ever before and certainly an hour in that world is worth 10 of those I spent in cruise in my beloved 777 over the night skies of the Pacific).
A young Sherm on the F27 heard many stories about the hiring profiles of the Captains he flew with. Not a few stories about rapid hiring phases where pilots went from low hour instructors on the Chipmunk to Viscount or DC-4 F/Os. The key then, as now, was the quality of training on both seats. I remember that the then Chief Check and Training Captain, Frank Fischer (any like him left?) said that they had done research into hiring profiles and found that it really didn’t matter what your background and experience was, after 8 years with the airline pretty much everyone would be at the same standard. And that was with simulators far less capable than now, before LOFT and CRM, and probably only 2-300 sectors a year.
The point I am trying to make is that Plovett is right: we should separate the quality of the training (in the left seat as well as the right) from the simple issue of hours. If the training is good then hours in the RHS are far less relevant. If not, yes, problems will come inevitably. If pilots get promoted into the LHS with too few sectors or too little training (and it’s sectors that count for a new A320 or 737 Captain, not hours) then there will be problems.
All the "hours in the cockpit matter when something goes wrong" anecdotes don't mean much. The "hours" didn't help stop the hull loss (ish) of the Qantas 744 at Bangkok, the 737 that came within minutes of running out of fuel, the 737 nearly lost flying an approach into a microburst at BNE, the A330 that nearly ran out of gas trying endlessly to get into foggy SYD. Every airline has such stories and good airlines learn from them and train for avoidance in future. How many hours were in the cockpit in two eminently avoidable horrific accidents, KLM at Teneriffe, Air France at Toronto?
Training-and all that goes with it is what matters: and "what matters" includes good management, generous fuel policy and few MELs, good CRM/TEM training and practice, good FOQA system, quality SMS, confidential self-reporting, "Just" culture in practice, not just theory.
Be good to hear the paths travelled and experiences of others before we too quickly get a bandwagon going that is contrary to the way many leading world airlines operate, and quite successfully.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cheapest one, I'll take my chances, as I do every day when I get into my car, a young driver may lose control of his/her vehicle and snuff me out in a moment, if your time is up, it's up, you have no say in the matter.
If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.
If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.
I also appreciate that these people were talking about normal operations but I suggest that any new FO is going to be in the same boat when it comes to an emergency because their training for that is going to be at the same level whatever their background.
Wrong. There are levels of understanding. Years of flying leads to osmosis of sorts about aircraft systems, their interoperability, ATC, and the environment you are flying in. Even if the aircraft itself is different. Yes, flying a glass cockpit jet is a big leap from a GA type aircraft. This is the advantage of having new hires spend a few years as an S/O - start the osmosis before its you under the pump on a dark and stormy night.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aus
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article and well written, but the writer "doth protest too much" with the hours. He has an axe to grind I reckon.
As Sherm pointed out, it is the experience (take-offs and landings) that matter. Umpteem zillion hours spent as a cruise pilot are of very little use.
I spent very little time as a S/O - thankfully. to spend years and years watching (as is the case with QF/NZ/CX and other legacy airlines) what I wanted to DO would have driven me crazy.
Yes we do not need L-Platers flying passengers in Aus. But well trained and suoervised "P-Platers" have a place in Australian aviaition. In fact they NEED to have a place if we are to keep the system safe and control costs.
CASA are you listening?
As Sherm pointed out, it is the experience (take-offs and landings) that matter. Umpteem zillion hours spent as a cruise pilot are of very little use.
I spent very little time as a S/O - thankfully. to spend years and years watching (as is the case with QF/NZ/CX and other legacy airlines) what I wanted to DO would have driven me crazy.
Yes we do not need L-Platers flying passengers in Aus. But well trained and suoervised "P-Platers" have a place in Australian aviaition. In fact they NEED to have a place if we are to keep the system safe and control costs.
CASA are you listening?
Experience does count for something:
With respect guy's and girls, I think we're missing the point here.
It is true that an effective training system can transform someone from 0 hrs experience to a very effective operator in very little time. You can train in simulators and classrooms to impart knowledge, skills and manipulative ability to such a standard that previous experience in GA is really quite redundant.
The problem is how do you train someone in the innate thought processing of a pilot who finds him/herself in unforeseen circumstances? Well really, you can't. This is where experience will show. As a crude example if you were to take two prospective pilots with no piloting experience, let's say an ex-accountant and an ex-pro footballer. Train them both from no experience to CASA/Airline competent First Officers. Now put them into an un-forseen circumstance and see how they perform. May I suggest that the sportsman, who from his previous vocation is used to eyeing up the big picture, used to assessing different plays three moves ahead, used to critical thinking under pressure, may indeed have the upper hand over the accountant?
Just as the footballers experience helped, so to does previous GA experience. It's not really rocket science, it is perfectly reasonable to say that experience is helpful in building effective thought patterns.
Now the harder question is, what kind of experience is beneficial and how much should be expected? Here is where I like the AIPA proposal, a system or matrix is developed to assess the likely experience level of the F.O. and then training is tailored to the F.O. to mange any areas of risk.
Thought's anyone?
Regards,
MHA
It is true that an effective training system can transform someone from 0 hrs experience to a very effective operator in very little time. You can train in simulators and classrooms to impart knowledge, skills and manipulative ability to such a standard that previous experience in GA is really quite redundant.
The problem is how do you train someone in the innate thought processing of a pilot who finds him/herself in unforeseen circumstances? Well really, you can't. This is where experience will show. As a crude example if you were to take two prospective pilots with no piloting experience, let's say an ex-accountant and an ex-pro footballer. Train them both from no experience to CASA/Airline competent First Officers. Now put them into an un-forseen circumstance and see how they perform. May I suggest that the sportsman, who from his previous vocation is used to eyeing up the big picture, used to assessing different plays three moves ahead, used to critical thinking under pressure, may indeed have the upper hand over the accountant?
Just as the footballers experience helped, so to does previous GA experience. It's not really rocket science, it is perfectly reasonable to say that experience is helpful in building effective thought patterns.
Now the harder question is, what kind of experience is beneficial and how much should be expected? Here is where I like the AIPA proposal, a system or matrix is developed to assess the likely experience level of the F.O. and then training is tailored to the F.O. to mange any areas of risk.
Thought's anyone?
Regards,
MHA