AN LAME,
Once a d!ckhead always a d!ckhead.
Well I wasn’t going to be quite that harsh, but yeah – I fully agree.
The statement :
If the aircraft had been painted in AUS this wouldn't have happened.
was always a very silly thing to say.
But the author of that statement seems to want to emphasise his state of delusion by further ridiculous and outrageous claims along the same lines :
I can say for certainty that this would have not happened in Australia.
and
Airlines carrying maintenance out in developing countries to take advantage of the low wages and poor exchange rates can only result in safety compromises, it just stands to reason.
In my view such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility. There is nothing wrong with striving to be the best in the world – but it’s an extremely dangerous state of affairs when you start to believe your own publicity.
Aviation history is littered with dozens (if not hundreds) of catastrophes that resulted from events that
“could never happen”. There are numerous texts on the subject –
The Tombstone Imperative by Andrew Weir is a particularly good one.
In my mind the most dangerous person in aviation (whether they be a pilot, a grease monkey or whatever) is the person who believes
“that could never happen here”. History shows that such beliefs tend to be self-defeating prophecies.
In regard to aviation, I’ve learned to never say
“never”.
30/30 Green Light,
The assertion that the use of incorrect procedures or equipment, which may have instigated the problem, would not happen in Australia is naive to say the least.
I fully concur.
AN LAME,
If an Australian engineer stuffed up then the only thing the ALAEA would provide him with is appropriate representation
What you might euphemistically characterise as
“appropriate representation” I would describe as
“distract and delay until any incriminating evidence had been inexplicably misplaced”. This is an issue of paradigm – we have different perspectives.
The Association provide legal support if and when engineers are called to task by CASA. What else would you have them do?
I agree that the union’s role is to stick up for its members. I would expect the union to try to cover it up.
You seem to equate any safety related engineering issue with industrial issues.
No – exactly the opposite, in fact.
It is the ALAEA that has, in its very public scare campaigns of the recent past, shown its willingness to pretend that what is actually an
industrial relations issue is some kind of
safety issue.
Having observed the ALAEA’s behaviour, I now believe, after very careful consideration, that many of the issues that the ALAEA says are
safety issues are in fact nothing more than
industrial relations issues that the union has dressed up to appear as if they are
safety issues.
In my view the ALAEA (and some other unions) have inappropriately waved the safety flag far too often for their own good.
The ALAEA has become the little boy who cried
“wolf”.
Unions exist to further the interests of their members – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But unions who try to dress up what are essentially
industrial relations issues as if they were
safety issues are being disingenuous in the extreme.
The recent non-sense where the ALAEA tried to claim that pilots are incapable of conducting walk-around inspections on Boeing 737s is an example of this kind of disingenuous behaviour.
pullock’s suggestion that :
You get what you pay for with aircraft maintenance, and it is important that CASA realises this now, and puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore.
is nothing more than someone trying to dress up an
industrial relations issue as if it were a
safety issue.
It is clear to me that the real issue that concerns
pullock is that Australian engineers are fearful that more efficient maintenance organisations outside Australia will win an increasing proportion of maintenance work on Australian registered aircraft to the long term detriment of the relatively generous terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by the Australian engineers. This is an
industrial relations issue pure and simple.
pullock has made a thinly veiled attempt to dress up this
industrial relations issue as if it were a
safety issue. But his line of reasoning and his choice of language are far from convincing.
If
pullock was genuinely concerned about a
safety issue then he might have said something like :
It is important that CASA enforces regulated maintenance standards irrespective of where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.
But he didn’t. Instead, he comes out with :
… it is important that CASA....puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore
That seems to be inferring that the only place in the world where an aircraft can be maintained to a suitable standard is in Australia. Such a notion is demonstrably absurd. As I suggested earlier - such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility.
CASA has no role to play in regard to
industrial relations issues – like
where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.
CASA has a very important role to pay in regard to the
standard of maintenance that Australian registered aircraft receive.
If an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work in Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.
Similarly, if an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work outside Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.
G’day
Zeke,
....why is it at some ports pilots can do a walk around and fuel and at others they do not ?
Just wondering like many others if “safety” is being applied consistently or conveniently by some representative bodies?
Yeah – I’ve always been curious as to why certain types of aircraft
must (on
“safety grounds”) have an inspection by an engineer when the aircraft is at places like Coolangatta, but not when it is at places like Mount Isa.
I guess I’d rather live in Coolangatta than Mount Isa too.
