Facts please - 1:36 died years ago
MODS:
Can we please correct the spelling in the thread title - I know my spelling is rather tabloid but it does look a little dodgy to the rest of the world.
__________________________________________________________
The 1:36 ratio was given away from as early at 2006 and today almost every carrier has an exemption for reduced crew - some which expired on 30 June were quickly rushed through in an effort to avoid being caught by the proposed reforms.
The Unions or anyone else for that matter did not 'really' oppose* the reductions - not even on the jungle jets with one person being responsible for 2 doors ..(WTF!!!! and with the skewiffslide at R2 how the hell did anyone prove the evac efficiency!!!!)... Apart from a few whining lines recently in the SMH and a puff piece in crikey, the CC world has generally been out to lunch. However precedent now exists and you can't retro legislate.
From what I'm told the proposed changes require the airlines to lodge safety cases covering all of the duties CC carry out inc day of Ops/disruption stuff, fire, medical, security and a compliance statement in terms of fatigue. (better than the considerations given to pilots in the front seats).
This has to be better - at the moment all the airline has to do is quote the results of a highly stage managed evac test done by the airframe manufactuer - the so called 50%-90 second test. These tests are a joke as they are always done with a fresh 'top gun' crew that are well rehearsed and pretend pax that attend with the knowledge that they are going to be in an evac test.
What's more current exemptions are covert. No consultation, no scrutiny and the matter is handled behind cozy doors with CASA away from prying eyes or those with a bit of knowledge. Plus things like duty limits etc are EBA line items that are progressively being eroded.
In the new system I believe the 'safety case' becomes a public document (under FOI) and therefore if there is an incident the safety case document becomes a powerful stick to be used by the regulator and the civil courts. It also will apply to Overseas operators wanting to fly in Australian markets and those doing the wet lease shonkies.
The current exemptions are a joke. DJ's "automatic" renewals in June prove this as the reduction to 4 CC on the 737 is based on the o'wing exits being self help - ie., operated by briefed pax...YET in issueing the renewals CASA didn't even read the DJ CC manuals which still has L2 opening the door and then fighting their way AGAINST pax flow to the overwing - which is contrary to the Boeing directive and the evac data used to approve DJ's exemptions. ...all of this and not a single objection from CC or their union!!
Jetstar is just as bad and they in good company with QF who pioneered and perfected the use of changing the regulatory regime to bargain down costs in order to jack up Exec bonuses. Other airlines learned quickly and generally the regulator has been a paper tiger while successive Minister(s) have been too busy adding up their frequent flyer points to notice.
The time for action passed years ago and CC and their unions were asleep, out shopping or just ineffectual in opposing the exemptions - I suggest rather then wasting energy on stories that go nowhere that all crew focus on the flaws in the current expemtions and opose each and every safety case that affects them.
I say join the pilots and fight for decent fatigue and duty limits and rather than wasting time with reserve grade journalism start challening CASA and the Minister to g'tee that they will enforce the airline's individual safety cases and initiate "show cause" proceedings against the airline's AOC's if they say one thing in the safety case and then disregard it and do another.
The current Minister has flick passed almost everything in the aviation portfolio to bureaucrats. These people in CASA, Dept of Tpt etc all parrot the Howard and the Rudd Govt's blind mantras of "Open Skies" and are on a mission to let anyone that can wet lease an aircraft operate in and out of Australia (some dodgy EU airlines are next on the list). Only a small percentage of these bureaucrats have any operational aviation experience.
If these new proposals to CC ratios do make Australian and OS/bilateral operators comply then that has to be a good thing. This issue is not just about CC - pilots are very supportive, especially in lobbying for FRMS and duty limits.
The sad thing is that I'll bet 99% of pilots and CC will agree that something has to be done - but very few will even bother to write to the Minister or their Local Member seeking an answer.
*re 'oppose' - points awarded to a very small number who did try but were skittled by crew complacency, B.S. buzzwords like "world's best practice" and a regulator that was too afraid to upset airlines.
AT
Last edited by airtags; 14th Aug 2009 at 22:16.