PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Fatal crash pilot should not have flown: coroner
Old 2nd Jan 2003, 01:37
  #18 (permalink)  
shipreck
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wagit

I think it is because I have had great bosses and worked for really safety conscious operators that I realise now how lucky I and my co-workers have been. (3 companies so far)

We are all professional pilots and well aware of our capabilities and the legal requirements of conducting flights. (some times over confident)

On more than one occassion the op's manager or Chief Pilot in the companies I have worked, have said NO to us the Pilots, which at the time really piissed us off becuase we took it personally and a slight on our abillities, not to mention the log book hours being missed out on.

More than once my boss has told me NO because although it is perfectly legal, he has a responsibility for providing safe working conditions and ensuring that the reputation of the company is not compromised. He would say but what if ?? I would say what if may never happen, He would say thats what we train for all the time, what if an engine fails on take off? what if the electircs fail? What if !!!

We at my current job are all full time pilots on a good wicket and we are not allowed to have a 2nd job, for duty time & fatigue management reasons.

What better way to improve safety management than by holding the management responsible for the safety of the company operations.

I am not talking about a Pilot who is well resourced, flying a good machine, who is current and well rested and resourced... who then gets it wrong and crashes. What more can an operator/management do?

I am talking about the shonky operator who approves a flight that is over weight, the pilot is not qualified, the plane is not airworthy, the pilot is fatigued from excess duty or maybe a heavy night last night etc etc.

THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE AGAINST AIR CRASHES IS ON THE GROUND PRE-FLIGHT...

Any Chief Pilot who knowingly permits a flight to be conducted that contravenes the Act or the Regulations should be prosecuted.

Now the onus is off the Pilot and on to the management.... The shonky operator now has 2 choices GET OUT of aviation or GET SAFE otherwise he/she/they will be the ones prosecuted.

The word KNOWINGLY makes all the difference. People will always make mistakes that become accidents. People who KNOWINGLY permit circumstances to exist are gamblers with others lives with nothing to lose. Put 20 years jail on the losing side of the bet and I am sure the shonky operator will think twice before taking a gamble.

THE MENTALITY OF THE OPERATORS - MANAGEMENT MUST CHANGE. WHEN IT DOES THEY WILL HAVE TO FACTOR IN THE ADDED COST OF SAFETY. THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE TO PAY AND THE SERVICE THEY GET WILL BE FAR SUPERIOR.

And this is where my comments about the Police crash are based, the management failed to say NO to the Pilot and or anyone else. Instead they said YES KNOWING that the Pilot was not competent, well trained, IFR/NVFR rated, well rested and resourced.

Maybe because all the victims were Police, that makes it different.

Enough said...
shipreck is offline