Ladies, Gentlemen, and monkeys riding bicycles,
The first 108 posts of this thread can be found
here.
AN LAME,
I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am concerned that you cannot read.
You claim :
You say that I am 'in a minority of one' in my interpretation of not only the regulatory requirements but also the benefits, common sense, and risk management aspect of having a LAME carry out transits for RPT operations.
Yet what I
actually said was :
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and I can accept that this may come as a shock to you since you have invested so much time and emotional energy developing your line of reasoning, but in regard to your interpretations of the ICAO requirements, you are in a minority of one.
ICAO SARPs do NOT require that an aircraft be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.
You are putting words into my mouth – and getting it wrong.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that your incorrect interpretations of the ICAO SARPs and Australian CARs have been entirely unavoidable since you seem to have a propensity to see words that are not actually on the page.
It’s going to be increasingly difficult to engage in a rational discussion if one party has a tendency to see things that are not really there.
You continue :
If that was the case...I would not be supported by ALL of the apparent engineering background contributors and a fairly sizeable number of our flying fraternity as well.
I repeat, I suggest that you are in a minority of one
in regard to your interpretation of the ICAO SARPs – specifically, in your interpretation that an airline jet must be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.
I don’t see that ANY of the
“apparent engineering background contributors” nor ANY of the
“flying fraternity” have stated that they agree with your rather peculiar interpretation of the ICAO SARPs.
Please specify which of the
“apparent engineering background contributors” and
“flying fraternity” you say agree with your interpretation that the ICAO SARPs require a that a licenced aircraft engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft prior to each and every flight.
I have the utmost respect for professional pilots...but at times that respect does not appear to be reciprocated.
Pilots fly the planes – I think we are in agreement on that part. Licenced engineers fix the planes – I think we would agree on that too. And I know that all pilots have a great deal of respect and indeed gratitude for engineers that fix the planes.
But you have intimated that pilots are incapable of conducting
“walk around” inspections to a satisfactory standard, and that, in any case, a
“walk around” inspection should properly be regarded as
“secret engineers business” (like
“secret women’s business”, perhaps
)
Given that pilots are required to attain a level of competence in conducting
“walk around” inspections as part of their initial training on type, and given that many pilots are required to conduct
“walk around” inspections as part of their everyday tasks, your
“utmost respect” would seem to be not quite as
“utmost” as you might have us believe.
Do you recognise that your lack of respect for the professional competence of pilots in performing their required duties might rub people up the wrong way, or is it something that you do without realising?
AN LAME – you seem to be pursuing three separate lines of argument.
(1) That it is a legal requirement under ICAO SARPs that a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft before each and every flight.
(2) That a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet before each and every flight for safety reasons. You have suggested that pilots are incapable of conducting this inspection to a satisfactory standard, and you have suggested that there will be adverse safety outcomes - ie accidents and/or incidents – if a licenced engineer does not perform the inspections.
(3) That the job of the “walk around” inspection rightfully belongs to the licenced engineers because that is the way it has always been done in Australia.
On argument (1) I suggest that you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It is my view that your interpretation of ICAO SARPs is flawed. If it is not flawed, then why haven’t you, nor the ALAEA, nor anyone else challenged CASA in the Federal (or any other) Court?
On argument (2) I suggest that your safety concerns – if in fact they are genuine – are unfounded. The evidence from the mature and much larger aviation markets overseas simply does not support your assertions. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Argument (3) is simply an industrial relations issue – in effect a demarcation dispute. Demarcation disputes, in and of themselves, have nothing what so ever to do with safety.
You still haven't answered my query as to why you believe the ALAEA is unscrupulous and aggressive.
Actually, you never inquired as to why I believe the ALAEA has been unscrupulous and aggressive. Once again, I think you are seeing words that aren’t there.
Your query was :
By the way, if the ALAEA is ' an unscrupulpous and aggressive union', what does that make the AMWU, or the TWU or dare I say it, an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?
And to that, my reply was :
I have not attempted to justify the actions of any union. Unions had a place in the 1800s in England when twelve year old boys were working by candle-light 18 hours a day down the coal mines and getting inadequately fed and substandard shelter in return. But those times are long gone.
To answer your original query more directly, I don’t know, nor do I care, what the ALAEA’s unscrupulous and aggressive behaviour makes the AMWU, TWU or
“an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?”
I guess that if the ALAEA wishes to lower its level of behaviour to that of the AMWU, or TWU, or the Painters and Dockers if you want to go the whole hog, then that is entirely its prerogative.
You seem to want to engage me on ’89 issues. You will continue to fail. I couldn’t give a rats bottom about ’89 issues.
To answer your new query, I believe that the ALAEA’s behaviour has been unscrupulous because they have been telling deliberate fibs and being knowingly misleading in their dealings with the media by pretending that :
(a) The current approved practice in Australian jet airlines is that a licenced engineer must ALWAYS perform a
“walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is demonstrably untrue.
(b) That Australia would be out of step with current approved practice overseas if Australia did not require that a licenced engineer must perform a
“walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is also demonstrably untrue.
(c) That the ALAEA’s motivation for its current CASA lobbying and media campaign is a benevolent concern for the safety of flight – when in reality the ALAEA’s true motivation is simply to feather the nests of itself and its members – ie a significant and obvious vested interest.
The ALAEA has been overly-aggressive because it has attempted to rail-road both the airline employers and the regulator into complying with its own industrial demands by means of a misleading public scare campaign – a scare campaign that has endeavoured to hoodwink the flying public into believing a series of lies and half-truths.
To be entirely frank, the ALAEA’s behaviour has been more akin to the kind of industrial thuggery that one might expect from a trade union representing a group of uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers – rather than a group of licenced aircraft engineers. In this respect, perhaps I may have simply over-estimated the level of professionalism of the licenced engineers?
Is it simply that you so vehemently disagree with their argument
I do disagree with their argument, but I disagree more with their methods.