The dumb leading the blind . . .

[DOME]

From today's SMH.

"Graeme Innes, AM flies with his unrestrained (shock!) guide dog.

For many people who are blind, travelling by plane requires following the maxim "If you don't laugh you'll cry!"

Going through security can be challenging for someone, such as me, who uses a guide dog or a white cane. The harness and the cane are both metal and set off the detectors. This brings an "up close and personal" experience with a security officer, who proceeds to touch you in all sorts of places that even your partner might think twice about without asking first.

But my experience on a Qantas Sydney-Perth flight recently takes the dog biscuit. My guide dog, Jordie, and I have travelled about once a week for the past five years. Earlier this year, we flew to New York, completing a 13-hour, trans-Pacific flight without a wee break.

In all of that time in the air she has been her passive Labrador self. If it weren't for her excellent training, the greatest danger she would pose to passengers or staff would be licking them mercilessly and beating them with her wagging tail.

So, imagine my surprise when, having boarded the plane, settled Jordie on the floor at my feet, and started reading my book, I was told by one of the cabin crew that he had been instructed by the captain to have her restrained.

As a law-abiding citizen I considered this request carefully. I was told that it was a safety regulation. No one could tell me which regulation - a Qantas rule, an IATA guideline, or an Australian law? No one could tell me what was unsafe when she was not restrained - she's far too discriminating to raid the trolleys full of cardboard boxes masquerading as meals. No one could tell me why I had never been asked to do this before.

I considered the risk to Jordie of having a choke chain pulled tightly around her neck. If there was turbulence, or if she rolled over during the flight, she could be seriously hurt.

Passengers around me made helpful suggestions. One, who was an animal trainer, offered to become a temporary dog sky marshal. Another offered Jordie her business class seat.

I weighed the pros and cons - and left her unrestrained.

Twenty minutes later, after Captain Pedant refused to take off until I complied, and knowing that I and 200 other passengers did want to get to Perth that night, I advised him that Jordie was restrained. This was true at the time, although immediately after take-off I removed the restraint so that Jordie could wreak havoc as she chose. She lay there for the next four hours, occasionally wagging her tail.

Most of the passengers and staff who talked to me were appalled. I left my business card for the captain, asking which particular arcane regulation he had been so keen to enforce. I wanted to look it up and understand my rights if another pilot, petrified by my ferocious lab, ever tried this again. Not surprisingly, I'm still waiting for an answer."

Readers are invited to apply wit to anything that makes the blood boil. Send 600 words, with contact details, to [email protected]. Submissions may be edited and published on the internet.

[Tuner 2]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 REG 256A (excerpt)
256A Carriage of animals

(1) Subject to subregulation ( 8 ), the operator of an aircraft must not permit a live animal to be in the aircraft unless:

(a) the animal is in a container and is carried in accordance with this regulation; or

(b) the animal is carried with the written permission of CASA and in accordance with any conditions specified in the permission.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply to a dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:

(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and

(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and

(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.


Am I missing something here? :confused:

[T_richard]

I know nothing about seeing eye dogs, or airline regulations, but I do know more than a few things about Labrador retrievers. I have spent 40 years around them in one way or another. In my experiance the most violent, blood thirsty Pitbull terrier will cross the street to avoid a Lab for fear of being nuzzled or licked to death. This is a breed that if left to their own devices; read: untrained will surpass all expectations for dumbness and goofiness, but they couldn't spell "violent" if you spotted them 80% of the letters. Trained, they are the best companions for a blind, elderly, lonely, (fill in the blank) human on the planet. The "only" drawback to a Lab is that they will shed the equivalent of a queen size blanket in hair each and every year. If one can figure out what to do with that stuff one could make more money than Bill Gates ever imagined. STUFF THE AIRLINE!!!!! IMHO


Tuner2 I acknowledge your recitation of the pertinant regs, furthermore I accept their legitamacy. It is not clear to me that these regs have been followed consistant (sp) -ly . I may be mistaken but I have been on a plane with dogs who were far better passengers than their owners. just my view nothing more

[Manwell]

Tuner 2, and Captain Pedant, ..... perhaps you are.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men."

Credit to Capt H. for that bit of wisdom.

Especially rules like that one and the one about not seating disabled people next to an exit etc.

On second thought Tuner, I believe you and Capt Pedant are missing something. A sense of compassion, empathy, wisdom, common sense. Need I continue? I'm sure you get the idea...



Life's a bitch, then you fly.:ok:

[Cactus Jack]

The situation probably wasn't handled as best as it could, because Captain Pedant should not have been placed in that understandably precarious situation to begin with.

Customer Service agents should have politely made necessary arrangements for this person and his dog.

Sorry Manwell, but IMHO the Captain was correct in standing his ground. After all, it's his licence at the end of the day. Not the FA's, not the Customer Service agents, and not anyone else's. Rules can be followed with compassion, empathy, and common sense. It's all in the delivery.

And I do hope you weren't implying that disabled persons should be seated in exit row's?

[balance]

Nice dogs, golden retrievers.

Unfortunately, they do sometimes need to pee, and generally, they can't discuss this with their owners. And I understand that a dogs urine is a highly corrosive substance, which doesn't mix well with aircraft components.

So for that reason alone, the Captain was correct on this occasion.

Manwell, I read over your posts. On several occasions you have attacked the man, rather than playing the ball, and others have remarked upon it. You seem to be doing the same yet again with that very arrogant post.

OK, would you now care to justify your comments this time, when it would seem that Tuner and Captain P are in fact correct?

[404 Titan]

Manwell

Have to agree with Cactus Jack and balance on this one. This is a classic case of the customer service agents and ground staff not doing their job properly. I personally don’t give a rat’s ass what has happened on previous flight. It’s the Captains license and his career if CASA want to pursue this or worse if they were on board. I like anyone feel sorry for the blind and deaf but they are subject to the rules just like the rest of us. I wish people would give this bleeding heart thing a break. It is starting to get old.
:yuk:

[Islander Jock]

Readers are invited to apply wit to anything that makes the blood boil. Send 600 words, with contact details, to [email protected]. Submissions may be edited and published on the internet.

Lets see now. What makes pilot's blood boil? How about smart ar5e journalists who don't research their material before making complete prats of themselves when reporting aviation matters.

[ftrplt]

sent a cut and paste of the Reg to Heckler, maybe a few more would be good.

[ferris]

I think a few are missing the point. ie. why the dog has to be restrained as per the regs. It isn't because a lab may suddenly attack, it's because it becomes a 40kg? missile in a crash, rejected take-off etc.
I wouldn't want to be hit by it.

[Sheep Guts]

Ferris,
Spot on thats how interpret it aswell. Allthough it doesnt actualy say for Takeoff, Landing, Turbulence or as specified by the Capatin. Which maybe how it needs to be written in the CARS.

Sheep

[Islander Jock]

Preventing the dog becoming a missile is certainly one reason. But surely the fact that the regs mention "absorbent mats" and the requirement for the dog to be restrained in such a manner that it cannot move from the mat raises the issue that perhaps the regulators don't want corrosive dog p1ss seeping through carpets into the airframe.

I still maintain my previous stance.... most journos are prats when it comes to aviation:yuk:

[pullock]

I'm sorry but I support the original post.

Sure the pilot is technically legal to enforce such a regulation, however disgression is the better part of valor, and this reg is clearly a horses A RSE.

Not all australian regulations make sense, this one especially.

What are the specifications of the absorbant mat if it is intended to contain the animals bodily fluids?

If it is so important to contain periodic bodily fluid spills then why aren't infants to have an absorbant mat as well? It has been my experience that infants regularly excrete bodily fluids in aircraft resulting in maintenance and delays - I have NEVER seen a guide dog create ANY mess at all in an aircraft.

Secondly, supposing the restraint is also intended to stop a missile dog, then what are the specifications of the restraint?


All too often I see people in aviation get carried away with their own self importance and end up playing power games with passengers.

Far more rewarding than winning a power game is making someones day by helping them rather than forcing un-necessary regulation upon them just to show them how powerful you truly are.

I am often disapointed by the press when they write aviation stories, however this one goes some way to show us as aviation professionals that the system that we work in is often flawed. I urge people to look at this from the other side - not the "well i have a job to do" one.

[404 Titan]

pullock

Somehow I think your very simplistic attitude would change if you were hauled before a CASA or company review board for blatantly disregarding the CAO’s and company SOP’s. You might get away with it once. You may get away with it twice. Sh*t you may even get away with it one hundred times but it may be the one hundred and first time that gets you. If you want to play Russian Rulet with your license, go for it mate, we’re not stopping you.
:suspect:

[Binoculars]

And therein lies the real truth.

Pullock, you were guilty of using commonsense. Those days are long gone in Australian aviation.

The first and only commandment now is "Cover Thy Arse". No defense will be accepted. Take it or leave it.

[balance]

Pullock, IMHO you are guilty of using a serious lack of common sense. Dogs, be they well trained or not, do occasionally need to pee. Their pee is corrosive, containing a degree of potassium, which has similar characteristics to salt.

Would you like to know that your $100 million dollar aeroplane is rusting due to dog piss?

Further, you addressed human bodily fluids. Vomitus is generally not corrosive. Babies wear nappies. Other people are strongly discouraged from pissing all over the cabin. They go to the lavatories instead, which have reinforced floors.

Mate, finally, because you and Manwell just can't seem to see it (haven't heard from you BTW Manwell) this Captain earns perhaps $230K per annum. Lets just say he is 50 years old. Thats 10 years remaining in his career. He disobeys a rule that he doesn't like, or understand. He risks throwing away $2.3 million before he would be due to retire. Thats without mentioning super etc.

Is this sorta getting through to you? Why would you just throw all that away? Is not a$$ covering, either. This is a perfectly valid regulation, whether you disagree with it or not.

And just an afterthought. How is it that you have never seen one of these absorbent mats, yet you speak as though you have seen plenty of guide dogs in aeroplanes? Hmmmm...:ooh: :ooh: :ooh:

[cjam]

It's the same reason that your baggage has to go in the overhead locker. It's completely legit for the captain to insist the dog is restrained, I would be gutted if a relly of mine was taken out by a flying lab during a survivable runway overshoot.
Would make for an interesting ugooglogy though.

[The Full Monty]

There are always two sides to a story and I know a little more about this particular incident than what the good gentleman wrote in his article.

Firstly, he did not reveal in his article that he is a Human Rights Commissioner.

Secondly, he did not state that it was only after ground and cabin staff asked him to restrain the dog (as per the reg and as per QF FAM 2.3.6, which reads [in part]...the dog must be restrained wearing a harness. At all times during flight the dog's leash must be tied around the leg of the seat with the leash attached to the dog's collar), that the matter was referred to the Captain.

Thirdly, he also did not state that the Captain left the flight deck, and personally spoke to him in the cabin. He also did not state that the Captain called the Fleet Manager for guidance on the matter, who in turn spoke to the QF Regulatory Affairs Department.

After all of this advice, the gentleman did comply and the Captain was able to depart, knowing that the dog was secured as required by law and company policy.

Now, I was not there, but am a friend of the Captain and I didn't envy the position he was in. We fly aircraft - we are not necessarily equipped to handle people who deliberately set out to make a political statement, which is what we believe this gentleman did.

His article in the paper I thinks demonstrates what this was really about IMHO.

[Pin Head]

Get a life guys!

[karrank]

Quite astonishing to see so much discussion on the actual topic!!!

Sadly this is not what the parasite is after. This is a JOURNALIST. He wants:

:yuk: You to earn him some money, "sources in the aviation industry believe..."

:* The industry to look bad "safety concerns from a worker at..."

:mad: A "Deep Throat" to phone next time something about aviation occurs that he doesn't understand, "a response from a Virgas employee is..."

PLEASE don't email the pr1ck, PLEASE close the thread Woomera.

[Santaclaus]

Just in defence of the poor Dog ,
I dont think Dog P...ss is as corrosive as a spilled can of coke.
A while ago i had to replace some panels under the floor, becouse someone spilled coke in the back. :\

[HarveyGee]

Islander Jock
Your comments about journalists may not be appropriate in this case. I believe the heckler column in the SMH is not written by journalists - it is open to anyone to submit a story and perhaps get published.

[High Altitude]

Not dog related but...

Are not some passengers more likely to require a moisture absorbent mat?

What about the ole footy teams...

Projectiles are dangerous... Remember that one Sheepie:O

The point is that there are rules there for a reason, maybe this has highlighted the fact that the rule has never been enforced upon you before.

In the NT it was made illegal to carry an animal unrestrained in the back of a ute - reason animals safety and or proectile animals.

Wouldn't it be in the interest of the Lab to be placed in a shoulder/leg harness (similar to the walking harness) and be restrained to the base of the chair (like the oxy bottle is). After being placed on a moisture absorbent mat? This would cause no discomfort and would abide by the rules...

Woof woof woof...

[pullock]

In the airline that I work for there is no specific mat supplied - which is a problem in it's self.

Dogs as projectiles - then if they are their restraint would have to be approved like anything else to a standard - it isn't.

Dog bodily fluid as a corosive agent damaging aircraft - Not likely to be any more corrosive than what I have seen coming from humans - urine foces (spelline?) vomit or spileed food. Also - the areas that any fluid will be exposed to is not metal - it's composite structure (eg pax compartment flooring) - so it's not an issue

The above points make me once again ask WHAT ARE THE REGS TRYING TO DO

and WHATEVER IT IS - THEY ARE MISSGUIDED.

I also agree CYA is a good policy - but daily we tread a line between safety CYA and reality.

Go figure.

My 2 cents worth.

[FarCu]

Pullock, good point about the restraint not being approved, we need to toughen up those regs.
Could you also post a list of which regs we should follow and which ones we should ignore.
Getting harder isn't it? You might call it covering your arse, but agree with them or not, they are there to be followed.

[Four Seven Eleven]

We have read a number of reasons why the dog should have been restrained, including the regs, safety etc.

Now, can anyone provide a sensible reason why it should not have been restrained? Or is someone just trying to stir the pot?

[MAXX]

High Altitude,

your post brought back a few memories for me.Iused to work for a charter company in the kimberely years ago and on a joy flight(yeah you guessed it to the bungles)one of my pax decided he needed to go to the toilet,and procceeded to take a dump in his shirt.

He then wrapped it up(you can imagine the smell)and tried to pass it up to me whilst asked me what I would like him to do with it.

YOU CAN IMAGINE MY REPLY!!!!!

after that little episode I always made sure everyone I had on long joyflights had been to the toilet.

cheers

One thing I dont understand is why would the dog be hurt if restrained properly(choker chain around the neck(I think not).

Surely someone with enough common sense would consider using a webbing harness that fits around the dogs body,but hey thats just me.
Maybe the guy in concerned was holding the door when the common sense was issued.

Also as already posted by someone else with commonsense and can read the regulation 256 is fairly self explanetary,and maybe just maybe the reason why the proffessional crew on the flight in question didnt contact you was because they couldnt be bothered trying to explain something so obvious to a moron.

If your original post was a wind up then youve achieved your goal,and stirred the pot.(congratulations you are an excellent journo,and just in case you are not clear on this ,it is not a compliment).

If its not a wind up then mate I feel very sorry for you.


CHEERS

[Mork from Ork]

2) Subregulation (1) does not apply to a dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:

(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and

(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and

(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.

I am no aviation lawyer but it seems the main criteria from this reg, is keeping the dog on the mat. Not keeping it from becoming a projectile.

Now some food for thought, "restrained in a way" no where does this reg say physically restrained. What about "SIT", "STAY"? A well trained dog will not deviate from a command under any circumstances.

Having said all that, cheers to the Captain cause if it's in the company ops manual our hands are tied!!

I think I have rambled enough now, off to the bar.

[Sonny Hammond]

I am a practical person but at the end of the day...penalty 25 units.

[Capt crankcase]

dear capt Pendant have u ever bothered to read reg 256 or do QANTAS just not worry about it. To quote

reg 256 Intoxicxated persons not to act as pilots etc. or be carried on aircraft.
(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.

this reg seams pretty clear cut, so i hope that capt Pendant did not let anybody on his aircraft that was intoxicated. i hope this narrow minded indvidual went around the cabin smelling everyones breathand giving then the sobriety test.

Well if captain Pendant did allow intoxicated people on his a/c he is playing russian roulette as many other people have alreday stated, or he was just unfarley picking on the disabled in our community and if that is the case well shame on u and shame on u QANTAS

[Chris Higgins]

Did everyone read The Full Monty's post.....

The poor captain was just the victim of a poor publicity stunt designed to discredit one of our peers.

Captain Pedant (if that's the real spelling of his name), tried to make the best of a bad situation that may have been nothing more than a CASA Inspector staging a violation.

I am getting sick and tired of hearing these tails of woe about guys that don't get into Qantas and then think it's their right to rip at a QF guy any chance they get. I actually knew a guy like that many years ago who did go to CASA! What a nightmare he must have been!!

As a captain of a turbojet flying domestically and internationally out of the USA, I have four reasons to follow the regs and determine safety of flight. Count your bars...1..2...3...4!

[V1OOPS]

I'm stuck on the first post where the blind journo settles in with his book .... !? imagine my surprise when, having boarded the plane, settled Jordie on the floor at my feet, and started reading my book

[ozm8]

Well, obviously he's reading in Braille! Either with a Braille book or one of those Braille machines.

I think it was said before - people who write in the Heckler column are not journalists! It's like writing a letter to the editor, only longer, and they're apparently supposed to be funny (and to their credit, a lot of them are). I'm not necessarily defending journalists here, but it's not entirely their fault this time. Sure, the editor still published this rubbish, but...

About standards for these animal restraints - is it really the purpose of the CARs to outline such standards? Wouldn't that be more suited to the AIPs, CAOs or another such document that is not considered to be "legislation"? Is there an Australian Standard, set by Standards Australia? Or an international standard set by ICAO or IATA? I'm no aviation lawyer, either, but maybe we will find such standards in other documents (no, I haven't looked, but maybe someone who has easier access to those documents can). If there is no such standard set generally, perhaps airlines should take it upon themselves (if they have not already) to make such standards in their own operating procedures and supply the equipment on request. How would this be any different to how they supply equipment like wheelchairs?

Perhaps Mr. Innes, however ignorant (if that is the right word) he may be about the existence of CAR 256A(2)(c) has raised an important issue about the assistance visually impaired travellers.

Oz Mate!