View Full Version : Four Corners

Flying Mechanic
30th Jun 2005, 12:04
Anyone got any information on the Four corners 4 July 2005?
I hear they are doing some aviation special.
Cheers FM

30th Jun 2005, 12:08
ABC journalist posted asking for info re Qantas "issues" on the CC forum several weeks ago.

I thought it was for a radio program??

30th Jun 2005, 21:33
I saw a promo on it last night. It's about the Lockhart River accident.

1st Jul 2005, 03:10
I would have thought they would wait for the ATSB report. But then again lets not let the facts get in the way of some sensationalist journalism.

1st Jul 2005, 03:48

It's true Four Corners have done some sensational journalism over the years.

Let's see, there was the Qld Fitzgerald, the NSW police, SievX, Alpine Offset, Grassby and the Griffith Mafia, Cairns/Morosi, yep the facts do make some sensational journalism.

Right now the race is on between the Regulator/Investigator and Four Corners to get their "facts" before the public.

Now how would our friend Rumsfeld have put it.

"There are facts that we know and there are facts that we don't know, some of those facts we all know we know, but would rather all the others who do not, not know those facts we all know we know.
Of the facts that we don't "know" we do not, neither would we want the others to "know" before we can put structures in place to show that we really did "know" all the time and were already taking steps make sure nobody "knew".":rolleyes: :p

The ATSB report will deal with the actual event, maybe Four Corners will shed some light on why it may have been inevitable and who has dirty hands on it.

They have a sensational pedigree in these matters.:E It's a part of our sensational democratic process, be thankful it is.:ok:

404 Titan
1st Jul 2005, 04:21
Unlike their commercial counterparts that have gone down the road of ratings driven news, presented by blonde bimbos that all look and sound the same with their monolog voices, the ABC still in my opinion has credibility in most of their news programs and presentation, especially 4 Corners. Sixty minutes doesnít even rate as far as I concerned when it comes to hard hitting factual journalism. Some of the best and most respected journalist (yes there is some) on the ABC started at commercial stations but went to the ABC after the commercial stations started selling their soles to the devil and decided to have a fresh new look with young inexperienced bimbo faces with, as far as Iím concerned no credibility.

1st Jul 2005, 11:21
If you read the Lockhart River accident thread about, you will find I posted the following:

ABC TV - Four Corners

8.30 pm Monday, July 4, 2005.

Repeated 11.00 pm Wednesday, July 6, 2005.

Don't miss it! I'm told there will be some interesting revelations!


Horatio Leafblower
1st Jul 2005, 13:21
Ran into "Capt'n Snooze" and his lovely wife a couple of weeks ago, they tipped me off about it then (ie: they know what to be said and by whom)

Word is that there are some beans to be spilled and cats to be released from bags.

"If Neville Wran was still Premier he'd NEVER let a Liberal goverment or a Transport Minister like Anderson get away with the sh!t they've been up to", Snoozey said.

Can't wait :}

Frank Burden
2nd Jul 2005, 03:14
Just a thought, but if the 4C program is going to point anywhere about this incident at this early stage of the investigation then CASA would surely be in the frame. Any thoughts, or has anyone heard about immediate senior CASA staff travel plans to put their finger in the leaking dike?

2nd Jul 2005, 03:32
Maybe someone has just stumbled onto the reason Mr Anderson resigned so out-of-the-blue?:E

2nd Jul 2005, 20:34

Very intuitive.

Perm FO.

As stated, "Four Corners" can and will stand on it's record.

Being a non commercial media organistaion, and the clinical way it goes about it's investigations,
and the attendant checks and balances within it's hierarchy,
it must be conceded that it is a reliable and trustworthy news outlet.

Frank Burden.

If CASA has been portrayed as failing in it's role with Safety, so be it.

CASA's culture has degenerated into that of an arrogant enforcer, working against the industry,

and appears to have abandoned the less attractive role of a mutual safety mentor committed to working with the industry.

Bruce Byron's rhetoric fails to be heard by the recalcitrant and / or rogue element endemic to the present day CASA.

It must be frustrating for Byron to be so continuously ignored by his subordinates,
but having been compensated so far in salary and benefits to the tune of over a million dollars,
does it really concern him?

He can talk the talk, does he really need to walk the walk as well?

2nd Jul 2005, 22:34
Yeessss!! There may be a few fires to put out in CASA Tuesday morning! :E

3rd Jul 2005, 09:06

Do not confuse our national aviation regulatory authority with anything to do with aviation safety.

They are regulators pure and simple. They most certainly are NOT an authority on safe civil aviation. They are only interested in 'compliance' and that does not necessarily mean 'safe'

Regulators worldwide have tried to regulate us into being safe, just look at the effectiveness of the road rules, in particular, speed limits, they really work, don't they?

Similarly, the national aviation regulatory authority is hamstrung by its own enabling legislation. Ken Cannane from AMROBA has highlighted this in a backhanded way in the GA Forum under "Stop the facade and cut the costs"


heated ice detector
3rd Jul 2005, 10:15
If the revelations are true, then the man at CASA whose job it is too think up new names for the department will definately be busy on Tues. ( we haven't had a change in years )

3rd Jul 2005, 11:56
Frank Burden. From my information, I believe Four Corners do not intend preempting the ATSB investigation, rather shine a torch in a few closets that haven't seen the light of day for some time.

If you don't think CASA have some responsibility with respect to the Lockhart River accident, watch the ABC Four Corners on Monday night. Indeed, you may be interested in what aircraft operated the service since the accident.......


4th Jul 2005, 02:02
Sorry, but Four Corners has lost all credibility with me on aviation issues after the report they did on Nomad. After speaking to some of the people who were interviewed for that programme it was obvious they had a pre-concieved agenda and were only looking for "facts" that fitted it.

4th Jul 2005, 04:25
Anybody else gonna be watching "Sienfield" @ 8:30 tonite??:D

4th Jul 2005, 04:28
whatever credibility issues impact 4 Corners, they pale into insignifance when compared to the others, ACA , TT and 60-nano seconds. Be thankful that lot don't get a chance to report.

can you even imagine Ray-Cardboard-Cutout-Martin even attempting to report anything serious ?

He's doing an exclusive with Rose "Digger" Porteous, and that will be some award winning television - in an amusing, cringeworthy, indignant and painful sort of way I hasten to add.......

Hugh Jarse
4th Jul 2005, 07:57
I believe Rose has just written a book titled How To Make One Hundred Million Dollars With Only One C#nt Working For You":}

4th Jul 2005, 09:48

A summary of the program.

Pinky the pilot
4th Jul 2005, 09:49
Hugh; Priceless Mate, priceless!!!:ok: :ok:
Re the 'interview' on ACA; Mrs Pinky is watching it as I type. I cannot handle such shite!!!:yuk::yuk: :yuk:

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

4th Jul 2005, 11:29
I got very comfortable on Disco Stu's lap to watch 4 Corners with him. I heard nothing I hadn't heard him or his flying mates say, so where's the earth shattering revelations that were suggested to come out of this truely lightweight bit of infotainment.

About the only sense came from Brian Chandler although the human factors highlighted with regard to approach plate distance format/design/presentation has merit for a follow up.

A less than purrrrrfect outcome:bored:

:yuk: :yuk: furball:yuk: :yuk:

4th Jul 2005, 11:37
Having just watched the 4 corners program I did not feel that the program shed that much new info. BUT the $21,000 a year for the FO of a regular passenger flight certainly surprised me. Then again I guess while there is a endless stream of young hopefuls dreaming of that jet position with a major airline to be exploited:................*

4th Jul 2005, 11:39
Having just watched 4C I can barely contain my anger at CASA. The CASA guy was rabiting on about how good the Airline's paperwork was. Big deal. Try talking to the drivers LAMEs and others. Christ they still don't get it. If that is the best investigation they can do than CASA needs to be terminated with extreme pregidice.

Horatio Leafblower
4th Jul 2005, 11:46
Hooray Brian Chandler :ok:

Yah-boo-sucks all the rest, I agree with the puss. :yuk:


I was amazed that young Capt Norris was earning less than SE award when operating a twin on RPT...!?!:eek: :sad:

4th Jul 2005, 11:52
If you are an aviation plaintiff lawyer does that make you an Air Ambulance Chaser?

:p It sure doesnt make you a 'legal eagle'!!!:}

4th Jul 2005, 12:07
It will be interesting to see the public reaction to what we all believe to be conditions of employment closer to being normal than of exceptional !!

I wonder if Mr. and Mrs. Jones realise that their professional pilot on their holiday charter is really cursing his boss and calculating the hours flown into $/hour whilst on an N.D.B. approach in the soup?

But hell ..... Youíve all done it so why shouldnít they???

And so the clock turns but nay the tide!!

4th Jul 2005, 12:07
Photo on 4 corners website of "Metro aircraft" looks a lot like a Cessna Citation 2 to me :)
What do you experts think ?

4th Jul 2005, 12:08
saw the show guys !!!..its the same ole same ole ( spencer gulf....norfolk alot more out there) , the worst thing is that good pilots and inocent pax get it for the capitalisation for the operator....what next? the 10, 11 12 seater a/c gets its seats removed therefore more freight can be put in no GWPS ???? just wait and see...Qn: how many $300 tickets per seat fit in to a million dollars what must be near 3,333 tickets alot of flights :p

4th Jul 2005, 12:17
The show did not reveal anything new that we within the industry didnít already know. All itís done now is scare the ďsh*tĒ out of the passengers travelling in regional Australia.

LWís answers will not clear or confident, he really didnít help his company at all. But we all know Transair is Metro pilot factory, pay your money and you will get the endorsement and 50 hours ICUS. Iím surprised that they didnít look at Transairís relationship with BigSky and Aeropelican.

As for the ďAviationĒ lawyer, he should stick to flying a desk rather, because he has no idea about flying multi crew.

The only person who knew what they were talking about was Brian Chandler; his comments were spot on regarding the problems within our regional airlines.

4C touched briefly on the number of communities that have lost regional services, thatís what they should have looked at in more detail and the lack of support from the government to help regional airlines re-equip with newer/better equipment.

Why is it that buses can drive into every regional town, drop off and pick up passengers and not get charged a cent? But as soon as an aircraft does the same at the local airport, every man and his dog has his hand out!

4C had the chance to dig deep into the issues that confront our regional airlines, but they didnít.

As I said earlier, all theyíve done is scare more people away from smaller aircraft and airlines.

4th Jul 2005, 12:21
Indeed a powerful program!

$21,000 per year to fly an Aero Tropics twin in the Torres Strait. Four or five grand under the Australian minimum wage in an area notorious for it's high cost of living.

What can I say except express my rage??? :yuk:

I also registered on Four Corners on line forum and addressed a couple of questions to Peter Gibson - all were "Moderated".

May the rage continue!

:yuk: :yuk:


4th Jul 2005, 12:26

Did he answer any of your questions?

4th Jul 2005, 12:31

How bad and what was the nature of your questions that they were moderated. Or will you have to moderate them yourself here???? just kidding.

The progamme seems to raise more questions than were answered.

I have one which was touched on in the ABC thread. How does a GSM or other mobile phone affect these types of GPS. I have read of smaller GPS units being affected and I know in my own aircraft they affect the transponder so why not? Could this be the case here and in the Benalla crash.

We all know how many people disregard the threat as trivial and I can assure you they do play up with some hardware without doubt.

Any ideas?


4th Jul 2005, 12:57
whogivesa????. I posted reasonable questions which I would have permitted on this site, not comments, however I also suspect a number of user's questions may have been "moderated" either by the panelists, or due to lack of time.

The questions were relevant and quite pointed. My questions weren't posted, so no answers.

On a purely academic level, I wonder how a pilot flying an Aero Tropics twin engine aircraft in the Torres Strait can survive on $21,000 per year, well under both the Award and the Australian Minimum Wage, in an area renown for high cost of living? And probably pay "rent" to live in shared company accommodation?


J430. The frequency of mobile phones is neither the same, nor a harmonic of the frequency of Transponders or Sat Nav. Besides, coming from Bamaga via Lockhart River (where a mobile phone is about as useless as a left handed screwdriver), it would be rather unusual for anyone to leave one turned on.


4th Jul 2005, 13:11
as stated elsewhere, technically accurate, filming excellent, but?

Why didn't all the interviews or research on CASA come out.

Legal departrment or sequel to follow?

and yes, that was a Citation, Airlines of PNG, only mistake in the show.

J430, CDMA phones are the only ones that work in the Cape,
no energy burst pulses to affect things as you will have experienced with GSM.

Also GPS antenna is outside, phone is inside,
some Faraday shield effect from the fuselage if the antenna is located away from the windows.

4th Jul 2005, 13:17
Mainframe. Despite it's perhaps perceived shortcomings, still an excellent program. I suspect the lawyers may have "got to the really hard questions" to which you allude.

I was intrigued with the Cessna 208 - I got the distinct impression it is, or was operating the service post accident, by an operator not shown on the CASA web site as holding an RPTAOC for that aircraft type?


4th Jul 2005, 13:25


C208 question,

You might be right


4th Jul 2005, 13:35

Point taken about the phones, but I have proven with tranponder and phone within 2m of each other and the tranponder signal is affected. BNE RAD verified it (unknowingly). Turn it on, they get primary with only occasional (every minute or two)SSR returns. Turn it off, Bino works a treat. Manufacturer clams it can be seen in their workshop too. Seen the old Bendix in a C172 blink strangely too with a phone on.

GPS is different altogeher and I expect it is not affected, but one wonders how two aircraft have been in a completely diferent place than where the pilots probably thought they were.

Anyway back to the sidelines...

4th Jul 2005, 13:37
It is a matter of public record that the Four Corners program intimated the Cairns - Bamaga RPT service was being operated by a Cessna 208 Caravan aircraft.

Reference to that Operator's AOC (http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/download/N225472-31.pdf) confirms it is not licensed on the Cairns - Bamaga route with C208 aircraft.

Perhaps I missed something? I wonder if Mr Gibson and the other senior CASA staff who watched the program also missed the same point?

"Seen the old Bendix in a C172 blink strangely too with a phone on" Goodness gracious, Bendix? Either you or your C172 is as old as me!!! :}


4th Jul 2005, 13:38
Could the C208 have been chartered for the programme crew etc and made good footage?? the average punter might not pick it.

Who is running the service now and with EGPWS installed??


4th Jul 2005, 13:44
J430. You may be correct about chartering the C208, as some filming was from the front RH seat.

I have no idea who is operating the service - I am a long, long way away from FNQ! :O My interest was purely academic.


4th Jul 2005, 13:45

The two C208's were chartered for the transport of the deceased.

The 4C crew did not charter a C208.

The C208 has been frequently conducting the service, and although only has a single engine,
it does have TAWS, the next best thing to EGPWS.


4th Jul 2005, 13:54
Just goes to show that if your cunning enough, you can hide just about anything from CASA. It's amazing how many people in this industry (in particular managers) have become comfortable with talking out of their freakin' as****es, as long as it looks and sounds right on paper.

Also goes to prove how really out of touch CASA is with the industry :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: , and how far gone aviation is in comparison to other professions. We all know that this is just the tip of the iceberg folks.

21 grand a year......................that's bull :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

4th Jul 2005, 14:18
Hi I'm Paul Norris' wife Fiona and the reason I revealed Paul's salary with Aero-Tropics of $21,000 was in the hope that pilots get angry (if you're not already) about your conditions and so that the general public are made aware of the wages that pilots are being subjected to to. The general public seem to have no idea what pilots are earning, except maybe Qantas pilots. My husband Paul worked extremely hard for this salary, flying a Twin Engine Islander from Horn Island with numerous take off's and landings, unloading freight and then washing the aircraft at the end of his shift - all because he had a dream to fly and one day hopefully earn a real wage which would compensate him for all he had sacrificed. He obviously had my full support emotionally and financially which is why he was able to chase his dream.
After all the money that is spent on training to gain these qualifications, is it then fair to get paid less then someone working in a shop - no it's disgusting and I'm frankly sick of hearing that it's all part of the apprentice - so if I can do anything in my husbands memory besides finding out what ultimately caused that Metro to crash, I hope that I can improve conditions for pilots earning their stripes.
Fiona Norris

4th Jul 2005, 14:20
Mainframe. The AOC clearly specifies RPT operations in C208 aircraft between Bloomfield, Cairns, Dunk Island and Lizard Island only - no more, no less, no Cairns - Bamaga. Therefore I assume the film fottage was "generic".

YBRM. Disgusting!!! :yuk: Perhaps other twin engine aircraft pilots from the same company may care to confirm or deny the allegation this operator is not honoring it's obligation under the relevent Pilot's Award? Perhaps Aero Tropics may care to comment?

Some years ago I heard of an operator who based unpaid pilots in Cape York to fly C206 and P68 aircraft, then charged them $10 per day accommodation. One of those pilots, who could not afford the "rent" slept in the back of a utility for some months whilst flying long hours in clapped out aircraft.


Welcome to PPRuNe. On behalf of our members world wide and particularly here in Australia, our sincere condolences for your tragic and sad loss. Our thoughts are with you.

I found this evenings Four Corners program excellent journalism and your comments extremely focused, relevant and poignant - a credit to you! Had the program drawn conclusions it would have preempted the ATSB investigation and jeopardised the program\'s credibility.

It is time that both the general public and those in this industry became aware of the atrocious and illegal wages being paid to - and not being paid at all - to GA pilots in Australia. Sadly few are willing to risk their careers filing complaints with the relevant industrial relations authority. I trust you at least will file an action for recovery of unpaid wages, not only on behalf of your husband, but the hundreds of other pilots in Australia who are being exploited whilst chasing their dreams.

Welcome to PPRuNe. Our heart is with you........


4th Jul 2005, 15:11
exactly right Woomera, my wife commented on how many of the "working" pilots wanted to remain anon.

Basically, to call a spade a spade, they'd get fired if their identity was known, it is a sad reflection that a guy with a couple o'thousand logged , in hard work , crap conditions, hard IMC, does not get a chance to voice ......................odd to be sure

I smell a CPA/Accountant somewhere, and I have a problem with this,,,,,,,,

where is my rifle ?

4th Jul 2005, 21:07
* A C208 is NOT being used on the CNS - Bamaga RPT service.
* GA pilot wages ARE disgraceful. They always have been.
* Despite the claim on 4C that CASA audits are mainly paperwork exercises, the most recent audit of Transair included surveillance on every RPT sector, the Bamaga route included.
* SOME current GPS/NPA approaches under SOME cockpit presentations leave much to be desired.

4th Jul 2005, 22:15
Lisag (Fiona)

Your contribution to 4C last night would make your husband proud, well done.

To open the debate a little wider on pilot conditions, take it to include instructors also, they are pilots too, they also get paid a pittance for training those who carry passengers wether it be a PPL, CPL or ATPL. Their rates of pay are often, when averaged out, even worse than $21K to$31K as mentioned.

How many more have to pay the highest price before this whole aspect of aviation is looked at. (Not presuming that pay rates caused the accident, its just an injustice along the way).


Lisag... check your PM

PS Check the GA Forum and read "Advice for a Newbee Please" pay problems are rife!

The Voice
4th Jul 2005, 22:28
I watched the programme, but felt like the journo presenting it was the wrong one. Not that the presentation was inadequate, just that with all the other expose's that Chris McMasters has completed in this wacky world of aviation, maybe he'd have done a slightly better job.

I felt as if there was something lacking, that it wasn't 'punchy' enough. Perhaps it was the percepetion created by this thread the last few days.

I too, Fiona, congratulate you on fighting the good fight in Paul's memory. You are very eloquent and he would indeed be proud. To let the media in at this time is a pretty gutsy move.

Behind every good man, is a great woman.

4th Jul 2005, 22:36
I thought it was a bit rich for Bruce Gemmell (CASA) to say, can't remember the exact words ... but along the lines of .. " it's a shame that pilot error has caused the deaths of 15 people ... it shouldn't be tolerated"

I apologise if I've got that wrong ... but that was my recollection. And if I have it correct... then why bother completing the ATSB investigation?

This is what was actually said

BRUCE GEMMELL: "Certainly human error can be factor. We try and get a look at how is it that a human error like that occurred. Was the training inadequate? Was the oversight arrangements inadequate? What was it? Human error, when the travelling public's involved, is not really good enough."

4th Jul 2005, 23:55

You are correct on a technicality. the C208 is not "CURRENTLY" being used on the Cairns Bamaga run.

However, the "marketing arm" or "ticket seller" did use it and another non rpt aircraft quite frequently
to continue to provide the service that they didn't really provide after the crash that they didn't have.

All flights meticulously indexed ready for the inquiry that probably won't happen.

CASA is far too busy on other matters of impending safety potential to notice very much at all.


CASA doesn't check with pilots if they're paid properly, they only see a paid accountants statement
to verify "financial viability". If a company can't pay it's pilots properly, what else can't they afford?

Safety is expensive, accidents however, are usually more expensive.

Bill Smith
5th Jul 2005, 00:28
Maybe there should be an independent financial audit done before AOC's are issued.
It could, possibly, be determined that a lot of these shonky's are not financially viable.
Then Accountants can do wonderful things with numbers can't they? So we would probably be back to the same situation.
Pilots should stop denigrating themselves and start taking a little pride in what we do.
Stop under cutting each other for the odd hour or two of multi time.
You don't see other professions doing this to each other.
Stick together and demand to be renumerated appropriately.

Uncommon Sense
5th Jul 2005, 00:45
Let me inject some hypothetical - some of which I know will not be well received by our vocal right-leaning contributors, but so be it.

As an 'individual' what negotiation power do you have to:

a. get paid a fair salary / wage?

b. actually get paid on time, or in some cases at all?

..especially in an environment where one is too scared of losing their job to confront management on issues that may contribute to them losing their lives?

I don't mean to turn this tragedy in to a political argument, but it is a topic for the times we live in with the right for association under great threat. Does anyone disagree that the ability for individual pilots to ensure a fair wage outcome is a dismal failure?

The 'apprenticeship' line is ridiculous if only 1 in 10 make it through to an airline type of salary - that is not an apprenticeship, that is a gamble - one that leads to exploitation.

Do I have a solution? Only a hypothetical, and most likely unworkable one.


As a member of the association, abide by your rules and don't undercut each other for work - yes, I can hear the laughing from here - I have been there too - but what other solution is there?
The war of '89 has left a bad taste that lingers - but that was a long time ago, and the country we live in has changed remarkably. What has not changed - except deteriorated - is the conditions for the new GA pilot.

Only by collectively insisting on a fair outcome can you have any power to decide how you provide your skills to the compnaies that need them - and they do need them.

Yes - costs will go up for the companies. Perhaps they should. As was mentioned in 4C - air services to remote areas in our country should be treated as an essentialinfrastructure - just like phone lines. (As should the ATC system - not a cash cow). So the government expenditure should account for this essential infrastructure - perhaps they could trim down their Government Advertising expenditure to pay for it?

Or think mmore carefully before re-arranging our airspace system on the follied notion of saving money for our regional operators?

I have seen how good, safe GA companies operate - and they charge high prices for their services. And Government pays for it - infact they insist on a high level of compliance, aircraft standard, pilot minimums and maintenance standards, before they will let government employees travel on business with these operators - so why does the government not insist upon the same standards for the public at large?

Why is it ok for GA companies to undercut each other to the bone - often in to definite loss - and CASA sits back and watches?

A double standard? I think so.

5th Jul 2005, 01:19
Uncommon Sense as usual :ok:

The next step is to teach the Government users to teach the operators that if they lift their game into the 21st Century insofar as equipment is concerned, they will pay the money.

They have no other options.

Clunker C90s killing your irreplaceable and priceless top medical men seems counterproductive to me.

To do that, they will have to find someone within or without who actually understands what it all means.

BTW how many of the passengers were Govt employees or in some way dependent on Government support? There is a message in there somewhere.

5th Jul 2005, 02:07
I for one was very impressed with the story, for once the media has fairly accurately reported the facts of the true state of this industry.

I'm not sure what it's going to take before the industry as a whole stands up and says this is enough, why is it that pilots 'accept' that their hard earned licenses, endorsments etc are 'worth' 21K in a remote area, if that operator cannot afford to pay it's pilots what they deserve(an award wage), then why continue to operate, they could obviously afford to pay more, but why would they bother when the pilots accept it.

Other operators use the RHS of their aircraft as a money making machine, fail to have a serviceable autopilot(saves $$), get them to pay for an endorsement(makes $$$), then promise them all limited amounts of time of 'paid' work, give them that then they get someone else through the door. Flying schools use the same ways but putting on casuals, expecting them to do marketing, answer phones, wash planes and only get paid when they fly. Most of them have to work night jobs, and a lot of them are half asleep at the schools due to lack of sleep.....next to that half of them have less than 300 hours training someone else how to fly.

The government, operators and pilots themselves are killing this industry, which group will stand up and try and stop it, guarantee it won't be the pilots.

5th Jul 2005, 03:06
For those that missed it, the transcript is here (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1406956.htm)

I thought the program was impressive. The lack of "punchiness" some posters alluded to may be because of the balance of the report. An example - LW had allegations put to him and he answered them. The ABC acknowleged positive reports of Transair operations.

There are a number of factors to consider when judging a report such as this. The first is that there is an ongoing ATSB investigation and, secondly, slagging off a person or company is likely to result in a writ for defamation.

I was most impressed by the underlying message - GA pilots are generally shafted in the end and that the situation is not satisfactory. The public now know what we pilots have always known - the condition of GA, from the ground up, needs to change.

A special note should be made of Fiona's contribution to the report - thank you.

Captain Sand Dune
5th Jul 2005, 04:38
What another great advertisement to our young ones to become a pilot!:rolleyes:

5th Jul 2005, 08:21
$21000?????? sheesh you get $31000 clear to cart mud around ML. To Fiona..well spoken and also my heart felt condolences.

Frank Burden
5th Jul 2005, 11:12
I heard that Brewth is missing. Last seen with a passport in his hand heading over the border!!! Where is Brewth!!! All reports welcome!!!

5th Jul 2005, 11:44
All the wives of GA and former GA pilots could see the agony that they hoped they would never have to go through. Well done to a courageous lady for hilighting the disgrace that is GA wages and conditions. As she mentioned they do it for the light at the end of the tunnel but even that is now just a torch being held by airline management looking for another way to squeeze more dollars out of the pilots.
Unfortuneately the statement about the world making sense when one is in the air resonates for many others and the industry will continue to exploit that depth of feeling.

5th Jul 2005, 12:21
Fiona, as others have said, your contribution was heartbreaking in its simplicity, and exposing the salary paid to a relatively experienced pilot will raise questions, but in the end nothing will change. Why? I think everybody reading this thread knows the answer. Read on for what it's worth.

Uncommon Sense,

This is where we part company. Your arguments belong to an ideal world, and it is my view that anybody who thinks those ideals can ever apply to GA pilots is deluding himself.

I'm not a pilot, but I've been around the periphery of the GA scene a long time, certainly long enough to know the good operators from the bad.

GA companies have one thing in common. They almost all struggle to make a buck. They all look for ways to improve that situation, and there are lots of ways to do it. Increasing income is difficult, so all the possibilities involve reducing expenditure. Reading through this forum alone will give you some idea of how that expenditure is reduced, but number one on the list will always be pilots' wages.

Not for the first time on this forum, I'm going to return to the principle of supply and demand, because it is the inherent problem. There are so many young people with stars in their eyes with a vision to be airline pilots, and so few positions available, that it doesn't take an economics degree to forecast the result.

If you look back over this forum, you will see hundreds of threads on this subject. The young hopefuls post, "how do I get hours?"

Those two rungs up the ladder say "piss off, you aren't going to undercut me".

Those at the top of the ladder, the airline pilots, all say "Thou shalt not work for less than a reasonable wage, and thou shalt never fly parachutists for nothing just to accumulate hours, and thou shouldst always think of thy fellow aviators, though verily we made it to where we are by doing exactly what thou doest now".

I can only repeat; the law of supply and demand rules everything. As long as there are kids (of whatever age) who are prepared to break rules to achieve that impossible dream, the status quo will remain. The flying dream will always overcome logical thought, and it's quite certain that industrial action will never work. Why? Because anybody with an unquenchable dream will do anything to achieve that dream; and if that involves stabbing others in the back, metaphorically of course, that is what will happen.

My usefulness is limited, but I hope, though I can't be sure, that I had some part in dissuading a pilot of my acquaintance from joining Cathay during their industrial action. Said pilot now flies for Virgin and loves it.

While this is a different subject, it belongs in the same general field. When your eyes are fixed on a distant dream, it's bloody hard for anybody to divert those eyes.

5th Jul 2005, 13:17
Binoculars, you might be able to convince me if your argument was based on a real 'law' rather than an observation. All you tell me when you rabbit on about economic 'laws' is how little you know about economics..

There is no 'law' of supply and demand. It is a construct. A rational construct that explains a set of behaviours.

It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.

You probably don't want to believe me. Fine. Before you relax and allow your 'law' to stand, a minor challenge for you.

Show me a society or civilisation that has permitted complete, unregulated supply and demand in all areas of life.

Go on. I'll check back in a few years to see if you found one. Your search will be a long one, and eventually fruitless. That is because NO human society, whether agrarian, capitalist, socialist, the whole shebang, has EVER been silly enough to completely surrender to 'supply and demand'

Some things are just TOO important to allow 'the market' to allocate resources.

This is why Australians have public schools, public hospitals, legal aid, fire brigades that don't charge a fee for service, etc. It is why we have service guarantees for telephones. It is why we have public roads.

So do yourself a favour and drop the free market fervour. You just don't understand the real world. Not your real world, the REAL real world!

Successive governments have pandered to big interests and deregulated aviation to the point where a community of a thousand people with no roads have to pay $450 plus for a return trip to a regional centre about 300km away. That same amount of money buys a city dweller a round trip to a holiday destination several thousand km away.

Not even touching the argument 'they choose to live there.' Those communities are there, and they have every right to be there. If not, well, is there a spare room in your house?

So, you have these very poor communities, that have no choice when it comes to travelling. Must be via plane.

They are lucky enough to have a two crewed turbine RPT service.

But, instead of the rest of us Aussies adding a dollar or ten to our ticket on the A320, these folks have to use aerodromes and services that have to cover all of their infrastructure costs, plus make a dollar!

So the two crewed turbine RPT service means not quite as much as your average Aussie has a right to expect.

We have two problems in Australian aviation. (1) it is too easy to train to be a pilot. Yes, too easy. Expensive and time consuming, but anybody who has a few dollars and dreams of flying is encouraged to do so by flying schools.

We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots. It is almost ridiculous that we have so very many young pilots that spend tens of thousands of dollars on their pathway to Qantas, when Qantas will take maybe one in fifty.

If somebody discovered that only one in fifty DipEd students ever got a full time job in a school, there would be amazement!

If somebody discovered that only one in fifty medical students ever actually became practicing doctors, there would be an outcry over the waste of resources.

Yet we allow it in aviation. It creates a culture of undercutting, non-reporting on safety issues, the whole shebang.

General aviation and third level airlines do not have a culture of excellence. Pilots and engineers in this industry do not have the luxury of a decent basic wage. It is not an industry that encourages best practice. It does not reward the pilot who studies and knows their aircraft and their rules. It values the pilots that will shut up, do what they are told and endure wannabe/hasbeen/neverwas chief pilots and operators and all the shit they shovel their way.

Not an industry to be proud of really.

The other thing (2) is that we have been hoodwinked into believing that regional airlines and air charter is somehow very different from other transport and communications infrastructures. It is a complete contradiction that every level of aviation from ab initio training upwards, must make a dollar. This is not the case with rail, with road transport, with telephones, with sea transport.

Aviation is the odd one out. Every person that boards a C210, a Baron or a Metro is paying too much and not getting anywhere near what is their right to expect. And now 15 people have paid with their lives.

I thought it was an excellent program. As a former resident of Arnhemland communities, I thought it made an excellent point.

5th Jul 2005, 13:41

Tuesday nights are generally not a good time for me to expound an argument lucidly. I will cheerfully address your concerns tomorrow, but in the meantime it may be best not to write me off as a free market proponent. In fact, it may be best to re-read my post with an open mind.

Cheers for the moment....

5th Jul 2005, 13:57
Bino's, fair enough. I have to admit that my cage is rattled whenever I hear the word 'laws' and 'economics' used in the same sentence.

My point is that purely rational systems are tools for humans. When you allow an idea to rule the humans, instead of the humans using the idea as a tool, then you have given away all the advantages of being human.

I don't think the 4C program is focussed on the plight of pilots. I believe the point made by the 4C program is that regional aviation is a mess. The people it serves are Australians, they deserve better than they are getting, and the crap conditions that pilots endure are just one symptom.

Pilots rank near the top in surveys of 'the most trusted professions.' For many non-aviation people watching, the program would have been a jaw-dropper.

Noted your point about tuesday nights. Look forward to seeing your next post, I'll try to keep a lid on my temper :ok:

king oath
5th Jul 2005, 23:12
It amazes me that CASA haven't made it a requirement for a servicable auto pilot to be fitted to this class of operation.

Its all very well to demonstrate a competent instrument approach in a simulator but in real weather with associated wind turbulence, rain etc its a bit more demanding.

Flying manually and taking your eyes off the gauges frequently to check the fine print on the approach plate in turbulence ups the ante. How easy it would be to misread the distance versus altitude required to the next waypoint ,for example.

You guys/girls who do it for 21k per year deserve the assistance of an auto pilot to take a lot of the load off at the critical times.

5th Jul 2005, 23:16
ITCZ, the trouble is mate, that the relationship we call the law of supply and demand does explain certain human behaviours, including the supply of pilots quite well.

Furthermore, whenever we try and tinker with said law, we stuff it up and create opportunities for bastardry of various kinds.

If we decide to ration the supply of pilots, then the price paid to pilots (wages) will eventually rise, but that increases ticket prices and provides opportunities for corruption in both the training and allocation of (scarce) pilots.

If we decide to train pilots for free, then pilots wages will fall.

I suggest that the smartest thing to do is to try and explain to young wannabees exactly what they can expect in terms of wages, lifestyle and career opportuniites, as well as the RISK they are taking, before they embark on a CPL. Its called a price signal in the marketplace.

Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.

5th Jul 2005, 23:27
Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.

Sadly I dont think it will make a blind bit of difference.

victor two
5th Jul 2005, 23:30
Geez. If a pilot's career in GA can be totally ruined by having a reputation that they left a dodgey operator based on safety issues then the industry is beyond help.

If the above is true, that means that there is a full culture of stamping on those who take responsibility for safe conduct. That also suggests that most GA operators will actually not employ a pilot who is safety minded and that charter operators will actually say to other operators " I got rid of him because he wasn't happy with flying with my safety breaches......."

Is it really that bad out there now?? I don't think so. It's more a case of pilot's tolerating the dodgey operators so they can progress up the ladder which, in my mind, makes pilots just as bad as the operator. At the end of the day, if pilots deliberately won't obey the regs then what hope have we got to change this mess?

5th Jul 2005, 23:41
Sunfish and Tinpis

Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.

let me assure you that there are a lot of pilots out there already who dream of actually getting paid that much.

As for pilots flying an aircraft with a serious, or even minor safety defect,
not only are you endangering your own life, and your passengers,

but guess who will most likely be charged if caught,
You, or the operator?

Is it worth it to endure all of this and then be asked by Virgin, Qantaslink to pay for your endorsement?

victor two
5th Jul 2005, 23:58
The general public could not care less if a pilot is paid $20k a year. Why would they be upset about that? Are they also upset that a hairdressing apprentice only makes $23K a year too, what about the bloke that works at the toll booth in a carpark complex who only makes $27K a year? Why would they care?

The majority of people, whether they fly or not are more interested in the state of origin game tonight rather than pilot wages.

Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year? Would they only breach a few safety regulations if their salary went up instead of lots? Wages and good safety culture are not linked up in the case of the GA pilot. Not at all.

6th Jul 2005, 03:07
Victor two..

______________________________________________ The general public could not care less if a pilot is paid $20k a year. Why would they be upset about that? Are they also upset that a hairdressing apprentice only makes $23K a year too, what about the bloke that works at the toll booth in a carpark complex who only makes $27K a year? Why would they care?
The reason that a more enlightened member of the public would be upset is because their lives are in the hands of the pilot....not the hairdresser or the tollbooth guy( unless they are spectacularly bad at their jobs). They associate low pay levels with low competancy and skill levels.

Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year?

Believe me....he/she is.
If you had been in the situation where you are working 50 hours a week for anywhere between zero dollars and $300 depending how much time airborne you got, and having to keep your ratings etc current, and having to pay for charts and plates and ammendments, and were always on the edge of being evicted for late rent payments....you would know that it is not conducive to a relaxed/confident state of mind and is in fact quite fatiguing, not ideal at the end of a 16 hour split duty where your rest quarters was the back room of the medical clinic and your doing an approach to minimas through cells.
Does that answer your question?

6th Jul 2005, 03:17
cjam game set and match I'd say. :)

6th Jul 2005, 03:42
I totally agree with every word you have written. You must have read my mind. From these threads it is easy to see who the operators are.

You are obviously on the same wave length as I am.

Victor two
With no disrespect but it would appear that you have or have had a vested interest in a GA company. I apologise if this is not the case but this is certainly the way you come over.
I can assure you that the industry is rotten in certain areas GA. Up until very recently I was employed by a GA company who I believed valued safety and pilot wellbeing, i.e. in regard to pay and conditions to be paramount. How wrong was I!! I was told to leave with no reason given. When asked for the reason the operator refused to give one. Guess what - they also refused to pay me out in regard to holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. I suspect the reason for my dismissal was because I voiced my concerns regarding certain safety factors. Hence I did take my safety concerns to the appropriate authority, i.e. CASA. This was before I was terminated.
I must also add that I am not exactly a green CPL holder. I have been in the industry for 18 years and worked for a couple of third level operators in Australia and overseas. The reason why I decided to take up a position with the company mentioned above was so I could be at home with my family and hence I did also take a 30% pay cut and had to go back to flying piston engine aeroplanes.
I see myself as being no expert in safety but based on my experience I do know what is right and wrong and unsafe. What annoys me is when people acknowledge problems with safety and it falls on deaf ears. Having had a number of close friends killed in the industry and to see that these accidents could have been prevented due to a number of reasons I feel that these dodgy operators should be dealt with accordingly.

6th Jul 2005, 04:32
To everyone who has sent lovely messages about my husband Paul Norris and myself I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To those of you have sent PM - a big thank you and I will keep you all posted.
I have just done an interview with The Aviation Journalist for The Australian about pilots wages and general conditions and again if this can help to shine a spot-light on the industry where people start asking questions then my time is not wasted.
If anyone else has any other ideas, thoughts that might shake things up then please pass them on.
Fiona Norris

6th Jul 2005, 04:57
Fiona, I wish you luck firstly with your interview, but mainly for the rest of your life after your personal tragedy. You are a strong woman who has made an impression on a lot of people in a short time.


Having re-read this discussion in the cold and sober light of day, I confess I am at a loss to understand your attack on me. Your chief concern seems to be that I called a theory a law, though the first time I mentioned it I called it a principle. I'm quite happy not to call it a law if that term upsets you, but the rest of my post stands uncorrected. It is a simple fact that there is an enormous oversupply of pilots for the demand.

Neither will I resile from my OPINION that as long as there are kids looking up to the skies with stars in their eyes, nothing will change in that regard, and I believe it would be a brave man who would challenge that statement.

As to the rest of your post, apart from those attacks on me, I find no significant points of disagreement at all. Perhaps you assume that because I believe something is the truth I am by definition in favour of it? I can only assure you that is not the case.

I comfort myself that when I am attacked by those on both sides of political and economic fields of thought (as I have frequently been in the past on these pages) it's a reasonable sign.


6th Jul 2005, 10:08
spot on.

There is a correlation between pilot wages and safety in General Aviation.

The ability of a company to pay the award or better is an indicator financial health and depth.

It is no surprise that the companies who pay well also spend a lot more on maintenace.

Taking Cairns as an example, the majority of operators there pay at or above the award,
and have high standards of maintenance.

Unfortunately they also all have very high minimum experience requirements, i.e. they are prepared to pay for quality and experience.

There are other GA centres with a similar history.

What is tough is that the good companies that have higher overheads have to
compete at a cost disadvantage with the shonks.

Fortunately their established clients understand and accept that a premium service comes at a premium price.

Uncommon Sense
6th Jul 2005, 10:16

My point precisely - and Cairns was the example that came to mind.

The supply and demand argument espoused by others here does not take in to account that cheaper is not always better - more than often it is not.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
6th Jul 2005, 12:18
The problem about 'speaking up' is that a pilot who does so, is regarded as a 'troublemaker' and not 'worth the trouble' or a 'disruptive influence' .

Waiting next in line is the pilot who will accept unserviceabilities and fly a machine that is defective, without 'making trouble' and water down safety for all - including their fellow crews.

It comes right back to a fragmented pilot group that will not stick together, nor support one and other.

The program did not really shed any light on things most pilots who have, or currently, flying GA already know, have previously or continue to, tolerate. On the greater scheme of things, how many punters actually watch 4 corners? Not enough to demand any change, that's for sure.

Change must be effected from within the industry, from the pilots up, including the regulator. Unfortunately, being so fragmented, filled with so much self interest, this is unlikely to ever occur.

One thing is for sure - there are alot more fundamental things that need to be addressed to 'fix GA' and improve aviation in Australia than [email protected]@rsing around with airspace.

The catch-all phrase: "That's GA" :mad:

Non Normal
6th Jul 2005, 14:20
I also think that the low pay IS related to safety. For one thing, isnít a pilot who is worried about his financial dire straits and not resting easy at night and stressing over financial matters going to be more prone to fatigue?

Besides, if the company is not paying the award wages or otherwise operating without regards to the working conditions of the pilots, it shows me that they do not have regards to the rules, morals and ethics. What is the very root of safety? To me, itís ethics Ė the ethical obligation towards everyone involved to provide a safety environment, whether that is the workplace, mode of transport, or whatever. If the operators are not generally behaving in an ethical manner, we cannot expect them to be behaving in an ethical manner towards safety issues either. Of course, itís terribly simplified, but I think you get the gist.

Another aspect is the financial viability. If an operation is so financially tight as to be unable to pay their staff award wages, then it is quite likely that they are cutting out other aspects of their operation, such as maintaining their aircraft properly. Should they even be operating if they are so financially tight? I do not think so Ė it gives them too much motivation to cut costs to the extent that it may compromise the safety of their flight.

It is possible that many operators will be unable to continue their business if they were to pay proper wages and do everything properly to the highest standards. The general public is expecting low fares, and thereís a limit to how much they would be prepared to pay, above which point they would stop flying. So here comes the problem with aviation being an essential part of the countryís transport infrastructure, yet being starved of funding to support it.

There are also too many pilots. Supply and demand is currently not very well balanced, and pilots are forced to accept low wages and substandard working conditions if they want to build hours and get anywhere with their career, opening themselves to exploitation. Because pilots are so easily replaceable, the shonky operators tend to use it to their advantage and make pilots comply with their often unreasonable demands, even in safety-related matters. If it had been extremely difficult to attract pilots, then their working conditions would have been far better than they are now, even though there always is a limit to what the operators can pay, I guess, due to the restriction on how much they can charge the passengers.

Either way, I think the industry needs a huge shake-up. As far as I am concerned, the way many pilots are treated is nothing other than inhumane. $21,000 is not a suitable wage for a professional worker, particularly a safety-critical one. In fact I consider anything below $35,000 even for the least experienced pilot to be unacceptable, considering the responsibility involved (i.e. in charge of other peopleís lives as well as themselves).

I donít know what the solution is Ė all I know is that the way things are at the moment is totally unacceptable.


My sincere condolences to you.

As someone on the periphery of aviation, I would like to thank you for speaking out on television. You are a very brave lady. I am sure your husband would have been very proud.

6th Jul 2005, 14:21
The huge disparity between GA and airline wages is a significant factor, not just the GA wages alone. This disparity encourages, in part, an enormous motivation to get in and through GA as fast as possible doing what it takes to sacrifice over the (perceived) short term for the pot of gold in the long term.

In many industries, the people progressing up the ladder also seem to involve themselves in furthering the industry they came up in. It might just be my skewed observations, but it seems that most airline pilots are just happy to be rid of the GA scene. I might be in disagreement with them at times, but hats off to those who give of their time and resources in public GA organisations.

victor two
6th Jul 2005, 22:56
Cjam and others,

I honesly have no association with a GA company and I'm not an owner etc etc.

I'm saying that the public may be surprised that pilots get lousy money but it's not going to be keeping them awake at night because hey have their own mortgage and kids to worry about so Larry the bush basher charter boy is just going to have to take care of himself.

My second point is that pilots must be held just as accountable as their dodgey boss. If pilots are knowingly breaching regs just to keep their jobs then they are just as guilty I'm afraid. The fact is that if a pilot accepts the responsibility for the lives of his or her pax the he or she has an obligation to operate within every aspect of the regulations and orders. If they get sacked for refusing to do so and that sacking has a negative effect on their career as they are branded "too honest" to be employed, what does that actually say about the stae of the industry.

I got sacked (walked off after huge argument actually) from my first ever GA flying job for complaining to the chief pilot about flying a single overwater with no life jackets. I went on and found another job without any hassles and that arsewipe operator folded up a year later so I stand by my opinions.

The thought of facing the family of a person who was killed or injured by my deliberate breaches was the the one thing that kept me from doing it. Making an extra few dollars a week would not have made me a safer pilot. Likewise, I would not have deliberately broken more rules if my pay was cut so if that's how it works out there today then it is, as gaunty says, game set and match......... for the whole industry.

7th Jul 2005, 00:12
As has been stated before, it's not just the pilot's who are bullied by employers or ops mngrs into breaking rules while flying. It is the pilot's who accept the job after a pilot has raised valid concerns and said no to flying.
Like Victor two I would rather stand by my decisions than have to explain in front of a board of enquiry or worse, someones family.
Can be very hard but most employers will see that the decision is based on real concerns and usually honour your stand.
To those pilots who are prepared to then come along and do that same job....well:mad: :mad: :mad:

I am not a big fan of unions but I do believe the aviation industry, namely pilots need to get organised and unite. The industry has always been harsh on pilots' wage wise. Employers have and will continue to expliot drivers so they can make a profit or to simply stay afloat.(Usually because the next operator is doing the same damn thing). Legislation and or some form of unity within the drivers' domain needs to be sort. Pipe dream....Hope not.

I am in GA and am staying here for a while, by choice.

7th Jul 2005, 02:58
I have had a few mates who worked for Transair over the last few years and they have said, as far as shonkyness goes, they were not too bad.

I believe the main problem has been the NEW AUSSIE SYSTEM.

That is, they get pilots with 500 - 1,000hrs. to pay for their own endorsements and then pay them 10% under the award for the privelidge.

As stated on the program, some of these FO's are not up to speed. Therefore, the poor Captain has to act as 1 1/2 pilots for less than the award.

Of course this "bending over" puts alot more money on the bottom line. The travelling public deserves more, but then again they are people that want to fly all over the country for $10.

This new system that appears to have reared it's ugly head in this country over the last 10 years is a joke. Why don't companies like this one just get fresh CPL's and charge them 20K for the job and pay them nothing - even more money for the shareholders?

I wonder if Sunstate/easterns are taking note as I am sure their in-boxes are full of 500hr. drivers with an 18K cheque ready in hand.

victor two
7th Jul 2005, 03:17
And to just address a point made earlier by cjam when he questioned whether paying a pilot more money makes them technically safer.

You did tend to harp on just a bit much in your post about pulling a double split 16 hour duty time and then getting home to find you are getting evicted so you pack up and sleep in the medical clinic and pay for your own medicals and charts and so on and so on and so on..... that all very sad. A bit dramatic I thought, but sad.

The point is that young pilots, when they slip on that uniform and load up their passengers MUST have a zero tolerance for deliberately breaching safety regulations, regardless how petty. It is that simple. If they choose to pay for their own endorsements or work for free then that is up to them. On the real issue of taking peoples lives for granted by flying beyond the law, there has to be a zero tolerance. The problem is that there is a culture out there that accept the routine flaunting of CASA regulations as a part of the job. Pilots all get together and laugh about it at the pub.
"Jacko had 16 POB in his 206 coming out of WoopWoop community last week, four adults and the rest were all kids ha ha ha!" We all know it goes on. It's really funny until half-wit Jacko drills his overloaded plane into a tree taking off.

It's that attitude that has to stop. The operators are not going to stop it so it's time we, as pilots, took the job a bit more seriously and stopped bleating like babies that we were bullied into it by the big bad boss.

My two cents anyway.

7th Jul 2005, 03:21

Just taking up the issue of GPS interference from GSM Mobiles.

The GSM system is digital, TDMA, which means it switches on and off very quickly.

This causes a peculiar RF Interference which has little to do with harmonics (although it causes extra ones) or blocking (but the harmonics could do this if strong enough), rather the 'switching frequency' is demodulated in the power circuitry of a lot of equipment.

So, depending on how good the power circuit is, you could hear the 'ta -da -da -da -da dah' rectified interference in the speaker of your radio OR the GPS receiver could be interfered with by it.

So, can a GSM phone interfere with a GPS, the answer is yes depending on the shielding of the GPS and the proximity of the phone.

But, is there a GSM base station in Lockhart River?????

(I would have assumed it was CDMA).


There is no GSM base at either LHR or Bamaga, so it is unlikely anyone on board would have a GSM turned on (or even had one) and even if they did it would not have 'polled' the base and thus the likelihood of interference is almost zero.

CDMA does not do the same 'noise' stuff.


victor two
7th Jul 2005, 03:25
And as for pay packet versus responsibility.

If a pilot happily flies beyond the regs and duty times making his $21K a year, he will also do it when he's paid $29K a year too. He will probably be flying with a more current en route supp in his lap rather than the one he bought last year. Money will not automatically change one's attitude to the tunnel vision culture of adherence to regulations. It's about a personal decison to be as safe in all aspects of the job as possible and to stand by your judgements.

7th Jul 2005, 03:55
Even though it has been some time since I have worked for Transair, I wil say this, It was never asked or hinted, that I was to break any rules, if the aircraft was broken, it got written up and it got fixed, and finally my pay was always in the bank on time and very much in line with the applicable award.

The Brent
7th Jul 2005, 05:04
As for the public not caring what the pilot is being paid, I'm not so sure.

How confident would you feel if the surgeon who was about to operate on you was being paid 21k a year??

What's the difference?

I honestly think the general public would be shocked to know what most pilots really earn.

7th Jul 2005, 07:07
I agree about the pay thing - to a point. Yes, a pilot worried about finances, stressed, not sleeping etc etc - is definitely not going to be operating at 100%.

But if a pilot being paid $21k a year is a :mad: inclined to cut corners, then he or she would probably still be a :mad: inclined to cut corners somewhere even if paid $100k a year. Human nature - those who usually cut corners won't just stop because they get paid more.

How many dodgy company directors are there out there cutting corners despite big salary? Fair enough they may not be 'out on the line' but the bigwigs in the dodgy operators have a say in it too, not just the pilots.

Anyway interesting topic, missed most of the program unfortunately but from what I saw Fiona was very articulate and it was a gutsy thing for her to do.

7th Jul 2005, 10:43
I think that it is high time that we limit pilot numbers in Australia the same way Uni student numbers are limited to courses like Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc. etc. etc.

There is simply too many pilots in this country to be employed. Flying schools continue to churn out new wannabes with the big lie that they will all get a job and have a great chance of fulfilling their dream of an airline. Nothing could be further from the truth. Odds are well and truly against said pilot achieving this goal. Some will get there but most won't.

If numbers were limited by regulation, the prostitution across the industry that keeps conditions for most pilots to range from anything between appalling to not comensurate for the qualifications, technical training and skill that is required for a pilot (let alone the investment a pilot needs to make to reach those same aspects!!!) would eventually cease.

CASA show no interest in these issues. It is clear that the regulator believes that there is no correlation between pilot pay and safety otherwise they would have acted years ago.

I believe that no real changes will be manifest in this industry until the operators are in the position that they have to beg pilots to work for them rather than the other way around as it is today.

If pilot numbers were strictly limited (matching closely what the demands will be industry wide), we would in time see a radically different aviation industry.

What is lacking is the political will to do so. Faced with the cost of running numbers of flying training outfits out of business by limiting numbers is politically unsavory, but exactly what is needed for the aviation industry to prosper as a whole.

So, we professional pilots MUST unite (i.e. do something radically different to what we have traditionally done - climbing over one another) and get the message out there that wages and conditions in the aviation industry need a radical overhaul.

Unscrupulous operators need to be brought to account. Self-prostituting pilots need to change their ways. Pressure needs to be placed on both the Government and the Regulator.

Pilot representative bodies like the AFAP need to grow some balls and stand up for their representatives for a change instead of stuffing away union fees and doing nothing while the Rome burns.

Well done to Fiona and the ABC for putting this issue in the public spotlight. :ok:

I hope this causes the players in this industry to have a good hard look at themselves and take positive steps to see change.

Turbinejunkie :ugh

7th Jul 2005, 10:51
First allow me to state that I agree that quite a substantial number of GA award rates are far below what is merited given the effort, commitment and professionalism of pilots working their way up the ladder.

I can categorically tell you that the General Public (of which I am one to all intents and purposes), at least the section that I meet and work with on a daily basis have no idea what Pilots are paid, if anything the impression is that pilots to a man earn well in excess of what most people do, this is compounded by their lack of distinction bewteen GA and the Lines.

They have little idea of the cost of endorsements or type ratings, how difficult and how hard it is to get time up, how being away from home and how much sacrifice many pilots give up to get that experience, house, family, stability and relationships all suffer.

The General belief is that Line pilots earn quite alot for what they do, many are surprised when I inform them that a new-ish FO on a RPT Jet probably earns no more than they do, the overriding perception is misunderstood and is normally based on the flagship line of the country they live in, in this case the yardstick for assessing pilots salaries is Qantas, thus this award is perceived to be inherited by all pilots regardless of industry segment.

They are shocked, for a small while at least, when they are informed that most GA pilots earn well under 50K, and I doubt they would believe that Captain Norris earned 20K+.

A clear and easily understood message is easily explained by illustrating simply what the low-costers in europe earn. Far less than their peers in Finance, law and so forth. Forgive me but the Ryanair High Pay Airline banner on the PPrune boards brought more than a little smile to my face.

My heart goes out to you Fiona, and also many other pilots who are doing the yards.

Finally, There are of course legacy perception-issues here, Aer Lingus and BA on Intercontinental and indeed the top tier LAX-SYD routes for Qantas pay quite well, but these routes are flown by pilots with decades of experience, and those awards are merited by the profitibility of the route, seniority and experience of the men and women involved.

There is unfortunately no major distinction made by the majority of joe public.

As to there being too many pilots, I am not sure that can easily be fixed I don't have an answer, as the drawcard thatI have mentioned above is a very comfortable salary doing a perceived rather easy job from two stories up on a 18-wheeler, the reality is of course quite different which I'm sure many here can attest.

I personally would love to join your ranks, however I have commitments to family, kids and a wife, and that is not negotiable at this stage. Also my personality does not lend itself to cuttng corners to make a buck, I'd last a day or so at a shonky operator.

Hats off to you who stick it out.


7th Jul 2005, 11:47
If you look at the pilot's award you will find that a pilot flying an Islander on RPT flights with an instrument rating should be paid $39092-00 PA plus 8% super, and workers compensation insurance, and loss of licence insurance premiums.

7th Jul 2005, 12:36
Victor Two. Not necessarily so. Mate of mine with a bare 200 hours got his first job in NT and was immediately thrown into the shonky world of badly maintained aircraft and a well known chief pilot who has made the pages of Pprune countless times. Maintenance release entries were sackable. He once flew a C210 to Darwin for scheduled servicing and pointed out to the maintenance organisation that one tyre was badly worn and needed changing. LAME disagreed saying it had a few more landings in it. On first flight after this event, the tyre burst at completion of landing run. The chief pilot proceeded to extract the price of the new tyre out of the pilots meagre wages.

There were many more operations where regulations were ignored or the pilot(s) were sacked on some pretense. This was Northern Territory GA justice at it's worst. It will never change in Australia.

The same pilot (and doubtless several hundred others now in Qantas and Virgin) is now very relieved and happy to be a first officer with with a major airline. . He feels safe and secure in the knowledge that it is a professional operation with an excellent safety record. There is no way that he would ever consider breaking the Regs because the airline ethos does not require the safety rules to be broken in order for the pilots to keep their jobs. As a former airline pilot I have the greatest sympathy for pilots who are forced to stretch the rules to live in GA. I have yet to meet a single airline pilot who would happily go back to flying GA - and it's not just the money, either. There is no shortage of highly principled but unemployed pilots. It is called the real world.

8th Jul 2005, 05:40
Check out the net and find the report in todays Australian about the story from 4 Corners about pilots wages. Quite well written.


9th Jul 2005, 10:47
There is no 'law' of supply and demand. It is a construct. A rational construct that explains a set of behaviours.

It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.


We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots

umm.. That sounds a little contradictory to me. But how do you imagine we do that???

Like university with entrance scores? A lottery?

So you want to stop others learning to fly so that a few can be paid more. Sounds a little "elitist" doesn't it?

Captain Sand Dune
10th Jul 2005, 05:47
Perhaps an indirect method of limiting the supply of pilots would be to raise the minimum experience level for instructors.
Read an interesting article by Steve Tizzard who (amongst other things) advocated a minimum experience level of about 1,000 hours before being eligible for an instructor rating.
Would provide a smaller pool of more experienced instructors, and therefore a reduced (but hopefully better taught) output of student pilots.
Who knows - perhaps then the law of supply and demand would work in our favour?

10th Jul 2005, 06:42
umm.. That sounds a little contradictory to me. But how do you imagine we do that???

Like university with entrance scores? A lottery?

So you want to stop others learning to fly so that a few can be paid more. Sounds a little "elitist" doesn't it?
Simple! Make it based on merit and nothing else. Score well in Year 12 and apply as one would for any other highly sought after course with definite limits on numbers of students.

Make the course at least Diploma standard but preferably as a Degree. Entry to the course could have additional requirements to demonstrate aviation interest by things such as:

* obtaining a private pilot licence independently prior to the course;
* previous gliding or other flying experience;
* other previous aviation or engineering experience (AME or LAME);
* service in Air Force Cadets or similar.

This would give the less academic candidate who dead-set wants a flying career to have a chance also (thereby not being elitist but but merit). This experience could be weighted appropriately or prerequisites for entry to the Commercial Pilot's course.

Professional Pilots should be just that - PROFESSIONAL. This should be from the start of their training to the end of their careers. We have got to change the aviation culture drastically for the industry to improve for all who earn their living from it.

Doing the above will sift out rubbish candidates and will not be based on who that person's connections are or how fat their wallet is. It is a fair system and should be adopted.

Without strict limits on numbers of candidates joining the industry, pilot conditions will never improve. The construct of supply and demand will always prevail. The supply side of the equation needs attention - FAST!

TJ :ok:

10th Jul 2005, 07:37

You and i must work in a different aviation industry, i just about choked when i saw your response:

"Make the course at least Diploma standard but preferably as a Degree"

What the hell is that going to prove ?.

Is the government going to foot the bill, or perhaps QANTAS.

We have to pay for it ourselves, therefore, unless mummy and daddy pay for it, most will come from the a trade type background, i.e young people earning enough to pay for it.

Have you flown a C206 out of Port Keats or Maree, if you have, how can the lessons learn't there possibly be put into a lesson plan.

Flying Schools who pump out the numbers survive. Charter companies who do the charters survive, Pilots that get off their fat backside and move out of mummy and daddys house and go bush survive.

Double the number of commercial pilots to jobs, sounds like pretty good odds to me.

If you want Pilot conditions to improve, start lobbying your states Industrial Relations Commission, they set the standard.

10th Jul 2005, 08:25
Left Hand,

I don't. I work in the same crap industry you do. I don't have a shiny-bum and I have done ALL the hard yards off my own bat entirely, having reached Regional Airline level through one thing - my own blood sweat and tears! I love flying and I despair over the shit conditions that we as pilots suffer.

Why should we invest $70,000 of our own money to be paid less than the Award which is chicken feed anyway? Not to mention all the study, recurrency and regular checking that we have to endure for the pleasure of doing so!

In response to your glib suggestion, I HAVE done what I can to try to change things in my own employment (get compliance out of shonky operators to pay the Award) but nothing has worked for me as I am just a lone voice. Too many are willing to jump into my spot and employers know it.

I AM doing something now: arguing for improvement for the benefit of the industry (not just for me but also for you). What are YOU doing to improve things? Are you prepared to make a worthwhile contribution or just mouth off at those who do?

My brave-new-world suggestion regarding the tertiary education requirement to join the industry is NOT meant to be an exchange for ability as a pilot or an indicator that the newbe pilot now knows it having completed some Uni course. Not at all.

Rather, the Degree concept is meant to be a tough HURDLE REQUIREMENT that atificially limits the number of pilots entering in this industry so that eventually as the supply side of the equation decreases causing the demand side (and therefore pay and conditions) to INCREASE.

Incidentally, better understanding of the theory of flight will also make for better pilots. A degree course can have both practical elements (all flying needed to obtain a CPL including multi-IFR and/or instructor rating) and all ATPL theory included.

This is a long-term strategy to improve pay and conditions - it won't happen overnight but if implemented WILL improve the industry overall in time.

As aviation is in the public interest, i.e. SAFETY, I propose that this becomes a government responsibility in the same way that universities (theory side) are primarily government funded. The individual will have to pay for his flying same as it is today.

However, what is different in my proposal to the way it is today is:
1) A candidate has a hurdle requirement to become a pilot;
2) Far less pilots come through the system each year due to the limited vacancies for courses.

A number of flying training schools would be forced to close over time. While this would be tough for them, they have been the prime cause for the sausage meat that has been pumped out for too long that has contributed to the pilot glut of today (and indeed tomorrow unless we act today).

Lobbying the IR Commission as a lone voice is pointless. Nothing will happen. The only way for things to change is for pilots to unite and say enough is enough and be prepared to strike for the benefit of all in the industry.

TJ :ouch:

10th Jul 2005, 09:04

Whilst not for a minute disagreeing with the thrust of this thread in regard to the disgraceful pay conditions I should point out that USD$18,000 whilst not a kings ransom isn't all that bad given the relative cost of living in the US and the tax regime.

They do not all live in the style in the big cities we see on TV, on a %age of income the basics are, on balance, a fair bit cheaper and they are in an entirely different airline and regulatory environment.

We shouldn't confuse the issue thus.

AUD$21,000 is simply outrageous but hey, the cold hard brutal reality is that nobody forces them to accept it when in doing so they further cement the status quo.
It is not part of any requirement or rite of passage for an airline CV that they gain their hours at irresponsible and illegal rates.
Having said that I'll repeat here what I said on the subject on another thread.

Each and every young pilot who accepts "work" under those conditions should hang their head in shame and take their share of responsibility for the state of the industry.
They have no absolutely no right to complain about their lot.

I'll bet there is already a queue for the slots.:mad:

10th Jul 2005, 15:12


"Rather, the Degree concept is meant to be a tough HURDLE REQUIREMENT that atificially limits the number of pilots entering in this industry so that eventually as the supply side of the equation decreases causing the demand side (and therefore pay and conditions) to INCREASE."

Won't work, Degrees are a joke these days, an Arts (and crafts) degree takes 2.5 years in the UK, 3 at a push here, any well read literature or History buff could do one in 6 months, your point about having previous flight experience or a PPL is also flawed, what is there to stop daddy from buying his son a PPL , safe in the knowledge that his jimmy will get a head start on the rest ?

FYI, some cadet schemes in Euroland have a ratio of 11,000 applicants to 10-20 jobs, thats a 1000:1 ratio, some general outta school jobs used to have 100:1 or even 200:1 ratios, so it will probably get worse here, and not better.

To clarify, when I took the Aer Lingus cadet applicant process, there were 11000 applicants, sure many dropped off, but that was the initial bulk process. The 100:1 I refer to was an apprentice in the bank, all this was circa 1988 , but numbers have not declined since then, more like increased.

In Fairness, the last decade or so has seen relatively few numbers of applicants for most jobs , relatively speaking that is, 100:1 is a pretty good ratio. Anyone who jobseeked in the 90's should have a chat with someone who did it in the 70's/early 80's to find out what tough is all about, by comparison we have had it easy.

"Each and every young pilot who accepts "work" under those conditions should hang their head in shame and take their share of responsibility for the state of the industry.
They have no absolutely no right to complain about their lot."

All very well to say if you are already there, it's not advice that anyone with conviction, ambition and desperation is going to take notice of, this state of affairs did not happen overnight, the industry was f(uked well before they started.

11th Jul 2005, 02:27

Maybe, but you must also accept that it was the legions of "wannabes" before them and the ones before them that brought us to this point.

I have over the last 30 or so years seen hundreds of the most unlikely schemes hatched by the desperate to get those hours.

There was not one of those that didn't bust the rules, predate an existing operators client and revenue, cheep :rolleyes: (often their previous employer) or make a profit. Just for hours.

The airlines are complicit and the training orgs who advertise "how to become a B747 Capt for only $25,000":rolleyes:

If there was one single way to sort it all out, it may be IMHO (and I haven't thought it through completely ) that we go to the UK CAA ATP system and the Australian airlines and operators are required to sponsor your "frozen" CPL/ATPL issue.???

Dare I mention the word cadet here or would that be just another way for the operator to exploit the pilots "dream".

You can get a law degree but you can't practise on any one unless you have done a further apprenticeship called "articles" likewise medicine and just about any profession trade that is licensed.

Aviation is the only place that you can get a "licence" and literally be operating on real live passengers the next day.

13th Jul 2005, 07:26
Allegations in this and other threads has prompted a new locked thread on Illegal practices in Australian aviation, stickied at the top of this forum.


13th Jul 2005, 14:48
A very well written article in The Australian, but I'm confused as to why theres a Qantas cap on the table in the picture.
Was this a prop the newspaper provided?

13th Jul 2005, 23:17
The Qantas Captain's hat was given to me as a gift by a Qantas Captain. We had it displayed at Paul's memorial service. Paul like most pilots would have eventually loved to work for Qantas and I know without a doubt he would have made it. He had already become an RPT Captain so we thought it was fitting. I guess The Australian thought it symbolised "The Dream"! Again the lure of that airline job leads pilots in GA to put up with slave labour conditions.
Fiona Norris

14th Jul 2005, 02:15
Gaunty, I think you may be right.

For some time I have thought that the way Australia "trains" its pilots for airlines is out of step with what the airlines actually want.

A few years ago I was talking with a QANTAS check and training captain who explained their rationale for the company's requirements. Basically it was to get staff before they had developed too many bad habits that would be expensive to remove. Bad habits that time in GA develops.

Why is the requirement still there for 500 hours multi-engine command? Why aren't single-engine turbine hours considered the equivalent? Why does Australia continue to denigrate the cadet approach taken in Europe and the United States when by all accounts it works in an environment that is far less conducive to aviation than Australia?

I really doubt that several years in GA gives you any advantage in flying an airline except a very cynical approach to employers.

Please do not think this is the rant of someone who has been rejected by an airlines or cannot get the qualifications. Many years ago I did want to go there but events took another turn. Now I would not go there even if it were possible. These are just the observations of someone who looks a bit more dispassionately at the industry most of us are involved in.

I Fly
14th Jul 2005, 04:30
Industrial relations are very much in the news these days. Has any one thought to rub 'honest John's' nose into this? He could do some good for once and write something with teeth into the new system. In my time I had 3 complaints lodged with the Industrial Relations Commission and the AFAP. It seems all they can do is to 'encourage' the employer to do the right thing. If the employer does not 'voluntarily' comply there is no way they can be forced to, except of strike action and a strike of 1 is not very effective. 'Honest John' made a 'core promise' on TV that NO ONE will get less than the 'legal' minimum wage. Hello - wake up. Some one will need to help him put his finger on the pulse. Perhaps the AFAP could work with the ACTU?

14th Jul 2005, 05:00

Basically it was to get staff before they had developed too many bad habits that would be expensive to remove. Bad habits that time in GA develops. exactly my point.

It's not a new concept Lufthansa, British, SQ and many others either do it that way or have a similar system.
Has the old QF system gone off the rails???
JAL at one time seriously considered ab initio training to CPL in B747s, apart from the cost why not, it's just another (biggish maybe, but what the heck) aircraft.0
If you have never flown anything else how would you know the difference and they can teach you whatever habits they want.
First solo would be interesting, :eek: :E but why, in any event the guy is never ever going to fly it solo.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to fly an aircraft, any aircraft, just the appropriate education and training.

14th Jul 2005, 15:58
The impossible is happening. I can actually discern some wisdom in your latest postings. I agree with much of what you are saying.
The GA industry is ailing for a number of reasons. The economics are wrong, mainly because of govt interference and distortions.
I have to compete with other companies that are in reciept of grants, subsidies, concessions, dispensations, exceptions, protection, approvals, and selective regulation. "Not for profit" organisations are granted charter and RPT AOC's and are propped up by public subscription. ( I do not mean the RFDS)
While that happens, there will always be a shortage of money, except for the chosen few, and "legal and political cunning"will be more important than business or aviation ability.
The genuine bush pilots are being undermined by a flood of wannabies from the coastal flying schools. It is not fair on them or anyone.
It's an obscene lottery, where nearly everyone loses except the major airlines. (just like the rest of the aviation industry.)
This problem can be fixed by having the major airlines select candidates with an interview, aptitude tests etc, and an agreement, before they train, so everyone knows where they are going, or not going, GA can reduce it's accident rate by having a stable, dedicated and experienced pilot group.
Or recruit cadets. Maybe the major airlines could run their own flying schools and not have 600 flying schools churning out a flood of young pilots who soon become angry, negative people.(look at the posts on Prune)
There's more, but that's enogh for tonight.

Horatio Leafblower
14th Jul 2005, 22:12
The non-profit sector of GA is soaring ahead.

It would seem that the government has decided that non-profit is the way forward and is determined to ensure ALL g.a operators are non-profit!

15th Jul 2005, 03:56
On the subject of experience and developing bad habits in GA. I tend to agree that GA is not the best overall place to obtainexperience for tghe airline world and that cadetships and ab initio styles are far better at tailoring pilots to produce outcomes. There are no real similarities in the equipment, safety cultures or operating environments between GA aircarft and heavy jets. Chalk and cheese.

As for experience and habits. I read on another recent thread all the attacks on the young and qantas FO who made input errors to the FMS in his 737NG and caused a terrain alert to sound on approach to Canberra. He was abused for being both "too young" and "too inexperienced" to be in the job by lots of pilots out there. Yet, right now over NSW there is probably a twenty year old flying solo in an FA-18 Hornet with less than 350 hours total time. Difference is, he is trained to do it, motivated and knows what his employer expects of him. Nobody says "boo" about him being too young or too inexperienced do they?

Quality of training, focus and motivation are what gets people over the line, the five years of bush bashing in a dilapidated old baron only make you a good baron pilot and really count for sweet FA in the heavy jet community. Take a look overseas, the proof is everywhere.

15th Jul 2005, 04:33
That's what we need-good Baron pilots. The airlines can train their own.

15th Jul 2005, 06:07
And what happened to the infallable two pilot system, where every move is checked by the other crew member? Didn't work did it? And the same thing happened in the westwind crash some years ago. The cross check did not work.
People are human, and humans are influenced by many factors, some of which may be irrellevent, distracting,or incorrect.I have no wish to denigrate the pilots concerned, but I get angry when I read of "quality of training", Quality systems etc. etc.

That stuff is for the military. They have to think they are better than anyone else. It's their job.
But the rest of us are supposed to be able to think, and dael with facts. Not waffle about "quality training"

15th Jul 2005, 07:22
bushy I guess I should be grateful for a compliment from you however backhanded. :p :}

I think you would find a search of my posts over the years follow a consistent theme based like yours on actual hands on real live GA experience, as did my behaviour within a certain organisation. Something they lack in spades.

Goodness, I could not find anything in your post with which I could argue without exhibiting pratdom.

Maybe this is what they call being in love, PPRuNes first internet marriage. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

15th Jul 2005, 11:07
Cadet training and others alike might be at a much greater advantage in the training fase but the majority that come through that still know next to bugger all with regard to comand judgement and overall common sense approach to situations.
GA is a proving ground for this experience.

You say flying outback in a baron only makes a good baron pilot and has SFA re big jet flying.....What a crok of ....
Like instructing versus charter, Attitude, motivation, experience among other qualities make the pilot good. Operating techniques, speeds, procedures etc etc will of course be worlds in difference but that does not mean a pilot flying a baron is next to useless. I will not start a cadet bashing debate but I will say a great many of your so called better trained better qualified for BIG (wow) JETS pilots are so wet behind the ears and up themselves that they are more of a hindrence than a team member! Then they go and get experience and real world knowledge and hopefully get a burner job.

Hey hang on that's just like the baron pilot isn't it?

15th Jul 2005, 14:41

I might be a bit old fashioned, but one of the ways I would use to "filter" the several thousand applications I might get for the "big jet job" would be to throw out those who have a bit of a problem with spelling, grammar and syntax.

I want people on the flight deck with me who are literate and able to communicate concisely, clearly and effectively.

If you can't spell how do you use a dictionary?

If I need them to look up something quickly in the QRH or whatever, then it helps if they know readin and writin and speakin.
May I suggest that the "wet behind the ears" may have a bit of an advantage over yourself.

fase, crok, hindrence, comand ?

This isn't personal, just an observation.
If you want to be perceived as a professional then you need to appear to be well educated.

The way we use our language is the guide to others as to how we think and process information.:uhoh:

15th Jul 2005, 20:25
This is an internet forum Gaunty and quite frankly I don't give a rats rear entrance with regards to spelling.
You, I can see are well versed in spelling and grammar and choose to "discuss' matters from an english teachers bent.

I would rather discuss the aviation issues and save my spelling and dictionary skills for my professional life as a pilot and letter writing.

I have a job and do not intend to apply for a position through PPRUNE to gain any further employment. This isn't personal either:E , just a statement to you to look at the content of my post and not grade me on syntax.

Oh by the way I have nothing against flying heavy metal but the attitudes of some who may operate them.

I have incorrect spelling here too, but choose to leave it so you have something to do while responding to the content.

404 Titan
16th Jul 2005, 01:41

The reality at my company is that over the last three years Cadetís have a greater failure rate at attaining a command than pilots that come into the company with prior experience. Only 54% of trainees pass their command line check that were cadets or ex flight engineers compared to 85% that were direct entry pilots. These are the hard cold facts. Someone with prior ex GA experience doesnít stand out from the crowd as any worse than someone with prior airline experience or military experience and that is from a pilot base of about 2000 individuals.

16th Jul 2005, 02:28
The company I work for seems to have been quite lucky with the cadets they have. These guys are well mannered, smart and proactive. They will however need to gain command time at some stage, how do they do this effectively if QF or another major don't take them on?
Does anyone know the cadet acceptance rate into the major carriers and any command delays compared to GA entry staff?

The Messiah
16th Jul 2005, 03:32
Previous flying experience whether GA, military or whatever helps a pilot to maintain situational awareness when under pressure. It is the loss of this SA that is the main contributing factor in airline accidents. Some have it better than others.

I believe a good pilot is a good pilot no matter what he is flying. Notice I said good pilot not just a skilled pilot. Having grown up around GA maintenance I saw lots of skilled pilots march into the hangar demanding this and that with little respect or knowledge about what they were saying. I also saw the odd good pilot come in and have a discussion with an engineer and he would listen to the engineer and learn and the aeroplane would be fixed pronto.

What are these bad habits you all seem to talk of? What crap! Resting your foot on the dash is about the only bad habit there is room for in my company, other that it is SOP's which by design remove bad habits from the cockpit.

16th Jul 2005, 06:48
Well said Messiah. Those who cannot say GA, without also saying "clapped out" or "shonky" or some other derogeratory term, could learn a lot from this.

16th Jul 2005, 07:38
The cadets that did their time in PNG all seemed to have done well.
Some are still lovable ratbags. :D

16th Jul 2005, 10:25
Trust me when I say this, tinnie... you really don't wanna know anything about the "cadets" here, over the last couple of years... :uhoh:

16th Jul 2005, 12:01
Were they able to get a command in around the same time as a GA entrant or did they struggle with command hours prior?
A few of the guys I've talked to needed to get the 500 multi to be employable after being either not req(not sure why) or placed on a hold file for some time

16th Jul 2005, 13:57
GA flying is DIFFERENT to airline flying.

Try getting a pilot who has gone ab-initio - RHS Jet transport to convert to SP IFR in a Chieftain or Aerostar, put them into the GA world to operate a 30 year old recycled piece of shite bugsmasher in all wx day/night and do hand to hand combat commercial ops and see how well they do.

It's a different way of operating.

On the other hand, I bet you the pilot with the solid GA background will convert to the Transport Category aircraft operation a helluva lot quicker than the other way around.

If you think that GA is only a place to learn bad habits, you don't understand it in the first place; and if you don't understand the value of a solid GA background, don't knock it.

16th Jul 2005, 14:23
This is just a question:
If a 'GA background' is advantagious (makes you a better jet pilot), why does the RAAF suggest you not have one? Wouldn't they make it compulsory?

Capn Bloggs
16th Jul 2005, 14:46

I think it's because they teach you to fly from scratch, so any "habits" you have will get un-habitted, and it's easier training someone who doesn't know the front from the back.

The airlines, on the other hand, only convert you onto their type and make you comply with their SOPs, that's all. You are expected to be able to fly, since they are not flying schools.

16th Jul 2005, 18:56
The old BA cadet scheme hasn't been around for a few years now. They are screaming for pilots with experience now. Got jet time or heavy prop time, come on down.

The "cadet" schemes have changed in the UK. Now they're more along the lines of QF's. Ie you the prospective pilot pay for it.
There's some variations on a theme eg CTC. They train you (in New Zealand) and place you with an airline. The airline is only beholden to the pilot for 6 months. They can them employ them or let them go. (nice deal with a rather large loan hanging over you courtesy of HSBC)

Chris Higgins
16th Jul 2005, 21:54
I was never paid the low pay scales as a Grade 2 instructor in Australia, nor the much publicised wages for regional airlines in the US. In 1995, it was US$27,900 for a Jetstream F/O in JFK at Trans States. Many of the carriers here have fairly good overtime rates.

I spoke with a seven year captain on the Comair Regional Jet and he made US$130,000 last year. I simply cannot believe that regional salaries are so low in Australia.

If I were a paying customer, Id be really concerned about the quality of job applicant that these carriers are attracting.

20th Jul 2005, 02:54
JetA_OK gosh I'm flattered two compliments :p in the same thread, it must be nearly my birthday. :8 :}

20th Jul 2005, 03:15
We all know dickheads who came through cadet programs - and we all know dickheads who came through the military system - and we all know dickheads who came through GA.

Yes..and be nice to them they are more than likely to end up as management pilots.

20th Jul 2005, 03:57
I spoke with a seven year captain on the Comair Regional Jet and he made US$130,000 last year. I simply cannot believe that regional salaries are so low in Australia.

If I were a paying customer, Id be really concerned about the quality of job applicant that these carriers are attracting.

Chris, it strikes closer to home for even you now... Suggest while you are wondering away why Australian conditions are headed the way of the dodo, you ask the Net Jets pilot group why they too (80 odd from my understanding) are on strike requesting to be paid in accordance with skill required to carry out their duties.

Ferris, what did that bring to the conversation? I am aware of at least one person who joined the RAAF in 2002 after a stint in KU with a reasonable slab of GA time already under his belt. Is he rubbish because he got off his date and paid for his training first? Much like the airlines the RAAF are looking for the appropriate size and shaped peg ideal for the hole.

Some of you seem just to argue for the sake of it here. OK, everyone has an opinion but just because everyone has one (however differing), does that make it neccessarily right?

Perhaps I'm getting disgruntled for being stuck in GA for too long.... A little early in the day for a rum... :} :}

20th Jul 2005, 04:59
Yeah it's supposed to be closer to 2,000 pilots who crew the 497 odd NetJets aircraft:

Shades of Oz methinks just with an American accent.:rolleyes:

Yeah! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182608&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

20th Jul 2005, 05:46
Thank you for that link gaunty, I hadn't been following that thread since M dropped the mood and the tone somewhat beyond the gutter.

I had actually read about it here (http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_18b/briefs/189693-1.html) a while ago.

Johhny Utah
20th Jul 2005, 06:19
Please explain OzExpat re:
Trust me when I say this, tinnie... you really don't wanna know anything about the "cadets" here, over the last couple of years...

I'm all ears awiting your response...:rolleyes:

20th Jul 2005, 07:18
MBA cadets ?
I must say that at least MBA (APNG) looked after there cadets, and I know that a few are flying jets now. Has APNG got anymore left up there ?

Johhny Utah
21st Jul 2005, 03:15
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make...

Then again, we really should remember that CADET = BAD :rolleyes:

I find it ironic that on a thread that is primarily concerned with spiralling conditions of employment (and the general consensus that more junior pilots should 'stand up' to their shonky employers), OzExpat is attempting to bad mouth pilots formerly employed in PNG that did just that. (although I'm willing to be proven wrong).

The fact that certain people seem to feel that because they're mates with certain GA employers, their shonky work practices/ethics should be tolerated...:mad:

21st Jul 2005, 08:46
I've had a policy, for some time now, of not responding to your barbs, Johnny, but how on earth did you get THAT assessment from my previous post?

No, I don't want an answer to that because I intend to resume my policy on you.

Johhny Utah
21st Jul 2005, 09:35
OzExpat, perhaps explaining just what was meant by your comment Trust me when I say this, tinnie... you really don't wanna know anything about the "cadets" here, over the last couple of years...
would go a long way towards clearing up any misunderstanding.

Care to enlighten us? Like I said, I'm all ears awaiting your response (and more than willing to be proven wrong on any other counts). From JetA_OK's comments, Iit would appear that I'm not the only one who may have (mis)interpreted your comments in a way other than that in which they were intended.

Or would you prefer to just snipe from the sideline by casting aspersions without any more detail to back them up...?