Daily Telegraph: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'

[Caractacus]

The Daily Telegraph today has an article titled 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'.

David Learmounts comments to the Telegraph are:

A leading aviation expert has dismissed such fears, arguing that because of the huge choice of carriers available, airlines cannot afford to cut corners. "There is so much choice on nearly every route that airlines need to show that their safety records are unblemished, or travellers will opt to fly with another airline," said David Learmount, editor of Flight International.

"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."

The full article text is:

Commercial demands attacked after spate of air crashes. Charles Starmer-Smith reports:

Pilots spoke out this week about the commercial pressures they were under to fly even when their planes have technical faults. Their comments came in the wake of three major air crashes this month.


The commercial pressure on pilots has increased enormously
Last year, which was declared the safest in history for air travel, there were 428 fatalities; already this year more than 550 people have died in commercial flights.

In the past month, three fatal crashes - in Venezuela, Greece and Italy - have resulted in 297 deaths.

Belgian pilots claimed that the financial pressures placed on pilots to take off, even in planes with minor technical malfunctions, had increased significantly.

Under European Union laws introduced in February, the amount of compensation airlines must pay passengers if a plane is delayed or cancelled rose considerably.

The claims were made in the Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad after 121 people died when their Helios Airways plane hit a hillside in Greece on Sunday, after losing cabin pressure, and after 160 people were killed when a West Caribbean Airways plane crashed in Venezuela on Tuesday when both engines failed.

Helios admitted there had previously been problems with the air pressure system on the plane. Interviews with one of the pilot's mothers indicated that her son may have been aware of such problems before taking off.

"The commercial pressure on the shoulders of pilots has increased enormously," said Filip van Rossum, a former Sabena pilot. "The profit margins in the aviation sector are paper-thin, the competition is fierce and the aviation industry is sensitive to rising oil prices.

"Keeping a plane on the ground costs money, and aviation bosses want their pilots to keep their planes flying for as long as possible."

Van Rossum's views were echoed by the Colombian Pilots' Association, which said its members had repeatedly warned the country's Civil Aeronautics Board about the inadequate safety procedures of West Caribbean Airways, before Tuesday's crash.

As six of the airline's seven planes had been grounded for maintenance work, the aircraft that crashed in Venezuela had flown for nearly 20 hours continuously to cover the company's remaining routes.

The Colombian Civil Aviation Authority said it had fined the airline on several occasions for offences ranging from pilots not getting sufficient rest between flights to a lack of proper aircraft maintenance and pilot training. The airline has been put under "special watch" because of its financial difficulties.

There are also fears that EU regulations on passenger compensation could result in pilots with major scheduled airlines coming under pressure to take risks for commercial reasons.

Under the new rules, airlines are obliged to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets, as well as flying them home, if a delay lasts longer than five hours. They are also obliged to meet hotel costs if the delay continues overnight. In some cases the cost of a cancelled flight could go above £100,000.

"One area that must not 'give' is flight safety," said Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association. "We need to ensure that any attempts to avoid compensation do not affect flight safety, and that there is no attempt to force planes to take off when it is inappropriate."

A leading aviation expert has dismissed such fears, arguing that because of the huge choice of carriers available, airlines cannot afford to cut corners.

"There is so much choice on nearly every route that airlines need to show that their safety records are unblemished, or travellers will opt to fly with another airline," said David Learmount, editor of Flight International.

"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."

[beerdrinker]

David Learmount talking cr*p again.

People who are given choice vote with their wallets.

[unablereqnavperf]

Spot on beerdrinker this is certainly the case in the UK where everything is bought on the basis of the cheapest price wins the deal. What makes me laugh is then then complain about poor quality of service, why are they surprised!

[Wig Wag]

The problem with aviation journalism is that, whilst most aspects of the industry are accessible to the public, the pilot in the cockpit most definitely is not.

It seems almost impossible for the true concerns of the airline pilot to be accurately voiced by the media. A doctor might publicly criticise the NHS and keep his job. Any pilot who spoke out would very rapidly face the censure of employers and quite possibly the CAA. Whenever an aviation issue reaches the press we regularly hear the voices of Moody, Granshaw and Learmount.

However, it is the pilot in the cockpit flying a full time tiring roster who really knows the issues affecting safety.

How often do you see a letter in the press from an airline Captain discussing safety concerns? Never. I would love to write an article for a broadsheet on the pressures in the cockpit. However, it would be far too risky for my family so I am effectively gagged.

The problem for the aviation journalist writing about cockpit issues is that he has to second guess what is really happening. I once had an accident investigator say to me that 'the hardest thing is to know what is in the mind of the pilot'. My experience of Fleet Managers is that, as soon as they wind down from the pressures of the cockpit and take on other roles, they become detached and unrealistic about the real issues of the coal face. Ever tried explaining a complex delay to a manager who doesn't want to hear facts?

David Learmount seems to me to try damn hard to get close to the truth but in so doing he is sometimes very wide of the mark. And herein lies the problem. It is highly frustrating for those who know what the real problems in the cockpit to hear them misrepresented - hence the angst on these pages.

I'll bet that David Learmount (thoroughly decent chap that he is) actually doesn't have the confidence of a single line captain.

In these contentious times who can blame either pilot or journalist for that?

[TwoDots]

Couldn't agree more ... the type of 'passengers' we carry on some routes would probably eat their young for £5.00 .... half the time, they generate more 'safety' issues than anything else.

But you gotta love low cost ...

[behind_the_second_midland]

beerdrinker

Be careful with that sort of phrase. You are critcising one of the pprune boys club and therefore will get villified, threatened with legal action and have your whole career called into question. That's if your post isn't edited by the mods as this one was.

Is it not true that certain low cost carriers do anything to save a few quid, and that comes in all forms of savings including technical issues, MEL interpretation etc.

I'm told personally and on here some LoCo pilots are under enormous commercial pressure to cut corners.

I think the fact they don't have more accidents is more fortune than anything else.

But of course what do I know.

I'm only a professional pilot, not a journalist.

[oscarh]

btsm

Am right with you. Bet you get obliterated though!

I am soo careful with whom I fly if I'm paying for it myself.

The trg/standards thread is also quite interesting after you take out the people who obviously don't give a damn about SOPs.

[ILS27LEFT]

If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this.

Nobody is trying to say that LoCo means Low safety but the pressure is definitely there in some cases, obviously not only within LoCo companies: denying this is simply criminal.
Pilots who have been in the industry for many years have often noticed a change in "policy" in recent years, and some engineers can confirm this too.
The pressure is not limited to one country or one carrier, it is just a general industrial change which has affected the commercial aviation industry in recent years, especially after privatisations.

Pressure can be present in many forms, direct or indirect, e.g. rosters, scheduling, motivation, HR etc.

Example: a tough roster can indirectly put too much pressure on pilots, and this might affect safety.

As simple as that.


:{

[Retired Flt Eng]

There are other professionals who disagree with the state of the industry.

It will never change though because in all my years of flying one never really wanted anything to do with the other.

However I think there is a lot to be concerned about in this engineers press release. If todays situation is really as bad as both pilots and engineers seem to think it is, then why aren't you working together to solve it instead of wasting energy criticising an individual who has the right to free speech?

This is the release:



"The Association of Licenced Engineers must disagree with David Learmount’s comments regarding safety in the article “Pilots 'under pressure to take risks” Daily Telegraph 23/8/2005.


The fact is that the regulators have been warned now for some time that the safety scales are becoming unbalanced. The financial wizards are running the show at the moment to the detriment of safety. Of course the effects of this will not be seen overnight but once they bite, it will be a difficult, lengthy and extremely cost intensive process to reverse the trend. You cannot adequately train flight or ground personnel for this industry overnight.


More and more reports are showing that incidents are on the increase. Incidents are only a short step away from accidents. In a never ending quest to save money, maintenance is being squeezed to the limits and beyond. The average passenger hasn't a clue about the standard or quality of on-going maintenance and so this really has no effect on his decision with whom he should fly. Furthermore if passengers did react to a safety record when making that decision, then unfortunately that would indicate that it is already too late and innocent people have already suffered.


The ALAE accepts that the statistics probably support David’s statement but please do not be fooled by them. Maintenance cuts will not be noticed by the average passenger who will pay massive detail to the quality of his seat and in-flight entertainment yet is oblivious to the overrun "A" check or the delayed engine maintenance or the ever growing deferred defects list or the unqualified signatory or the ignored corrosion, and, and, and. He does however put his faith in the professionals within the industry who year after year have been told to turn the heating down a little to save money and become more efficient. Well it is about time that people realised, yourself included David, that maintenance engineers have had to turn the heating down so often, that they are on the verge of switching it off completely.


The problem of course with this type of situation is that, if we wait too long the results will be disastrous and prolonged. The warning signs are already there but are being ignored.


This situation also highlights a basic human weakness, despite human factors training, that of allowing history to repeat itself. Exactly the same scenario has already been witnessed within the rail industry. The association for one can still remember those union warnings about training and standards that fell upon deaf ears.

We all now know who got it right at the expense of the fare paying passenger. I think we would both agree that the effects of this industry getting it wrong will be far worse".

[ILS27LEFT]

I really believe this is the real question we should ask ourselves, without prejudice and open to change our minds if needed.
I am not certain we will find a clear unique answer to this dilemma, but just avoiding the question is not the right attitude of some LoCo pilots.
Somebody on this forum does not even want to ask this crucial question, accusing me and others of trying to speculate that LoCo means Low safety.

I just want to ask the very simple question: are the LoCo under more pressure than other carriers?

Being LoCo the driving force of the increased competition, can we be absolutely sure 100% that this is not putting LoCo pilots under more pressure?

Is it allowed to ask this question to those pilots or am I offending them?

They are the only ones who can clearly answer here.
We know what their Managers would say, we do not really trust those people anymore, the only answers we need must come from the LoCo pilots. They know the truth.

:mad:

See also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186156

[eal401]

What makes me laugh is then then complain about poor quality of service, why are they surprised!
I was. The only poor service I have experienced has been on a well known British full service* airline.

*allegedly and not over the last few weeks!

I'm only a professional pilot

LOL, you got it half right!

[maxalt]

A doctor might publicly criticise the NHS and keep his job. Any pilot who spoke out would very rapidly face the censure of employers and quite possibly the CAA. What about retired pilots? No constraint on them speaking out - yet you don't hear much.

Somebody oughta write a book.

[Wizofoz]

Being LoCo the driving force of the increased competition, can we be absolutely sure 100% that this is not putting LoCo pilots under more pressure?

On the contrary, the fact that the locos have put such extreme pressure on the profits of the exisiting "conventional" carriers have meant that it is they, not the locos that are under pressure to save money, often with disasterous results (do the words heathrow and gate gormet mean anything?).

It is not low cost, but low profit (or heavey loss!!) that drives suicidal cost cutting exersizes. As the locos have been the most profitable sector of the industry since their inception, they have had the least pressure to compromise saftey (indeed, as so much relies on public perception, they have been VERY motivated to act safely), something that i believe the accident statistcs would bear out.

[yamaha]

Wizofoz nearly got it 100% right.
Yes loco's have put the big players under pressure but also more astutely, they have put out their maintenance to the cheapest provider.

How many loco's have their own maintenance as 100% part of their own company.

By doing it this way you put pressure on everybody but yourself.
You will then always get the cheapest but leave question marks about the quality.

Add to that the no delay bonus, ensuring that the self centered captains among us tend not to enter too much in the tech log and are we increasing or decreasing the safety margin?

So basically LOCO's screw everyone.

[Wizofoz]

Add to that the no delay bonus

Never heard of that one, Yamaha. Which carrier gives a "No delay Bonus"?? Certainly not the one i fly for. It would be a very direct threat safety and I'm suprised if any regulatoy authority alows it.

So basically LOCO's screw everyone.

Errmm... Don't quite see how that follows. My point was that by following a "No Frills" business model, the (better) locos have made a consistently profitable business without compromising saftety. It's not their or anyone elses responsibility to prop up major carriers whos' costs are too high. And if said Big Airlines cut safety margins in pursuit of profit, it should be to their great shame and eventual come-uppence.

[Harry Wragg]

I worked for a company that had a "no delay" bonus. We called it a punctuality bonus and differing levels of punctuality triggered payments. The more on time, the more money.

I wonder if ticket prices had any effect on recent accidents. I'd hate to die on a full fare ticket, talk about adding insult to injury.

Harry

[yamaha]

If I named the "no delay bonus carrier"
I could start looking elsewhere for a job.

So unfair question....sorry

[vascani]

for those of you that fly to those weired and wonderful european airports no one has ever heard of here is a question.

when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?

is the onus on the pilot to make a decision the scratched fueslage is within limits or the reverser should be locked out?

does one seem to find that during the day the aircraft flies around with nil defects and then suddenly on it's last sector the book is full of defects?

the port nav light has failed and it is dusk, oh well lets push on back to base. sound familiar..........i hope not.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest respect, I suspect that what you are talking about is the most dangerous form of behaviour for someone working in a life critical activity - Self Censorship.

It doesn't take very much at all for management of ANY organisation to make it perfectly obvious that comments about certain activities are unwelcome and discouraged. The way to make it obvious is carrot and stick, bonuses and punishment.

It happens in light aircraft operations (I'm a humble PPL) where people don't write up defects but instead maintain a separate list.

I've heard certain airline pilots say "the light came on during climb" before now.

I onced worked for an extremely large oil company that had reams of safety procedure manuals that I had to comply with, but no budget to do so and it was made very clear that I shouldn't even ask. Since I was transferred regularly every two years, the temptation was to do what you could and hope nothing happened on your watch, leaving the problems for the next poor SOB. An explosion at one of its gas plants 20 years later killed six men - and guess what? The company blamed them for their own deaths for not following procedures.

The only answer to the problem that I am currently aware of is a confidential reporting service to a regulator who will listen and has the skills, capacity and motivation to take action.

I'm unsure as to how many of these exist, its easy for them to become "captured" by those they regulate. I suspect a great many pilots would be victimised before anyone could determine which regulators were effective and which weren't.

[ILS27LEFT]

"when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?"

is Vascani the only one admitting this?...there must be more of you out there who can speak out....

just to explain to all, this is specifically related to LoCo carriers and secondary airports they serve...this does not normally happen to main Carriers, unless diverted...

any other comment on this one?

I would like to remind all readers that, very often, LoCo carriers land at nearly "unknown" airports with minimum or no maintenance facilities.

Am I exagerating here? I do not think so...I am with Viscani 100%.

Sunfish is also right, self-censorship is a tricky game, especially in a life critical activity.


Honestly, I would have expected a sensibly higher number of posts on this issue...but the highly paid Managers have really this issue in hands at the moment!

Scary, very scary.


:ok:

[hapzim]

Quote: when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?"

If its a call from main base just ask for a fax with authorization and the signature of duty management allowing you to return with a defect. One copy for yourself, one left on the ground with tech log annotation of such.

It concentrates the minds of those who would lay the blame else where.
Works for me.

:E

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

David Learmount seems to me to try damn hard to get close to the truth but in so doing he is sometimes very wide of the mark. And herein lies the problem. It is highly frustrating for those who know what the real problems in the cockpit to hear them misrepresented - hence the angst on these pages.

I'll bet that David Learmount (thoroughly decent chap that he is) actually doesn't have the confidence of a single line captain.

So if you want to get your message across, but don't want to risk upsetting your employer, why not confide, anonomously, in David Learmount or his equivalent? It is in just this situation that a journalist (and no, I'm not one) can be of use to the industry.

If your concerns are genuine, and not just moans about cr@p management and pressures of the job (these, of course, exist in all walks of life) I'd think David would be only too glad to investigate, and if substantiated, publish. Especially if there are safety issues involved.

SSD

[Slim20]

when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?

Hole in one there Vascani. Most multi-sector days if you get a problem you try your hardest to get MEL relief on it so you can take it back to base (cheaper to fix and they need the airplane for the next 4 sectors!) If not, my (orange) LoCo certainly has local engineering callout and even flies parts out ex-UK by light aircraft if so required. But then again, we actually fly to airports rather than godforsaken airfields like our leading competitor.

I wouldn't paint it as rosy as Wizofoz, cos it certainly ain't, but I would state for the record that on the line our crew will put safety before £££'s every time.

Whether the Board and bean counters would ever be so conscientious is a whole different thread...!!

[411A]

From some of the comments here supplied by so-called (but are they really...?) professional pilots, the commercial airline scene is fast becoming a very dangerous place, so we had all better just hide under the bed until the storm blows over.

Perhaps these few folks would be better served by noting Harry Truman's famous saying....'can't stand the heat, stay OUT of the kitchen'.

In nearly 40 years of professional flying, NO airline company has tried to force me personally into accepting an aircraft that was not safe...full stop.

OTOH, maybe I was just lucky...:E

[Wig Wag]

why not confide, anonomously, in David Learmount or his equivalent?
A very good point. A few years ago I had some conversations with a journalist for a UK national broadsheet who picked up on airline pilots issues. He ran a couple of articles on the topic and then it dried up.

I do not think the British public have much appetite for stories about potential air disasters. The subject is just too far removed from their psyche at the present time to encourage a dialogue between the our profession and the press. Given a couple of hull losses over the British Isles the topic would certainly sell papers and more pilots might come forward.

The Great British Public are in love with cheap flights and I think their appetite for risk is quite high. I.e. even if there were a couple of hull losses in Britain people would still fly.

Today the Daily Mail picked up on the topic and invited readers comments:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/specialreport.html?in_article_id=360374&in_page_id=1788

However, it would seem that no readers actually commented. This supports my argument.

Shaggy Sheep Driver, pilots concerns are genuine but their problems are buried deep in a highly complex industry. To more accurately report the problem David Learmount and the like would have to either fly the line for a couple of months or talk, in depth, to a number of line Captains.

Either case is unlikely.

In nearly 40 years of professional flying, NO airline company has tried to force me personally into accepting an aircraft that was not safe...full stop

Airline management have certainly tried to get me to dispatch less than healthy aircraft. Moreover I have had fellow Captains try to hand over aircraft with defects they have obvously been carrying round all day. This leaves me looking like the awkward sod when I ground the aircraft. Management then ask why Captain Wig Wag won\'t fly aircraft other Captains consider safe.

They tried it on with me but it didn\'t work.

I dare say 40 years ago airlines just recruited pilots. Now, it seems to me, they want people they can manipulate.

[Sunfish]

Wig Wag, ask yourself about advertising revenue from airline ads in newspapers, none of them anywhere in the world will run a story about airline safety unless its bleedin obvious. There is too much ad revenue at stake.

[Wig Wag]

Sunfish, the Daily Telegraph ran this story yesterday which is pretty close to the mark:

Aircraft maintenance threat to safety
By Charles Starmer-Smith (Filed: 27/08/2005)

Engineers say that economy drives on European aircraft maintenance are putting passengers' lives at risk and contributing to an increasing number of "incidents".

"The financial wizards are running the show, to the detriment of safety," Robert Alway, a spokesman for the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers (ALAE), said.

"In a never-ending quest to save money, maintenance is being squeezed to the limit. Reports are showing that incidents [such as minor technical defaults] are on the increase: incidents are a short step away from accidents."

Last year 428 people died on commercial flights; this year more than 600 have already lost their lives. A recent study by Cranfield University found that maintenance error was the primary cause in five per cent of aircraft losses and a contributory cause in about 17 per cent. The Association represents around 2,000 airline engineers, based mainly in Europe.

"Some engineers have complained of being coerced into overlooking faults and releasing an aircraft back into service against their wishes, after being threatened with losing their job," Mr Alway said.

'Sign it or I will get someone else to' is more common than most industry observers would like to admit," he added.

It is legal for an aircraft to depart with minor faults as long as they remain within the Minimum Equipment List (which states which faults can go unserviced and for how long), but Mr Alway argues that the lists of problems are getting longer.

"This could mean that in an emergency the pilots are put under more stress because one system or more is not available," he added.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK's independent aviation regulator, said that he had seen no evidence of any UK airlines cutting corners on maintenance or safety.

"The UK has one of the best airline safety records in the world and the legal requirements on maintenance and safety are very stringent," he said.

"We complete regular audits, monitoring and spot checks to ensure that all UK airlines meet a recognised safety management process. We have seen no reduction in standards and safety remains the number one priority."

Last week, Telegraph Travel reported that some pilots have voiced concerns that economic pressures are contributing to a rising number of accidents.

On Wednesday, more than 40 people died when a Tans Airline 737 crashed into the Amazonian jungle on an internal flight in Peru - the third serious airline accident in the past two weeks.

The cause of the crash is not yet clear. Investigators were this week examining the safety records of Helios Airways, based in Cyprus, after a 737 hit a hillside near Athens on August 14, killing all 121 passengers. The Colombian government has halted flights by West Caribbean Airways following the deaths of 160 people when another 737 crashed in Venezuela on August 16.

The European Commission announced last week that it was considering publishing a blacklist of airlines and aircraft subject to bans or restrictions in any of the EU's 25 member states.

However, Mr Alway said that such a list would be of little help to passengers. "If passengers did react to a safety record when making the decision over who to fly with, then unfortunately that would indicate that it is too late and innocent people have already suffered."

He added that most air travellers will remain unaware of the standards of the airline's safety and maintenance checks.

"The average passenger is oblivious to an ever-growing list of defects, such as delayed engine maintenance or ignored corrosion," he said.

[flames]

Isn't the pressure to retain ones job overridden by the desire to make it home to see the wife and kids again ?

[groundbum]

surely these scrimping lo-co managers must also appreciate that one crash would sound a death knell for their airline? The papers can re-print their "I told You so" stories from months before and the assorted CAA audit failures would be trotted out well before any official accident inquiry. It would be like Pan-Am or AirTrans all over again. (Pan-Am was really done in by Lockerbie, but same idea that the airline was dodgy/a target).

So I would have thought that in chasing the pennies the managers/board would also be aware of how instantly the bookings would disappear if there were a crash?!!

[Ignition Override]

ILS27Left: You spelled manager(s) with a capital M. Whether it is grammatically correct has nothing to do with my point.

I don't know about "over there", but in the US these days, few pilots would consider using a capital M in the word 'manager'.

If you can exclude the extra fuel costs required now by our "friends" at OPEC :mad:, who had their oil fields defended by the men (many of whom risked or gave their lives) from several nations during Desert Storm, and starting with 1983, the US airlines have been through the deregulation which you guys are now experiencing.

[rubik101]

For what its worth; this occured a few weeks ago.
Called off stanby to operate an evening flight to AMS. Flight already two hours late due an aircraft AOG in BCN! replacement Aircraft arrived on the ramp from the hangar. Pax baorded ASAP while we waited for the FO, (lives an hour away) While chatting to the pax and explaining the delay, the CB for the battery charger tripped with a loud click. Reset it once and out it popped again. Called Ops and told them we needed a new A/C. When I told them why they simply told me they would call me back soon.
In case you think I was expecting them to ask me to go with the fault, I wasn't and nor did they ask me when they called to tell me that an aircraft would be available in 40 mins from another inbound. No hassle, no pressure, no questions and no phone call a few days later from anyone else come to that! Do it by the book every time and that becomes the norm. If you are getting undue and unwarranted pressure from above to accept the unacceptable, walk the walk, don't sit here and talk the talk.
You allow the pressure to get to you as a Captain then you should be doing some other job.

[yamaha]

And the point of your post is?
What happened to maintenance intervention in your story?

My problem with posts like yours is this;

I work hard for 15 years, make into left hand seat, family settled, kids at school, everyone happy except for the small matter of my company having a slightly different moral approach and applying certain subtle pressures.

Now following your logic rubik I am supposed to pack everything and start again somewhere else.

You think the company will change its way because I am gone?
You think there aren't thousands waiting to get that seat?

It would make more sense for people like you to keep quiet.
That way those who are fighting back in their own way might have a chance of succeeding.

[rubik101]

I'm saying that in my experience, there are no differing moral attitudes nor subtle or even blatant pressures. We've had these discussions about safety and maintenance and the MEL for years and nothing has changed except the characters writing about them. We regularly get ignorant posters stating that Low cost airlines are unsafe, with absolutely no justifacation whatever. We hear of people being bullied, (what physically? Where are they?) of being pressured, (how?) and subtly leaned on (in what way?)
There may be some idiot rogue managers who comes out to the aircraft and shout but so what? Don't be pressured to do anything unsafe and there is the end of the discussion. Let him shout and rant and posture but to what effect? Are you seriously telling me that if the Ops Director or some such came to the cockpit of your U/S aircraft he could persuade you to fly it?
If you do then you are definitely in the wrong job!

[yamaha]

Once again you miss the point purely because you have never witnessed such a situation.

I have personally witnessed many situations off pilots being given no choice but to leave a company. When a company wants you to go, they generally win. There is always something, no matter how small.

And yes I have also personally witnessed the director of flight ops come and take over a seat because of a "difficult captain".

Most say nothing out of fear of losing their job. If they then dare speak out, they have to put up with the likes of you. Just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it isn't going on.

I would however accept that most outsiders to such events cannot possibly understand how things have got so far.
You need to experience such companies to understand how and why?

What did happen to maintenance in your story?

[rubik101]

The aircraft went back to the hangar to have the a new battery charger and to have theTech Log entry cleared.
I admit it never happened to me nor to anyone I know in 26years of flying with 4 different airlines.

[qwertyuiop]

Yamaha.

Who do you fly for? Your posts are very strange!

[yamaha]

Is this another it hasn't happened to me so it doesn't happen?

All I will say to stop some lines of thought immediately is

"it aint a loco"

[rubik101]

yamaha, which airline has a no delay bonus and how much is it? If you don't work for them then how can it be that you can't say who they are? I have never heard of this and nor anyone I have met so tell us please, enlighten us to the forward thinking outfit that pays it's pilots to be on time, won't you? Maybe I could work for them as I am seldom late!

[yamaha]

I take it Rubik you have read Harry Wragg's post.

I would also assume that you have read Spartacan's post.

I know you have read my posts.

The world is obviously much larger than just your enviroment.
I would prefer however to be in your enviroment but that's life.

How did you get through your medicals with such blinkered eyesight?
(If I have misunderstood your posts I do apologize for that remark).

[acbus1]

It's incorrect to target only lo-cost airlines in this debate.

In my experience, the pressure on pilots to operate against their better judgement occurs regardless of the type of operation.

More relevant is the management style. Certain managements (I won't say which, but be my guest in trying to guess a prime example) are medieval (medievil?) in their approach. This is unconnected to the type of operation. It's connected to the management culture and style (appalling lack of).

[dnx]

I've read the conversation going on in this thread.
Interesting! Some guys are close to the mark and it is beyond me why people get so offensive if someone else doesn't share their views.
On the whole I agree with what is said about subtle pressure being applied by management to accept small (and sometimes not so small) defects. It happens more often than we want to admit and sometimes we do it ourselfes without any pressure because we (the crew) have become too brainwashed to see the difference.
IMHO the pressure will only get worse. As long as Joe Public wants to have his vacations in Ibiza or Cancun or some other tropical place for next to nothing Airlines will be pressured to lower their costs so they will pressure their crew and so on and so on.

The part I have missed in this thread is the quality of the crew. These days airlines (regular/locos/charter) don't even want to pay for training. They even make money by asking exorbitant ammounts for type-ratings.
That way they keep their cost level down and in doing so put more pressure on other companies that hire and train their own crew. Shouldn't some government organisation that looks into fair competition look at that sort of practice? Hiring someone just because he/she can fork up a small fortune to pay for a type-rating can never get you the best crew there is.

[Faire d'income]

To an outsider reading threads like this they would have to conclude that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. But what exactly?

They would identify three types of characters here:

Those who see no evil, hear no evil.

Those who see no evil, but hear of lots of it.

And those who see, hear and suffer at the hands of evil.

Learmont, Rubik, 411A etc are members of the former. In fairness they can only comment on what they know and it appears they know little of the real story. It is a little more complex than petty snags.

I am part of the second group. I know people in other outfits and have heard reliably some pretty shocking stuff.

The people I hear the stories from are part of the third group.

It is too simplistic now to split everything into Loco v Frills carrier. Lots of the traditional carriers are taking their ideas from Loco and not all Loco are low standard.

The members of the former group who post here claiming it either doesn't happen or that the crews involved are somehow defective are doing a major disservice to their industry. They clearly dont understand the situation and instead of questioning the abilities of those involved should have a good look at themselves. Suggesting everything is fine because there is a regulator also shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the industry.

The worst cases leave the pilots in a 'Catch 22' situation. If they blow the whistle to the media or whoever ( forget the IAA etc. ) they risk their livelihoods if they fail. If they succeed they could improve safety but seriously damage their companies' in terms of sales and share price and ultimately lose their job. No pilot want to bite the hand that feeds them either.

In the worst cases the pressures invloved are daily and relentless. Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Faire D'Income, what is it about most statistics that 87.34% of them are made up on the spot? :rolleyes: Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date.WHere do you dream these stats up? Safety has never been better. Every single 'researched' statistic that has been published shows that safety is better than it has ever been. Even with the four or five crashes that have happened in August are a blip that will hardly even be visible in the running average of statistics. Why is it that aviation insurance brokers are stating that despite the recent accident flurry the costs to airlines will continue to decrease? That after August has become the most expensive month in terms of hull losses since early 2002?

What is being discussed here is whether pilots are being pressured to take risks? Everything we do as pilots involves risk. Even the safest operator is taking 'calculated' risks every time an aircraft is dispatched. I do not know of one single pilot who would 'knowingly' take-off if he believed there was a high risk of arriving first at the scene of an accident.

Many companies that operate two sector patterns such as IT operators, do not have engineering cover readily available downroute. Quite often their pilots will carry a minor defect that is allowable in the MEL back to base before entering it in the Tech Log. It happens all the time but that doesn't mean that they will carry a serious defect. For example, if one of the floor emergency lights is inop and the MEL allows dispatch, do you think that the crew are going to enter it into the Tech Log downroute and then wait for hours for an engineer to sign it off as acceptable? If this happens at your airline and you are not happy about it then you are free to MOR it or CHIRP it if you feel intimidated by your managers.

With regard to 'no delay bonuses' [sic] there is nothing wrong with a company that offers its crews an incentive to improve their on time performance. No one is suggesting that the pilots would risk their and their passengers lives for a simple bonus. It is there to incentivise the crew to make sure that the turnarounds are expedited as it is usually cock-ups with ground staff and services that screw up on time performance. Having worked for a company that offered an OTP bonus, there was never any pressure whatsoever on the flight crew to do anything that would jeopardise safety. It just made us all, flight deck crew and cabin crew, aware of other peoples incompetence that could have an effect on our earnings and we were able to highlight areas where performance could be improved. It never impinged on safety though. I'm sure the CAA would have pounced on the company if they believed it had a detrimental effect on safety.

The people you should be aware of are those managers who are under the misguided impression that 'fuel league' tables are somehow a good method of getting crews to take plog fuel or less. It's one thing to educate crews about excessive fuel uplift and another to intimidate them into carrying less. One company I use to work for actually published the de-identified list of pilots who took more than plog fuel. That manager was eventually removed and it was pointed out to him that it would be much better to produce a list of fuel burnt rather than fuel uplifted. There would always be one or two pilots who thought they were clever and would try and outdo each other on fuel uplift until one day one of them arrived back at LGW to unforecast LVP ops and landed from a CATIIIb with less than CMR. Not clever.

Overall though, I don't believe that most pilots, certainly here in the West, are pressured to take unnecessary risks. If it was a real problem then the statistics would show it. It's just a pity that the CAA will not even begin to investigate any claims until they have proof. A bit like denial that you've been bitten until you actually feel the pain. Of course, by then it's too late. Some allegations need preliminary investigation, even if only to rule out that further investigation is necessary.

[Faire d'income]

Arewenearlytrhereyet that was an opinion not a statistic. Remember 30 years ago there were accident free periods also.

I'm talking about flights departing without correct maintenance, fuel, Nav bags, flight plans, rest, de-icing etc. I'm talking about policy/instruction documents appearing/disappearing daily allowing crews perform restricted procedures as weather/notams dictate. I'm talking obout corners cut on quick turnarounds to maintain schedules. I'm talking about No tech log entires whatsoever until after the last flight.

And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening.

[10secondsurvey]

I'm responding to some comments on this thread as a punter, as I feel some have the wrong opinion of paying passengers approach to safety.

When in the USA one of the budget carriers crashed killing many people, I recall seeing a documentary, in which an investigator said that the general public always assumed that aircraft were safe or else "they wouldn't let them fly". This is the reality of the view of most of the general travelling public - they assume that an airline would not be allowed to fly if it wasn't safe. They assume rigorous standards have been set, and MUST always be adhered to.

Some posters earlier indicated that the british public were in love with cheap fares and were prepared to take risks. This really is nonsense. If people book a flight with any airline, they 'assume' that it 'must' be safe otherwise the airline would not be allowed to operate. It is as simple as that.

For my own part, there is one carrier (budget) Ipersonally will not fly on, as they are so nasty and tight fisted at all levels, I suspect they probably do the same with safety. But not many in the general public think like this.

If airlines are cutting corners on safety I think it should be made public, and the relevant airlines exposed - otherwise joe public has to take it on trust that everything is just fine.

[A Sayers]

Various contributors have stated the reluctance of pilots to put their career at risk. This is very understandable and in my experience an airline will take extreme measures to end the career of any pilot foolish enough to raise safety issues.

In my own case I raised safety concerns after an accident in which I was injured/incapacitated in flight. When I came out of hospital and began the long ongoing process of recovery the cause of the accident was unchanged despite the airline having been informed by environmental health, the CAA, a doctor and myself of their failings.

I raised the issue through the correct channels and finally after several months I filed a formal grievance as no one was listening and peoples lives were at risk. Three years later, my grievance rejected I had no choice but to go to court. The court described my actions as being in keeping with correct procedures and proper protocols - even the airline eventualy accepted that I acted in solely the public interest. In court the Chief Executive described my actions however as "Outrageous, grossly outrageous" despite them being laid down as a duty in the staff manual. The Airline CEO's evidence was considered by the court to be implausible or his actions were due to "incompetance and maladministration". The DFO was "unbelievable and untruthful" in what he had to say.

They sacked me. I am out of a job and unable to get one. If you want to keep flying keep your mouth shut unless like me you feel peoples lives are more important than one persons career.

The book is being written.

It is dangerous to be right when those in power are wrong - Voltaire.

Andy.

[rubik101]

Voltaire also wrote;
One owes respect to the living; but to the dead one owes nothing but the truth.
And;
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference.
Be virtuous, be strong and tell the truth! ( I said that!)
Andy, you did the right thing but paid the wrong price.

[yamaha]

"I'm saying that in my experience, there are no differing moral attitudes nor subtle or even blatant pressures.

We regularly get ignorant posters stating that Low cost airlines are unsafe, with absolutely no justifacation whatever.

We hear of people being bullied, (what physically? Where are they?) of being pressured, (how?) and subtly leaned on (in what way?)"

Rubik 2005

Now read the following quote very carefully:


They sacked me. I am out of a job and unable to get one. If you want to keep flying keep your mouth shut unless like me you feel peoples lives are more important than one persons career.

A Sayers 2005.


To all professional colleagues reading these posts, think very very carefully about what you say on threads like these.

In Utopia all pilots witnessing or experiencing subverse attitudes
would remove themselves from the situation. We are however inhabiting planet earth, for better or for worse.

These situations are therefore probably unstoppable, so please next time, think how you can support your colleague in need.

Rubik, centuries ago there were those who thought the world was flat. Fortunately there were others who were prepared to continue the quest of adventure despite the terrible cost.

[ZQA297/30]

How does the old saying go, something like, "there's none so blind as those who don't want to see." Add to that, "who the cap fits, let him wear it".

Like faire d'income I look back and feel the culture was different. There were statistically more accidents, but that was partly because the machinery was often mean and ornery and the amount of knowledge and information was less.
I think the difference was there was more integrity in both management and flight crew. I admit there were notable exceptions, but by and large my perception was that as long as you honestly gave your best, your management would actually be in your corner if something went wrong. That is not my perception of the current state.

Management by statistics implies that any old 386 chip can run an airline. I think it is far more complex than that and demands men of competence and integrity. This would seem to be a rare combination. Superbeancounters need not apply.

What does seem to be needed in some companies is unions with members who are willing to be committed to seeing the right thing done. Just having a union is of no use unless the membership is prepared to stick together to fight for what is right.

[PAXboy]

As a pax and having worked in commerce (and local govt) in the UK across 27 years, when I saw the thread title, I never doubted that it was true. Or that it was true of EVERY carrier to a greater or lesser degree. It is NOT about LCC and legacy, as anyone can be a bad company.

It is also true that, history builds and the stories of people deciding to leave because the mood was too far against their liking becomes inexorable and that carrier is likely to go further down the 'casual' route. They may not have a major prang before going bankrupt, each company fails in it's own way. Again, be they in ANY line of commerce.

Wig Wag "I do not think the British public have much appetite for stories about potential air disasters."

Indeed they do not! And, once the disaster has taken place, they get airbrushed out. Just a few in the UK over the past 20 years:
[list=a]
Herald of Free Enterprise
Several football stadia disasters
Kings Cross underground fire
Various train crashes due poor maintenance
[/list=a]

Faire d'income "And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening."

Yes, of course, that is human nature. In the UK, I think it fair to say, we are 'overdue' for a major prang.

A Sayers I have no doubt as to your tale and I am very pleased to hear that you are writing the book. Whistleblowers are few and far between. At the other end of the scale to your experience, a friend was taken to court by employers and she watched them stand in the UK High Court and lie through their teeth. They won and she lost her job. No lives were lost but it is all part of the same diamond. That is, it shines but it cuts.

[ILS27LEFT]

..whilst we discuss our opinions here, another aircraft has crashed because of human/tech failure (apparently!).

It seems again that terrorism is not involved: it is, again, a budget/charter airline involved here, and apparently this is the 7th loss for this carrier...the 7th? Yes, apparently it is officially the 7th loss.

Definitely there is something terribly wrong going on in aviation in recent months, if not in recent days .....

Are all these recent incidents a pure mere coincidence or is this the result of what we have been debating on this forum and especially within this thread in the last few days?

Can some "experts" honestly continue to deny that there is a serious problem within the industry and that safety has not been affected at all by deregulation and especially since the introduction of the LoCo model?

...more LoCo, more competition, more savings, more stress, etc===========>>>>>> less training, worst rosters, less safety, more accidents.

..basically, in this market, expect more accidents!
I really hope to be wrong here...

:mad: :mad:

[Ignition Override]

10secondsurvey: After Valuejet (now Airtran) crashed, an FAA Inspoector "allegedly" ;) stated that he had expressed concern to his superiors about either the major expansion of the airline, or the airworthiness/complisnce of the airline.

His FAA superiors "allegedly" ;) disregarded his concerns. Since deregualtion accelerated under GOP presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., the FAA has felt the need to avoid adequate supervision of numerous carriers, i.e. the FAA's Western Region
"allegedly" was told to avoid closer scrutiny of Continental during the strike in '83-84. This helped some presidents and their Cabinets avoid public embarassment. This was printed in "Aviation Week & ST" many years ago.

When Valuejet's so-called "VP of Maintenance" testified before Congress after the horrible crash, he implied that due to outsourcing maintenance, it was not the responsiblity of the VP to ensure that regulations were followed. I saw him testify on the 1730 NBC news.

An engine on a Valuejet DC-9 had been overhauled near the 'Bosporus', and when pieces split away from the engine, the aft flight Attendant received some very painful injuries-the airplane was evacuated on the runway in Atlanta.

Eastern Scabs were part of the original pilot group at Valuejet-scabs have no minimum pay requirements nor standards. Their pay and benefits totaled less than what many express truck drivers earned (FEDEX/UPS...)! Scabs do anything that mgmt tells them-what back-up or protection do they have? On each Valuejet flight for one Captain, no contingency fuel was boarded until the Captain called Dispatch and requested/demanded it.:yuk: That is from a former Valuejet Captain-one of the FO's I've worked with.

This describes just ONE of the

Airline Darlings of US Deregulation .:cool:

[Spartacan]

Learmount cites airline culture as cause of crashes

Well, it looks to me as though David Learmount is a lot closer to the mark with this article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article310581.ece

My question is:

How does the culture of the CAA and UK airlines stack up???

[ETOPS]

How does the culture of the CAA and UK airlines stack up???

Just count the number of movements per year operated by UK Airlines and divide by the number of fatal accidents............Oh, looks like we "stack up" pretty well.

[ILS27LEFT]

"It's the same with an aircraft. It's about who operates it, and what their safety standards are. All modern airplanes are safe, but they may not be if they don't get maintained properly and the crews don't get trained properly. In some countries, crews get trained according to the law, but trained to a minimum standard. Whereas the serious airlines of the world train their crews a damn sight better."


This is correct and it is important to remind us all that the AF incident could have had a totally different outcome if the crew responded in a different way. Good training is essential.

Maintenance, Crew, Training: are these 3 essential issues negatively affected by the highly competitive market of the LoCo model and deregulation?

If a LoCo pilot feels demotivated by an extremely stressfull roster (have a look at what Ryanair pilots say about this in their threads!) can this affect the overall safety of an aircraft?

Can fatigue be a factor? Is fatigue more of an issue since deregulation?
Has safety improved since deregulation?

Shalll we expect more and more accidents?

Do we all know that the carriers from those countries which have lower standards than ours often fly over our homes, often use our western airports and often are just simply operating around us?

Maybe deregulation in those countries is having the worst consequences there, but the ATR72 crashed in Italy, the Helios in Greece, it could have easily been the UK, LHR, AMS, FRA, GVA...we cannot just forget that many of these carriers just fly with and around us.

This is why we cannot ignore the recent scary trend. It is affecting us and our sky. Directly.

:confused:

[rubik101]

I have every sympathy with Mr. Sayers, who lost his job due to undue pressure. The thread has been written as if this was an everyday occurence. If that is the case, then I too would be concerned. I agree, all is not right in the world of aviation, but then take any industry and you will hear the same arguments.
My point was that in spite of or perhaps because of the so called Low Cost carriers emergence in the last ten years, the blame for such events cannot be placed squarely at their doors, as seems to be the case in the earlier posts.
This constant harping and mudslinging in their direction is unwarranted. If it were not the case then many of us who work for said airlines would undoubdtedly already have resigned from them. I have no wish to be the first to arrive at the scene of an accident.

[yamaha]

Rubik this is taken from a Government paper.
They agree with me......this isn't "any industry"


"Why aviation is different from other sectors of UK industry

The key feature making aviation different from other sectors of UK industry is safety criticality.

It is true that safety is also important for other transport sectors,
but the failure of a key system during aircraft operation is more likely to lead to catastrophic results.

It is widely accepted that human error rather than technical
failure is the most likely cause of future accidents".


So despite knowing about the issues facing us, we still have to put up with the likes of certain management regimes calling shots that are not aligned with this statement.
Until that changes accidents will keep on happening.

[rubik101]

Yamaha, you seem to imply that if all these phantom managers toed the critical safety line then accidents would stop happening. I think not. Also, you give the impression that there are many comanies out there pusruing this short sighted approach to safety, cutting corners and pressurising pilots left, right and centre. I say, tell me who they are then we can all avoid working for them, they go out of business and we are all flying in a safer world. Name them and shame them, very simple really.

[ILS27LEFT]

The engineers in Tunis replaced the faulty fuel indicators with the ones for the ATR42, the plane was instead the ATR72.

These indicators are very similar and they actually work on the ATR72 as well: only one problem, they actually indicate a sensibly higher level of fuel in the tanks. The aircraft run out of fuel and had to try an emergency landing in water.

This incidents confirms the following, as somebody else said here:

" am indebted to the colleague who draws the attention to the Aer Arann incident but I think a caution is in order. A culture of not writing fault logs, terrible pressure to meet demands in bad weather, pressonitis, overwork, underpay, a confusion facing backwards of left and right, illegible or unmarked fuel panel controls and confusing total with total per tank in conjunction with no ladders to see, uneven ground and a difficulty of communicating with the refueller. How common is this? [Do not answer, I know]"


Welcome to the new deregulated, LoCo, budget, charter etc aviation business.


:mad:

From the "Times" (London):

"Captain Tsolakis is investigating claims that some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft’s fitness to fly. He is also keen to question Mr Irwin about his radio conversation with the pilot. Mr Irwin told police that the conversation was “confused” and the pilot was difficult to understand. ".


If some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft fitness to fly,*( pls note the engineers had concerns and not the cleaners!) this demonstrates again that in some airlines there is no pressure at all, and everything is going so well, safety is first, always. In fact that aircraft was grounded...yes, but unfortunately with souls on board.

Why you all say there is too much pressure on pilots, engineers, etc in modern commercial aviation?

Is it pressure a Captain who cannot communicate in English with the FO?
Of course not, because they could understand each other in normal ATC communication...but not in a real emergency?

Are we all going mad here?

It is all clearly under control, please shut up and never say there is a problem with air safety. Everything is fine, the stats are with us.


Scary. Scary. Scary.



...to be continued I am afraid.
So sad.

[sleuth]

The UK Sunday Telegraph is looking for any details on pilot fatigue, roster abuse, company pressure, engineering failures etc: etc:.

If you have any genuine complaints, preferrably with evidence, we are looking for details. Anonymity is assured.

Please call David Harrison on
0207 538 7423 or mobile: 07770 381255


Let's make flying safer.

[Lon More]

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions

So how do you know they are pilots?
Could be ANSP

[exeng]

Nice try David

Let's make flying safer.

Or how about lets sell loads of newspaper copy, frighten the general public unecessarily and perhaps put a few extra people on the dole queue while we are about it.

I've had personal experience of the press and such experience leaves me to believe that you should never voluntarily go near any of them with a barge pole.


Regards
Exeng

[Gorgophone]

ETOPS

quote:


-------------------------
Just count the number of movements per year operated by UK Airlines and divide by the number of fatal accidents............Oh, looks like we "stack up" pretty well.”
------------------------------------

ETOPS, are all deaths and injuries to pilots publicly recorded? I know that they are not. Does the bullying of pilots and the misery to families get recorded? Number crunching and stats don’t tell the real cost.


AND

RUBIK 101

quote:
-------------------------

“The thread has been written as if this was an everyday occurence. If that is the case, then I too would be concerned.”
-------------------------------------

You have written as if you know how often these occurrences were ignored. Are all deaths and injuries to pilots publicly recorded? I know that they are not.

You feel (for feeling is different from thinking) that “if all these phantom managers toed the critical safety line then accidents would stop happening.”

The ICAO training is that if managers understood safety systems and their role in it accidents would be reduced. Be concerned! Be very concerned:suspect:

...and what\'s more, have you seen the Private Eye article, \'Airline sacked poisoned pilot\' (No.1140 2-15 September 2005) This article is nearly spot on!

They poisoned him then sacked him! Is this in keeping with the human factors so necessary for flight safety? (as taught by ICAO) What is HSE/CAA doing to rectify the systems aspect of this behaviour?

Let\'s face it, the problem is political. Our Government signs up to ICAO rules and then igore them.

[Faire d'income]

you seem to imply that if all these phantom managers toed the critical safety line then accidents would stop happening. I think not. Also, you give the impression that there are many comanies out there pusruing this short sighted approach to safety, cutting corners and pressurising pilots left, right and centre. I say, tell me who they are then we can all avoid working for them, they go out of business and we are all flying in a safer world. Name them and shame them, very simple really.

If management toed the critical safety line line then without doubt some of these accidents could have been prevented.

Name and shame? How do you think these people manage to cut corners? .....Fear, very simple.

Naming an shaming is not an option, look at A Sayers post to see what happens whistleblowers.

Rubik, if you knew what really goes on you would change your tune.

As for the media. Investigative hacking needs a bit more thought than a post on Pprune. Try contacting handling agents at some more remote outposts, particularly those with unusual weather etc. Those people don't work for the airlines and will have stories on the main offenders.

[Accident Prawn]

THIS THREAD - Pilots ''under pressure to take risks"

Pilots being put "Under Pressure" doesn't have to be so obvious and visible.

A simple roster of 6 on 2 off which runs continuously for 2 month puts a pilot under pressure. Slowly eroding his alertness, his will to perform, his interest in dealing with important details!

This pressure is LEGAL. The airlines roster it, the CAA approves it! So this in itself is pressure, as a pilot can not argue about his rostered hours or the number of taxi journeys, or the number of earlies to lates conversions!

Pilots are under pressure as we're all overworked to the hilt, to the degree that they have to take us off the flying program periodically as we reach our limits faster than predicted.

I am under pressure. I have a family, a house, car etc... I feel less and less valued by my employer. I feel being used more than ever. I am under pressure because I have to also sit in the right hand seat, having had command for 10 years. Having to fly with other captains puts me under pressure.

I feel under pressure, as I am 9 years from the end, but there is no factoring/allowance for age -vs- performance. I am expected to be as alert as a 25 year old! On a 6 day week it's not easy.

I feel pressured because I can be working for 6 days and each of these days I could have weather, slot, operational etc problems.
There's no factoring for our hours regarding the conditions we are operating in!
On a sunny, nice day - day 6 can be easier than day 6 on a murky, foggy week, or a 40kts crosswind week!!! No factoring/allowance for this.

Think about it.

Add a few technical problems to the concoction above and suddenly we could all be:

ACCIDENT PRAWN!

[sleuth]

.


I can understand the trepidation one might feel about speaking with a newspaper, but what are the alternatives? If there is a problem with low cost aviation, and if the authorities and unions will not deal with the situation, what alternatives do you have? Carry on moaning to each other until a series of accidents occur?

Investigative reporting has, on many occasions, sorted out management pressures and problems that the authorities have turned a blind eye to. Authorities are always reluctant to curb management pressures, as this gives the authority extra work and pressure - so the tendency is always to maintain the status quo until pressured into taking action. But who will pressure the authorities, if not the media? Remember, the media have also solved a number of management issues retrospectively, but this is hardly the optimum resolution to a problem.

As far as the investigative side is concerned, reporting rumours from outstations is simply not possible; it is both irresponsible and the lawyers would never allow this to be printed. Only information direct from those involved is acceptable, and that means pilots, engineers and perhaps any disgruntled management.

Topics of interest are excessive rosters, fatigue, management pressure and engineering defects. Your industry lies in your hands,

[email protected]

Anonymity assured.


.

[Balmy]

Accident Prawn,

I have no idea who you work for or what each of your 6 days on include, but I assume the hours you fly in the 6 days fall within the required limitation and your duty time within each day complies with flight and duty limits. Also since we appear to be talking airlines I assume you are a 2 crew operation.

Assuming the above are accurate, I have to say that a 6 and 2 rotation does not sound that heavy to me......most of the legs will be shared and most of the actual flying usually done by the AP.

But as you correctly state it depends on what is involved with the 6 on.

[Accident Prawn]

BALMY

I work for a famous LOCO in the UK.

If you say: "6 and 2 rotation does not sound that heavy to me" then you have either not done it yourself, or you may be management, or you're not a pilot???

I see you're from South Africa. I have not an ounce of an idea what aviation is like there, but what it's like here is quite obvious from my posting.

The picture I painted is genuine and I am sure there are many people in the UK feeling very similar.

This situation is slowly worsening and you could consider it as a major part of the Swiss Cheese that preceeds an ACCIDENT.

[ILS27LEFT]

I cannot believe somebody can say this, unless Balmy is a LoCo manager then it would make a lot of sense, what he said does not really help us here. It goes entirely against safety.

Balmy said:
"Accident Prawn,

I have no idea who you work for or what each of your 6 days on include, but I assume the hours you fly in the 6 days fall within the required limitation and your duty time within each day complies with flight and duty limits. Also since we appear to be talking airlines I assume you are a 2 crew operation.

Assuming the above are accurate, I have to say that a 6 and 2 rotation does not sound that heavy to me......most of the legs will be shared and most of the actual flying usually done by the A"

The required limitation is a "legalised" pressure as said, this does not mean it is acceptable or safe.
Organisations can make mistakes and politicians too. Often do.

This is why a healthy and honest investigative reporting would be the only solution. A good journalist could do this well.
I do not know which carrier is having the worst rosters at the moment, but I think this might help you:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165331&highlight=ryanair+roster

Dear journalist, did you know this, from the above thread :

"The culture of getting pilots to pay for their own sims and conversion courses etc etc has led to a cost advantage for them that no carrier who does not do this can beat" (Ryanair).
I think this is the only carrier following this practice.

They also say:

"The recurrent theme is one of systematic abuse and exploitation of employees, including bullying and intimidation. The airline conducts itself in a "robust" manner at all times and has even used its legal advisors to demand removal of a threat from PPRuNe - apparently because of the repeated assertions that a "fear culture" does indeed exist". (Ryanair)

"But the claims are insistent, repeated across all levels of the organisation and give rise to concern at all levels except, apparently, where it counts in terms of having it investigated and sorted out one and for all" (Ryanair)

Or:

"Avoiding some of the pitfalls created by earlier contributors can I just go back to the beginning and tell you why Ryanair do concern me. My background (45 years) is entirely aviation, military and commercial from ground servicing to flight engineering and airline management of training. Now I look at other airlines operations purely from a passenger point of view - and it is that which concerns me. An earlier correspondent mentioned the lack of de-icing and walk round checks during a QTR. Yes - this happens and is an inevitable consequence of commercial pressures. The Captain makes the decision and that is it. But it is the cabin crew that mostly concern me". (Ryanair)

And:

"As a frequent flyer I choose not to fly Ryanair. This is not because I doubt the pilots ability in any way but because of my concerns over the attitude of the CEO"


Dear investigative journalists,
there is a lot of info on this forum, just do a search on Ryanair as an example and the material is all there. I just hope pilots, cabin crew and engineers working for them will contact you soon anonymously. Many of them are really fed up.

I do not work for Ryanair but the attitude of the CEO is more than sufficient for a final opinion on the carrier operations I am afraid: I saw him once on TV for an interview and I was shocked by his attitude.
And believe me, a CEO can put a lot of pressure on his Managers and then, consequently, on his front line and operational staff at all levels, including PILOTS, cabin crew and engineers with dangerous consequences.

Scary.







:mad: :ok:

[Balmy]

Accident Prawn,

I am both management and pilot and I have a very deep regard for safety, but I do think that the whole Flight and Duty issue is seriously bent out of shape.

If you read my earlier post it was qualified with the note that it all depends on what is included in the 6 days on, and that of course only you can judge. The point being, I think, that just a 6 and 2 is not a problem on its own....there are many operations where 6 and 2 would be reasonably light.....it all depends on what’s included in the 6.

Most F & D limitations are highly theoretical because they do not even begin to take into account a number of the real issues that are involved.

As a general comment to all......I would think very very very carefully before submitting any of this to a journalist.....please remember the kind of garbage you read in most newspapers, or view on the news, when it comes to anything related to aviation. They really don’t have a clue what it is all about.....even their so called "Aviation Experts" have a way of sprouting nonsense with monotonous regularity.

Your company must have a flight safety officer or similar position and he should be open to being approached.....but I would make sure I was not a lone voice on the subject before the approach.....it would not go down well if you were shouting about it while the majority was saying "no problem".

If he (sorry or she) is not open to being approached on a subject like this then you (and he) really do have a problem.

[sleuth]

>>I have no idea who you work for or what each of your 6 days on include, but I assume the hours
>>you fly in the 6 days fall within the required limitation and your duty time within each day complies with flight and duty limits.
>>Assuming the above are accurate, I have to say that a 6 and 2 rotation does not sound that heavy to me....


One presumes this is a management comment, as it appears to be rather complacent.
It has been said that within these 6 days, a loophole in the system allows for up to 72 hours work.
Further information on this would be appreciated.

[email protected]

.


Another point that has arisen, is insufficient time given for pre-flight planning. Any info out there?


[email protected]

.

[Balmy]

And you Mr. Sleuth are NOT just looking for a story........you really really do have the interests of the pilots and aviation safety at heart........and you really really are an expert on aviation and qualified to report on this.......really really......and you know what.....I saw the tooth fairy last night........NO........really really....


As Accident Prawn correctly noted I am from South Africa and have nothing whatsoever to do with the said LoCo operator/s.....but here is what I do know....... the press do not have our interests at heart........just their own.....and anything that sounds like scary to the public is good copy......and sniffs of issues in aviation that relate to safety etc is the pot at the end of the rainbow. Just look at the tone and quality (specifically the lack thereof) of ALL reports in the press (any form thereof) related to aviation if you doubt what I am saying

There are other much better ways to resolve these problems....

Anything you say can and will be used against you.......and your industry

[ILS27LEFT]

Hi David (Daily Telegraph):

just be carefull with the emails you receive, most of the posts here which are against any existance of "pressure" within the LoCo operations probably come from Managers or Pilots (in managerial positions) and obviously they get highly paid to make sure that it is all under control and nobody breaks the silence.
We do not know if they are real engineers or pilots as they sometimes state.

This "safety-pressure" issue is also cleverly organised in such a way that the direct pressure is nearly absent, most of the time is a subtle elusive indirect pressure, which is the most dangerous!

Let's hope we can make these flights safer and get rid of some bad policies.

Do not forget:
:mad: subtle elusive indirect pressure, which is the most dangerous! ...


I know for sure that the Cabin Crew for LoCo are under a lot more pressure than their equivalents working for BA for example, and we all know how essential is to have an alerted and healthy Cabin Crew in case of a serious incident (see recent AF in YYZ).

:mad:

[Balmy]

....and Dear David is going to make the flights safer for you and get rid of the bad policies..........bad bad naught naughty policies

no NO.....it really REALLY was the tooth fairy.....

[ILS27LEFT]

..balmy..certainly better than just completely denying that there is a real problem...or not? :)

:ok:

and..if this pressure is not affecting safety there is nothing to hide and there is nothing to be afraid of: why shall we be worried of an investigation if it is all so "legalised" within the LoCo operations?

Do not worry. Just let people say what they think.
Wait and see.


Or you need a few more accidents around the world before starting the thread all over again?


:sad: :ok:

[normal_nigel]

Check out the Ryanair captain with about 1500 TT if you want a story

[eal401]

I've had personal experience of the press and such experience leaves me to believe that you should never voluntarily go near any of them with a barge pole.
Yeah, why help to provide a clear picture when you can slag them off instead.

What a wonderful, open attitude.

[JW411]

normal_nigel:

I also had 1500 TT when I got my first command on 4-engined aircraft. I am still alive and kicking some 40 years later and have yet to break anything.

[Spartacan]

Sleuth:-

There is a filthy business and political culture in the UK. Dr David Kelly blew the whistle on the Government about Iraq. Look what happened to him.

Airlines will sue pilots or hound them out of the industry when they raise very minor issues about safety or otherwise irritate their employers.

What do you suppose would be the consequence for a pilot who was outed after blowing the whistle on the whole airline safety issue? How would his family suffer in years to come? How many pilots would have to speak directly to the press to make a difference? One? Ten? Fifty?

You will have to give some kind of contractual assurance that anyone who speaks to you has their legal defence indemnified by your parent company.

Please post your thoughts on these issues.

[Balmy]

Aaah Yes YES.....now I see it....the PRESS is going to provide a clear picture on aviation. How remarkable that I did not see that sooner.....


No.... NO.... NO....it really really really was the tooth fairy.....and.....he was holding hands with Father Christmas….. I promise….. really really……


Seriously though.......the only point is that you will really not get any assistance from the press in getting a straight story about aviation.....please be very sure of one thing.......they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in aviation....their business is to sell papers (or magazines or whatever).....that means sensationalism........they have no interest in you and your problems.

I am not in any way speaking out against what you are saying is a problem....I have no knowledge about the rights or wrongs of that.....but taking it to the press is like taking you child to paedophile for counselling

Be warned.....anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you....

[Spartacan]

As I recall it was the Daily Telegraph who first raised the issue of junior doctors working hours. The 'fear' culture within the medical profession lay in promotion prospects. This was in the days before organisations sued individuals.

Eventually doctors hours were improved when it became politically unnaceptable to have safety critical medical staff working through night and day. However, there was a cost involved. Somehow, the work junior doctors did through the night had to parcelled off elsewhere in the NHS.

A crackdown on commercial pressure and pilot fatigue would incur a cost in a viciously competative industry. More importantly, if the pressure was off the licensed pilot the travelling public would be safer.

[CosmosSchwartz]

normal_nigel - I like having a go at Ryanair as much as the next man, but what is wrong with a 1500 hour captain? The CAA decided that 1500 hours is the minimum to be in command of a multi-crew aircraft, so whether you've got 1501 or 15001 hours, the licensing body thinks you're are capable.

Why should you or I think different?

Bear in mind also that many 1500 hour captains will have 1300+ hours on type!

[normal_nigel]

JW

Doesn't make it right and I'm afraid this isn't "The High and The Mighty" any more.

1500 hours is not generally sufficient to hold a command of a large transport aircraft in this day and age.

Sensible companies with a saftety culture generally have limits of around 3000 hours for jet commands.

It is particularly worrying as many of these LOCO captains on low hours have gained a lot of their "vast" experience on PA 28's in the circuit.

I certainly won't fly with any LOCO except EasyJet.

It worries me enough to be in the same airspace. The risk of encountering one of their low houred/ barely native speaking flight crew is too great

[JW411]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I received the very best training available in the world courtesy of the Royal Air Force.

I presume that you are also deeply unhappy about sharing your flight deck with a 200-hour cadet?

[normal_nigel]

JW

On the contrary.

I delight in flying with 200 hour cadets as they tend to be the sharpest most talented FO's, especially when their experience levels grow.

If you check my posts you will see a vociferous defence of cadets on the Flying Instructor forum.


The ones I dislike flying with the most are the arrogant ex Air Force know it alls who think the world owes them a living and have a permanent chip on their shoulder about having to be an FO/wear two stripes/not being a fighter pilot any more/never making fast jet cut off/seniority/not being a Direct Entry command/being special because they have had the very best training in the world* ;) **


* try not to laugh
** delete as appropriate

[ILS27LEFT]

..can we please stay within the subject of this thread...

we are not talking about training, hours, sims, captains, etc...

now we are discussing here if the LoCo (some of them) pilots are under more pressure to take greater risks than ex-National carrier flights, basically is a BA, LH, AF etc pilot under more or less pressure to take risks than a Ryanair pilot?



:mad:

Please let's try not to divert to the nearest airport here, there are so many issues all linked together, but this journalist needs to find out if there is a real threat to safety within the LoCo operations. He needs facts, stories, posts and I am pretty sure they would do a great job if we are consistent on here and we do not get involved in silly one to one confrontations: if I was a Ryanair top manager now I would try to do exactly that: I would come here and I will mess the thread all up with confusing conflicting messages...and the journalist would give up, defeated and confused.

Stories, facts, examples....pleaseeeeeeee!

Yes it is a rumour section here, but entire Revolutions started from a simple rumour...dont forget this!

[JW411]

I too am very happy to fly with well-trained young men with 200 hours but, unlike you, I am more than happy to sign them off in the left seat when they have 1500 hours provided that they are up to standard and have jumped through all of the hoops.

Stand by for Lord Flasheart.

By the way, I never flew one single hour in a fighter aircraft so the sort of chap to whom you are referring is alien to me but Flashy might be able to shed some light.

[Lars Torders]

It doesn't matter who you work for in the modern world, every airline wants to make money and that means toeing the company line either low cost or Big Airways. The Captain always has the last say (as long as he is right). The three questions to ask of every descision are 1) is it SAFE? 2) is it legal? 3) is it in the company interest?

The answers show how far you should be prepared to go. Break rule 1 and you could go to jail - if you live. Rule 2 means loss of licence. Rule 3 means looking for a new job.

How far would you go? :ouch:

[Piltdown Man]

Moving back to the initial thread, I've never felt any pressure whatsoever to fly an unservicable aircraft by my current employers (nor to operate in dodgy weather either). The only pressure I've ever felt is from cabin crew (on the sectors that get them home, never on the way out) and from dispatchers (either our own or third parties). I'm probably one of the lucky ones (unless we our compare salaries, routes, aircraft types...)

[ILS27LEFT]

What about indirect pressure?
Rosters, fatigue, career prospect, logging faults, time keeping and so on.

Somebody spoke about a 6 on 2 off roster: is this just for LoCo pilots for example? How does this compare with a mainline roster?

6 on 2 off within Europe sounds a bit stretched to me!!!
How many sectors per day? Is this true?





:O

[Balmy]

ILS 27 left....wipe your mouth you are drooling!

[Faire d'income]

Can we stick to the tread please.

If you have no experience of the thread title's pressures or know nothing of it's existance then please post on the

" Modern Airline Management - Canonisation or Knighthood? " thread.

[Accident Prawn]

ILS27LEFT

If you are referring to my 6/2 then for your info, all those days are 4 sectors without fail!

Even if I was rostered for a 2 sector, this will change in due course to a 4.

On top, once on a 2 sector afternoon I was told when I returned to hang around for 4 hours into the middle of the night till 2am, then position a very late arriving aircraft to another base, then taxi back to home base. This is because my hours on the day have allowed it to be done!
So instead of finishing as planned at 10pm, I had to finish at 3am, then drive home.

Now that's bloody pressure!!!

When I eventually retire I will blow the whistle, rest assured.

Accident Prawn

[ILS27LEFT]

Balmy you are not funny...we are being very serious here.
Please your diversion should be aborted.

Yes Accident Prawn I really did not know that such a roster could exist for pilots. The roster for a McDonald cleaner is probably better and more manageable!

Is this happening within Europe?
Is this just your specific case or this applies to all pilots working for your Co.?
Is this legal?

I understand your concerns about blowing the whistle now and you probably want to keep your job safe, but, if what you say is real and correct, we are not talking anymore about an elusive indirect pressure here, but a consistent, persisten, deep very high pressure on you: no doubts this can negatively affect your performance and safety, and the lives of hundreds of people.

I would suggest you to send an e-mail to the journalist, anonymously. If this a standard roster for your Company then something must be done and URGENTLY. They will find the facts.

Accident a quick question for you: would you say that your roster is a recipe for a disaster waiting to happen?
Have you ever experienced some sort of "excessive fatigue" due to this type of roster?
Have you ever underperformed because of this roster?
Is, in your experience, safety directly affected by this type of roster?

Basically if this roster is the "standard" roster for a certain group of pilots, I do not know how many, why we do not have many posts here against this horrendous shift pattern?

Is this because the others are happy, or they are just trying desperately to keep a job, does not matter what the conditions are? (most likely theory).

We cannot inject some managerials principles of "stretching people energies to the limit" into aviation otherwise safety will soon be a memory of the past.
Nobody wants a pilot unable to recognise a fault because of fatigue or stress, or unable to follow the correct emergency procedure because is on the 4th sector and he slpet 2 hours the nigth before. This is madness applied to aviation.

We are so maniacaly worried about a 0.00001mg of alchool in the pilots blood but we seem not to care about their psychological state and fatigue: very dangerous indeed!

The first feature of a pilot has always been the extremely high level of concentration skills and the absolute impeccable prompt reaction skills: this is what is needed when something goes wrong. This is achievable only if we make sure that all pilots (and Cabin Crew too!) are phisically and mentally fit to do the job, otherwise we are just at the beginning of a new era of recurrent accidents.

If some cowboy journalist has in the past used titles like "Drunken pilot arrested in his cockpit...!", please make sure that we do not forget that, if Accident has said the truth ( and I believe him), then there are several "Drunken pilots" just flying over our heads right now...legally. DRUNKEN OF FATIGUE!




:mad: :mad:

"In the worst cases the pressures invloved are daily and relentless. Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date."

I HAVE NEVER HEARD SOMETHING SO TRUE!

"And what I\'m really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I\'m talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I\'m talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn\'t happening"

AGAIN: SPOTLESS STATEMENT

"As for the media. Investigative hacking needs a bit more thought than a post on Pprune. Try contacting handling agents at some more remote outposts, particularly those with unusual weather etc. Those people don\'t work for the airlines and will have stories on the main offenders"


EXCELLENT SUGGESTION


:ok:

[Balmy]

I was really not trying to be funny at all....just trying to restore some sanity......go back and re-read what I have said earlier......I am not in any was suggesting that you don’t have a valid point.......but what appears to be being suggested here....of some kind of media witch hunt....is not going to do you, or the industry we love, any good at all.

From one of my earlier posts
____________________________________________

"Your company must have a flight safety officer or similar position and he should be open to being approached.....but I would make sure I was not a lone voice on the subject before the approach.....it would not go down well if you were shouting about it while the majority was saying "no problem".

If he (sorry or she) is not open to being approached on a subject like this then you (and he) really do have a problem."
____________________________________________


If you DO NOT have a significant number (or proportion) of fellow pilots in your company saying the same things you are, then if I were you, I would step back and have a little reality check.....and I don’t think you can just laugh off your fellow pilots as fools who are too scared of losing there jobs.......if they were really concerned, as you appear to be, then you can bet your boots they would acknowledge it.

If you DO have a significant number of fellow pilots with a similar view there really is a better way than what is being proposed in this thread.

I find it very interesting that all the post on this thread appear to be from a very small number of pilots

[Foss]

Balmy,
I'd watch yourself here.
ILS makes alarm bells ring. Daily Telegraph guy was upfront, don't know if you know ILS (shrug), just 20-30 questions. Odd. God know who it is.
No agenda here. balmy pm if you want.
Fos

[ILS27LEFT]

I believe in sanity too and I do not think that keeping our head buried in the sand will not do any good neither, to use your words.

"Your company must have a flight safety officer or similar position and he should be open to being approached"

I do not have direct experience of LoCo operations, I have never worked for them, never been a passenger neither (choice), but I seriously doubt that the flight safety officer of a carrier with 6on2 off rosters is going to listen to Accident Prawn. You are not going to change an established Company culture in a few days or weeks, this takes a major incident or a major investigation from outside.

I agree. just a few pilots working for these Cos seem to be willing to post here on safety and pressure: you are right, this should mean that the problem is not as bad as thought, but I am also aware of human nature and I would probably think well before putting my job at risk.
Many of these pilots, might yes feel under pressure, but they still love their job and they would not change it for anything else.
The main issue is safety, nothing else.
Sometimes it is just the minority which is right (history teaches), and not because the rest are blind or deaf, but just because it is a lot easier to remain silent. It is safer for us, but not for the pax.

Only an indipendent investigation could help: if we had the possibility to send an under cover journalist with hidden cameras on one of these flights, this would be done straight away and then we will find out the truth.
Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to get airside without a ticket or pass, it is impossible to get on a flight without a ticket and impossible to get to the cockpit even with a ticket...the operational flying environment is perfectly sealed off. If something is really going wrong in a cockpit nobody really knows except a few pilots and some engineers, nobody else.
A journalist could never find out on his own.

Otherwise we would know the truth by now and maybe we will all change our minds or confirm our fears.
I have never directly experienced a LoCo operations, but I have read a lot of posts which seem genuinely scary.
If the web did not exist I would know NOTHING about it.


I know journalists often talk about a Boeing 321 or Airbus 737, but despite this they are good in getting public awareness which means political pressure...there are many examples in which a good newspaper has revealed unbelievable scandals, not just in the UK but everywhere in democratic societies and we should not be afraid of letting somebody else investigate on this delicate issue.

And if we discover it is all fine, then I will fly LoCo too and they will make even more money so they have got nothing to lose if they are so sure there is no pressure.

:O :ok:

[Accident Prawn]

Accident a quick question for you: would you say that your roster is a recipe for a disaster waiting to happen?

Yes possibly, as I am not the only one feeling the pressure. Even the younger F/Os are pretty tired at the end of a 10 hour duty day.

Have you ever experienced some sort of "excessive fatigue" due to this type of roster?

Yes fatigue! I don't know how to qualify "excessive" from real or ordinary fatigue.

Have you ever underperformed because of this roster?

Yes, most definitely.

Is, in your experience, safety directly affected by this type of roster?

Yes potentially. But only after an accident will we know for sure just how much of the "pilot error" may have been caused by excessive but LEGAL duty/flying hours!

The situation is well known in the company. By far I am not alone even if nobody else is posting here right now. The company are trying to address the issue of crew numbers, but I regularly get a roster showing 85-95 hours flying/28days.
Very legal - very stupid!

[Foss]

This is an difficult sitiuation.
I have used and enjoyed pprune to keep in contact with friends flying both military and civilian aircraft and am interested.

I do not not fly, lets make that clear. However I'm interested. So are other people. However other people are also interested.
And here we have the journalist problem.

There appears to be a severe paronoia problem with talking to journalists, yet they are castigated in the same thread. This paranoia extends to the belief that any poster is a member of management, or ANYother with a new user name.

You have to educate, hacks like Sleuth are asking for help, while ILS asks 20 or so questions and gets rightly shot down.

The public don't know, people on pprune know. What about a a FAQ section with retired pilots who could explain to journalists what may have happened. What rosters could mean depending what airport you live near.

You're the experts. you tell us.

[ILS27LEFT]

Excessive fatigue as in a type of fatigue which goes beyond average, acceptable, operationally-safe fatigue: a fatigue which makes difficult to concentrate or read/write, slowing down our alertness, impairing our analytical skills for example.
A fatigue which could prove crucial in case of a serious full scale emergency. A fatigue which could simply kill.

In many European motorways there are signs reminding the motorists to stop and rest: fatigue can kill. They say it.
Are these signs just for motorists or also LoCo pilots should be aware of the risks of fatigue: are those Companies making sure that their pilots are not over-used, over-stretched, over-rostered?

:mad:

Why cannot I ask questions? Why shall I be shot down?
I am not a journalist, and I am not here trying to mistify your opinions, I am just here trying to understand if it is just full of anonymous false messages here or if there is a real safety issue within some Loco ops.

I am just open to change my mind if needed. Promise.
For now, I am certainly expecting more accidents, and I am convinced that a journalist could help us (all of us) in finding out if a wider publick awareness on this issue could put more pressure on the authorities.

[fireflybob]

There is a difference between short term tiredness and long term fatigue.

On certain duties (early starts, night flights etc.) it is "normal" to feel tired at times although this also can affect flight safety.

Long term fatigue is much more serious and can adversely affect flight safety.

Human beings can accept working in "overload" for short periods but when overload becomes continuous we are on a more slippery slope.

Society has changed enormously since the assumptions of CAP 371. For example, how long does it take to drive to the airport now (much longer I would suggest) compared to, say, ten years ago and would you say the journey now is less or more stressful?

We should also bear in mind that it is not only pilots who are affected by excessive hours etc. Engineers, crewing and ops staff etc are all part of the team which can make (or break!) your day.

My view is that the whole issue of fatigue needs a completely fresh approach after an in depth study. I fear, however, that it will take a major accident where fatigue is cited as a significant factor before we see any radical changes.

Finally there is the "Future Shock" issue. What sort of shape, physically and mentally, will our pilots be in over the next one to two decades given these gruelling schedules.

[rubik101]

ILS27Left, you need to be shot at never mind down. Why oh why do you insist on qualifying all your rants and posts with the word Loco? You are the one who is loco in the head. The thread was never aimed at Low Cost Airlines but you always seem to insist on using the stupid word at every opportunity. Just what do you have against Low Cost Airlines? Please explain.

[Runway 31]

It's good to know that the staff of legacy carriers never get pressurised or tired.

[Brianigham]

:cool: Gentlemen, May I say something please.

I didn't have the luxury of reading through all 7 pages of this thread,however I think I can get by pretty well with pages 123 and 7.

Here is the situation in the place I work!

Top 10 airline in the world. (the Top half of 10 I think)

Very good safety record.

Actual Safety breaches...........nearly everyday! mostly crew limitation violations, and very rarely but still existing, technical. Rostering is a farce. No one in the airline is trained to understand fatigue and its implications on flight safety. The CAA ( local) is another sad story.

More now than even about 5 years ago.

Who is to blame........not the management alone ( although they are the source)

The buck stops with us folks. As Captains, we have the FULL accountability of ensuring the safety of OUR flight, covering ALL ASPECTS.

If at all ANYONE can pressure us to "GO" when we shouldn't, for whatever reason, then we just failed the "command test"

So collectively, if this is happening and becoming more rampant now, then WE as the "worldwide community of pilots" are failing miserably. I believe it is going to get worse before it starts getting better. Lives are going to be lost and it will be partially our fault.

Dont get me wrong here guys. I am not one of those suck up to the boss pilots, on the contrary, I am one of those pain in the backside kid of fellas that just logs it in the book even if it is one minute before "off blocks". ( not the broken logo light of course).

Has this invited any undue and unrequested attention........well of course!

It may be a little different with this Large outfit. I dont ever get into trouble for doing my job right, but I do get the cold shoulder.
The manpower situation or rather the "dwindling" manpower situation has sort of caused a strain. The management hopes that pilots bust their limits and some pilots do that cause it means a few extra bucks ( plenty ).

This strain has now done a good thing of separating the real pilots from the fakes. Sure you might loose you job for doing the right thing. Where I come from I may even end up in jail. No kiddin!, but we got to do the right thing STILL.

Snag it if you have to.

Get all the required preflight rest. The Cap 371 is not ideal but if you stay within its limits, and of course for "industrial reasons" your company limits, then you SHOULD be covered. But it is a real bummer working 80-95 on short hauls.

Voice out those rostering " legal but stupid" practices.

And don't fly above "regulation time"

So .....it does happen at the "major airlines" as well. I think its pretty much the same the world around. What differs is how we handle it.

Cheers!

[Faire d'income]

Brianingham,
I think your post reasonably accurately describes a lot of the usual airlines, including my own. Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.

[bullshot]

Brian

I agree with you my friend.

Any pilot who compromises safety - and then blames pressure from others for it is unworthy of the post.

If you are threatened with dismissal for doing what is right and ultimately what you are paid for, then that's just tough. Sorry mate but you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are the chosen one to stand up for the profession. You must not bend.

When you do the right thing you will always sleep comfortably at night.

BS

[Accident Prawn]

Brianigham

Agree of course.
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
It's all crewing/duty/flight time related.
Strangely enough, I have never been in discretion either!
No one could ever blame me for choosing not to go with a "stopper" snag!

[elektra]

I have a simple way of looking at this. I have a "commercial" pilots licence. OK, its dressed up under the fancy title of ATPL. But the bottom line is that I am licenced, by the regulatory authority, NOT, my company to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of making money and ensuring safety. I voluntarily took on that difficult (sometimes) task when I accepted the 4 gold bars, years ago.

All pilots are under pressure....some, a few, give in. If we are smart, and build ourselves a good union we will not be alone. In any case, you have to be able to look in the mirror each morning.

In the world I want to live in the words"Captain" and "buckle under pressure" will never be seen in the same sentence.

[yamaha]

But the bottom line is that I am licenced, by the regulatory authority, NOT, my company to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of making money and ensuring safety.


The regulatory authority has never licenced anybody to balance conflicting interests because they do not exist.
You are licenced to operate in accordance with the regulations.

[Spartacan]

>>The regulatory authority has never licenced anybody to balance conflicting interests because they do not exist.
You are licenced to operate in accordance with the regulations<<

Precisely so. You may go against the regulations only to achieve a safe outcome in an emegency. You are not authorised to break safety rules for commercial reasons.

There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.

I.e. if you fiddle the Tech Log or FTL's without incident management might view this as 'helping the company out.'

Pilots who do this are helping no one.

To quote the findings of an industrial tribunal which found in favour of a pilot who stood up to his airline on this issue:

'The contractual requirements placed upon Captain ------ were to meet the standards set by the CAA'

[kiwibird]

Are there unacceptable practices in Low Cost? You bet. Up to 36 sectors in a week. Multiple 11 hour days. Using holidays to reduce high duty hours. Unrealistic turaround times. Apoplexy if you put a defect in the book. Zero support for making a decision. The list is endless.

Is there management pressure? You bet. All you need is a blame culture and an enquiry every day, and you soon have crews skulking around in fear of their jobs. The most cherished position in a Low Cost operator is the Grey Man - Hear nothing, See nothing, Do nothing, Don't attract attention. Unfortunately, this is the most dangerous part about Low Cost flying - there is no pilot representation, participation or respect within the organisation.

In summary, I too worry about the future of aviation. I understand that some Low Costs loose 10% of their crew every year, mainly because crews cannot stand the pressure or the management any longer. But what will that level of staff turnover do to standards and skill levels? Is aviation to become a part-time profession, where everyone retires aged 35 due to fatigue? What will happen to aviation if this is allowed to continue?


Kiwi

[ILS27LEFT]

thanks for the info Kiwi...but Rubik seems honestly and totally convinced that the worst offenders are not the Low Cost but other carriers?
Which ones Rubik? Tell us please.

I am more and more curious now, I want to know. Honestly.


:sad:

Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a journalist neither, I am not even an anti Low Cost person, I am just trying to understand if there is really a problem "pressure-safety" or if all this is just a false rumour as you indirectly state in all your posts.

I have got nothing in principle against Low Cost, except that many pilots here say that these carriers are "negatively" changing this industry. Some of them, not all.
I get this impression exclusively reading this forum ,and not just one side of the story, I read it all if I can: what I have understood until now is that some Low Cost have not so high level of pressure and very hig standard of safety (e.g. Easyjet) whilst others have very high level of pressure and lower level of safety (Ryanair): this is what you can read through the posts of this thread and others. It might be wrong but this is the rumour.
This rumour started on a pilot rumour forum, nothign wrong with this.

This is simply what some people are telling us.
I am not sure this is all 100% truth ( I do not generally trust rumours), but I cannot exclude it neither and you cannot deny that many many many posts here have been describing high level of pressure and "reduced" safety as related, with a particular attention to the Low Cost operations of some carriers.

This is a rumour that started on this forum.

I am open to any change of opinion, but at the moment, being honest with you, I tend to trust more those who say that there is effectively a safety and pressure issue that needs to be addressed.

Your posts are just against anything or anybody mentioning LoCo together with pressure. But why?
There are thousand of Low Cost carriers around the world so we are not necessarily referring to your Company, do not worry.

I know many Low Costs have an excellent reputation and I am not going to dispute that, never.

We are worried about the others...


:ok::D :ok: :mad:

[ILS27LEFT]

you can also check this, which is not entirely another subject...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2084599#post2084599

I think this is an interesting thread for some people who are posting here too!

:mad:

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

I read it all if I can: what I have understood until now is that some Low Cost have not so high level of pressure and very hig standard of safety (e.g. Easyjet) whilst others have very high level of pressure and lower level of safety (Ryanair):
Keep reading, dear. Your comprehension may even improve one day. Whats a hig standard, by the way? Did you mean hick? I'm sure you mean hick. Much more familiar to you no doubt.

[ILS27LEFT]

Dear Leo,
"...Are you prepared to condemn bullying and intimidation of Ryanair employees by management?"

Dear Leo, you better concentrate on the other forum, why do not you answer such a simple question instead of wasting your time here?

Just one post here and I already feel so intimidated by you.
You never change!!!




:ok:

[rubik101]

Faire Dincome said;
Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
Please enlighten us as to which airlines you refer.

Accident prawn said;
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
Not another pilot who has never felt pressure to take risks or reduce safety, surely? Other pressures maybe but not that one.

Spartacan said;
There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.
Oh really? Pray tell where you got this jem from? Please supply your reference material.

Kiwibird said;

Are there unacceptable practices in Low Cost? You bet. The list is endless
Please supply us with the rest of the list. The items you mention might or might not be common. Following the CAP371 most of what you say is impossible to achieve. Unrealstic turn-around times? If it is possible to turn an aircraft around in 20-25 minutes time after time after time for months on end then when does it become unrealistic? Please explain.
Apoplexy if you put a fault in the Tech Log? Please give instances of such an event and who was apoplectic? Did you see them? Which Engineering company did the apoplectic engineer work for?

ILS27Left said;
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this.
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?

...but Rubik seems honestly and totally convinced that the worst offenders are not the Low Cost but other carriers?
Did I say that? I asked you why you constantly added the word Loco to all your posts in spite of the fact that the thread never pointed to Low Cost carriers in the first place, but you seem to think it does. Please explain. I have never suggested that any carriers are worse or better than any others, unlike you.

Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.

If I were the CEO of any airline I would be unlikely to have the time or inclination to write here, on any subject. Nor am I a management or training pilot. I have however flown for several airlines in Europe for over 25 years, charter and scheduled and not once, never, ever have I felt undue pressure from anyone to accept an aircraft in a non-airworthy condition. Nor, to my knowledge, has any of my work colleagues felt such pressure so to do.
That is what this thread is about, cutting corners with safety due to undue pressure from management.
I am not suggesting that this does not ever occur. I am suggesting that it is isolated, rare and if it does occur it is not a common occurence within Western Europe, as was pointed out by Mr. Learmount in the original article.
Most of the posts here suggest it is common, widespread and occurs on a daily basis, particularly amongst the Low Cost carriers. The facts simply do not support this argumet. Or should I say the lack of facts do not lead anyone except the ranting doomsayers to support such a misguided position. Somebody said they were amazed that there hadn't been more accidents amongst the Low Cost carriers. Pray tell when was the last accident of such an airline in Western Europe.

Just one other point. Mr. Sayers, who was quoted and posted earlier in this thread, was not fired because he stood up to the management because of his refusal to accept an unservicable aircraft. The facts of his case are public knowledge. It had absolutely nothing to do with undue pressure to compromise safety.

Don't make up statistics or quote unrelaible sources nor make unfounded allegations without any apparent evidence or published references. Don't tell us things happen all the time in an airline then refuse to tell us which airline you are reffering to.

Don't rant on and on expecting someone to publish an article in the press which suports your weak and unsupportable argument.

[ShortfinalFred]

Rubik, if you cant see what the "low cost culture" is doing to standards and safety throughout this industry you are either A) blind B) willfully ignorant C) mendacious D) all of the above.

You are certainly not a professional pilot but you may well be a management accountant.

Just remember - if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident. Rostering practises alone in the "Lo Cos" are shameful, let alone the plethora of other issues alluded to in this thread.

[rubik101]

Fred, please justify, with evidence, your assertion that the Low Cost culture, whatever that is, has affected standards and safety throughout the industry. Facts please, not your opinion.

If you had read my post carefully you would know what I do for a living.

How many more times will pprune suffer that phrase about the cost of an accident being more than the cost of safety? Enough!

Give us facts and references or stop slinging mud until it sticks somewhere. I have yet to see one verifiable fact on this thread in reply to any of the posts asking for them. Not once.

Read what I said instead of telling me I am unprofessional.

[ILS27LEFT]

"ILS27Left said;
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this"
Rubik:
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?"

First: I have specifically said "..on
this forum " and not this thread.

See the other threads on Ryanair for example: rosters, bullying, etc. Plenty of posts for you.

They clearly admit to be working for Ryanair. There are hundreds of posts. I know you aren't blind, please check again.

Note to all: check Leo's message history and you have got his CV.
He is probably the reincarnation of Ryanair into a human.

[Accident Prawn]

Rubik

Re Read my posting on this thread posted 8th September 2005 08:43

What are you after? I am a working LoCo airline pilot. I have given my feelings and facts in that posting.

How much evidence are you after precisely?

Why do you need evidence?

The thread's title is: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'

Do you think pilots here are lying? Do you think I am lying?

What is your point anyway? I thought mine is damn crystal clear. I am under pressure, we are (Pilots that is) are under pressure. You're clearly not. Your posts don't exactly offer a solution, they simply disagree with what people seem to write.
Where are you going with your responses???

Why am I getting drawn in even???

[JW411]

I do not think I have ever read more hogwash in all my time on pprune than I have on this thread!

[rubik101]

precisely my point!

[ILS27LEFT]

We have basically 2 groups:

Group 1:
A) There is no pressure and safety is not affected.

Group 2:
A) There is pressure (direct or indirect) and safety is affected.


Now Group 1 is definitely not lying. I trust them and they speak accordingly to their direct working experience.
Otherwise they would be criminals.

IMPORTANT:
Group 1 is saying the truth.
Now:
This does not imply that Group 2 is automatically lying:
this simply means instead that somebody else "honestly" feels the pressure, and believes that this is affecting safety.
It is highly understandable that this second Group is under attack by Management (here).

Group 2 is certainly not lying:they are also saying the truth. Group 1 are simply not aware of this issue. Often Group 1 pilots do not work for the worst offenders.
Why Group 2 pilots shall be inventing these stories?

I am worried about the reaction of Group 1 against 2.
Fair enough.

The objective fact is that the vast majority of pilots belonging to Group 2 are actually working for LoCo carriers. Coincidence?

I think a clarification was needed: we still have too many here trying to confuse the viewers and they are doing an excellent job.

[Spartacan]

rubik101, with regard to my views you wrote:

>>Oh really? Pray tell where you got this jem from? Please supply your reference material.
<<

Sure, the reference is from a report by Icon Consulting (not a group of pilots) which the CAA commissioned.

The executive summary contains the following statement:

>>Captains are increasingly being required to make economic decisions, which is often counter to their traditional role of safely flying the aircraft. There is sometimes a dilemma between safety and economics: a Captain has the responsibility for the safety of a flight but may be blamed by management if he or she is thought to have taken a commercially detrimental decision. If a pilot succumbs to commercial pressure and as a result is involved in an incident, he cannot, in law, defend his position by saying that the company pressured him to take the actions that he did. Some pilots find this dilemma difficult on a day to day basis<<

You may download the full report at:

http://www.icon-consulting.com/study_reports/reportv2.pdf


I suggest, that like me, you fully read the report. It would also aid this debate if you passed a copy to your airline management and posted their views here.

[kiwibird]

>>Following the CAP371 most of what you say is
>>impossible to achieve.

Impossible to achieve 36 sectors in a week? What version of CAP371 do you use? Of course its possible, and the shorter the flights the busier the day.

Impossible to roster high duty hours for someone just before they go on holiday, and use the holiday to reduce their average? What management planet are you on? Everything is possible under CAP 371, as it is constructed like Swiss cheese.





>>Unrealstic turn-around times? If it is possible to turn an aircraft around in 20-25 minutes time
>>after time after time for months on end then when does it become unrealistic?

Of course its possible when all is going well, but what happens when the weather takes a turn for the worse, or a few snags appear. Thats when the pressure starts and mistakes may happen, especially with these rooky crews who are keen to impress management.

Besides, when do the crew get a break - and that goes for cabin as well as flight-deck. I have seen No1s who have not eaten for eight or more hours, because they have not had a chance. Are we working safe here, or do we regard them as merely trolly dollies? What happens when the No1 faints during an emergency?

Likewise myself, I have sometimes sat down on the fifth or sixth flight of the day, and realised that I have not had a moments rest in eight or nine hours. An HGV driver would have had three compusory rests in that time, with the threat of dismissal if he did not take them. But flying is so much easier than driving, we obviously don't need rest free from duties. Instead food is gulped down during the climb and descent, when management in their ivory tower wisdom say we should do nothing other than fly. (We don't all do long sectors.) All management are doing is trying to absolve themselves from blame when the inevitable TCAS incident occurs and recovery is hampered by food trays, but they refuse to address the problems of the real world. Little things like we need to eat and deficate occasionally. We are people not automotons.



Aviation is in a mess and management has their collective head in the sand. But when the inevitable happens, they will suddenly come to life and point fingers at everyone but themselves. I hope the CPS will take a different view - for nothing would give me greater pleasure than to look at our management through bars.



Kiwi

[ILS27LEFT]

Rest and breaks
"One in four office workers in the UK don't take a lunch break away from their desks. Six out of ten leave their offices for 30 minutes or less. No wonder people get stressed at work.
It's worth pointing out to your employer that you are likely to be productive if you take a proper break. "

(Source: God and several scientists)


Official on breaks for pilots:

Source: The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (copyright)/Extract

One paragraph:

"Pattern of work
7. - (1) Where an employer intends to organise work according to a certain pattern he shall take into account the general principle of adapting work to the worker to the extent that is relevant to the objective of protecting workers' health and safety.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), in a case where an employer intends to organise work according to a certain pattern he shall -



(a) ensure that pattern affords the crew member adequate rest breaks, and

(b) take into account the need to ensure, where practicable, that pattern offers the crew member work, within the scope of his duties, that alleviates monotony or working at a pre-determined rate.


Provision of information
8. - (1) When requested to do so by the CAA, an employer shall provide the CAA with such information as it may specify relating to the working patterns of crew members in his employ.

(2) Any information which is generated by an employer relating to the working patterns of crew members shall be retained by the employer for a period of not less than two years"

Statutory Instruments printed from this website are printed under the superintendence and authority of the Controller of HMSO being the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.

The legislation contained on this web site is subject to Crown Copyright protection. It may be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users.

Source: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040756.htm

"crew member" means a person employed to act as a member of the cabin crew or flight crew on board a civil aircraft by an undertaking established in the United Kingdom;

[Faire d'income]

Faire Dincome said;
Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
Please enlighten us as to which airlines you refer.

Rubik for a fella that's named after a puzzle you show little aptitude for figuring things out. If I post anything here as a fact I would most likely end up in court. Though the risk of losing would be minimal the inconvenience and potential cost would not be.

These people get their way through fear and their most potent weapon ( after one's need to stay in a job ) is the prohibitive cost of defending oneself in court.

You may be what you pretend to be or you may be a manger type trying to trap me. Either way I'm not about to subsidise the legal fraternity any further than I already do.

[Ignition Override]

Can Britain/Ireland, Europe learn anything from over 20 years of airline deregulation in the US, or will staff over there repeat some of history's mistakes?

Maybe what happened here is still a secret, at least to those who were in Kindergarten back then.
:oh:

By the way, one of our pilot union rep's had some very interesting comments to make about Ryanair's CEO, but don't know if he questioned safety. However, if a CEO bullys his staff, how can this not have a negative influence on safety?

Even if the comments about the methods to limit flight operation costs are accurate, then there are some quite baffling things going on there, and some are hard for me to believe. I suspect that some aspects of what happens "over there" was created over here.

Former US freight airline owner Connie Kalitta reportedly chased at least one pilot around a plane, and that is just one of the stories.
It was sometimes difficult for a DC-8 crew of three, plus a mechanic, to convince him that the elevator hydraulic pressure was inop.

[one four sick]

rubik101, JW411

Why bother writing all that garbage earlier, if your latest posts were:

I do not think I have ever read more hogwash in all my time on pprune than I have on this thread!

What is your interest in this subject.

BUT, don't bother replying - I don't care!

You are obviously non pilots, therefore have no idea regarding all the valid posts above. With responses like above, my 3 year old could have replaced either of you!