More CHIRP wimpishness

[BEagle]

I note from the latest CHIRP:

"Those operators who elect not to carry the recommended holding fuel for entry into the UK might wish to reflect on the effect of a runway closure or similar disruption to the inbound traffic flow when risk assessing their fuel policy"
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Well, no $hit, Sherlock.

Risk assessing to whom? The unfortunate genpub who live under the approach when some cheapo airline runs out of fuel on arrival?

Either make a policy mean something, or don't have the policy. Weasel-worded 'recommendations' are of b*gger all use to anyone.

[manrow]

Why the cheap dig at 'cheapo airline'?

I gather some major national airlines run their policies on lines which would cause at least embarrassment if runways are suddenly closed.

[fireflybob]

Please let's don't have another slanging match on how much fuel people are flying around with, after all where are all these a/c that are falling out of the sky?

[CABUS]

I would say competitive and cheapo mean almost the same now when it comes down to fuel. I hear that some larger airlines actually have fuel league tables now. Sorry for changing the subject a bit!:sad:

[Gus Hansen]

Either make a policy mean something, or don't have the policy. Weasel-worded 'recommendations' are of b*gger all use to anyone.


Must admit I sort of agree with this statement, however...

As a line pilot, I like it as it stands. It gives me an excuse to put the fuel on if I feel I need it, without the company being able to complain, but the flexability to do without it on occasion 'if appropriate'.

[Romeo India Xray]

My understanding of CHIRP (and I am involved in setting up a similar system elsewhere in the world), is that it is a procedure for us to report things that are "not quite right", or that are a potential problem with the "human factor". CHIRP then make this information available to those who may find it useful i.e. us pilots, the CAA (including those overseas where the report involves overseas pilots or an overseas company), the airlines and any other stakeholders. CHIRP is not there to set rules, it is simply there to make information available to those who may find it useful with the assurance of anonymity for those included in the report.

The wording in this report is not related to those not carrying mandatory minimum reserves (that would be MORable) and I am afraid that bean counters are now pushing for minimum legal fuel to be carried regardless. As a pilot you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any (British at least) airline that took disciplinary action against a pilot who carried the "recommended" expected holding fuel, would find themselves skating on precariously thin ice and if it went to tribunal the media would have a field day. Then again, do you really want to work in an airline that puts the accountant above the captain when it comes to cockpit synergy? I dont!

RIX

[BEagle]

Sorry,

Delete 'cheapo'

Insert 'bean counter driven'

Also, I know that CHIRP doesn't make the rules, but a rather more forthright statement about their observance wouldn't go amiss. 'Might like to reflect' is a very weak Sir Humphrey-esque comment!

[False Capture]

BEagle,

CHIRP doesn't have any authority so it's limited to "weasel-worded 'recommendations'".

Insted of calling it Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP) they should have called it Confidential Reporting Aviation Programme (CRAP).

[Moonraker One]

CHIRPS a complete waste of time and effort.

Don't even bother.

:ugh:

[A and C]

A very naive set of comments from those above who think that CHIRP can instantly change things.

CHIRP is a forum that brings issues to the attention of the industry and regulators.

As with all things "political" issues like fuel policy and security are only influenced over time due to burocratic inertia, with constant and sustained pressure eventualy a tipping point will be reached and policy will be changed.

This tipping point could well be a LO-CO running out of fuel or a crew so destracted by the way "security" had treated them that a major inccident happens. However the job of CHIRP is not to change things..... It cant because it has no mandate to do so, CHIRPS job is to accuratly reflect events in the industry so that the regulators have an accurate picture and act accordingly.

BEgle you are directing your wrath at the wrong people, it is the CAA who must read each issue of CHIRP and willfully ignore it that you should be directing your displeasure at, for it is the CAA who hold the mandate to regulate the industry and are failing to do so.

Unfortunatly it is likely to take a major accident to get the CAA to move on these issues but with the way corporate responsability is being seen in the courts I think that it is not unlikely that some senior CAA managers could find them selfs in the dock for persistantly failing to act on issues raised in CHRIP that directly relate to the accident.

I hope that you will all continue to use CHIRP it is not an instant cure for a problem but very much a long term influence on the situation.

[F14]

Why a LO-CO?

Seem to remember BA, especially concorde, were always calling fuel emergencies. From my time operating under their procedures seem to recall something to do with using Gatwick and Heathrow as the same "airfield" therefore reducing reserves from 30 to 15mins.

There were of course caveats, (EAT, good weather etc)

I thought Korean were the record holders for low fuel arrivals in LHR?

[BOAC]

Please have another read of, and a think about, A and C's post?

Let us just imagine the steaming outrage on this forum if a non-regulatory body (CHIRP) started mandating the fuel planning for the complainers here. Who would be the first with blood dripping from the keyboard?

It remains a useful information dissemination facility and as A and C says, it is the regulatory bodies you should be directing your flak at. Have you?

If it gets you so exercised, ask to be removed from the mailing list.

[AMEandPPL]

The ideal for any pilot, of course, is that one's flights are totally unremarkable, and therefore more or less undocumented.

But if being "mentioned in despatches" does become inevitable I would certainly much rather that my exploits featured in CHIRP, than in that other monthly aviation publication from the AAIB !

[Centaurus]

CHIRP is a forum that brings issues to the attention of the industry and regulators

CHIRP may well have political constraints and thus treads lightly in case it gets shut down as being too pilot/ATC/engineer friendly. Nevertheless it would make contributors look less like a bunch of whingers if CHIRP at least spoke firmly and use straight talk instead of being ever so nice so as not to risk offending some civil servant.

[BOAC]

My copy has now arrived.

Of course, C, and the sort of 'speaking' you seek is evident on page 12 (L2 variations) but they can go NO FURTHER. I certainly do not know PT as a 'placator'.

All should read Peter's editorial on the front page, in particular para 3. The route for those who DO see safety issues in what they are 'expected' to do is - if indeed they are 'brave' enough? - to use the formal reporting system. CHIRP even offer a CAA non-MOR email address for you all on page 13.

It is the same when 'whinging' on this forum, making you feel good, venting your spleen, but like wetting your nappy, the warm feeling does not last long. Others do, of course, get to see your points and action may eventually be driven.

I suspect a large percentage of those PPrune 'complainers' have never ever filed an MOR? If it is fuel you are all exercised about, divert if you have not got enough. If you actually have enough, using all 'approved' adjustments and procedures, but just don't like what you are being told by your company.............................please do not blame CHIRP!

[A and C]

Why LO-CO ?

Because it is in the LO-CO.......... sorry LO-service sector that the most agrresive managements seem to rule ,fuel policy is strictly enforced and FDM is used as a disiplinery tool, not as intended as a flight safety tool.

This is not the culture within these airlines, just individual pilots mistakes.

[demomonkey]

I fear I am walking over already well trodden ground. But for those who seem ignorant of the role of CHIRP, it might be worth re-iterating what the acronym stands for;

Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme


I think CHIRP is a fantastic idea, long may it live! Those of you whom think it is a toothless paper tiger, I have only one question, if it didn't exist who would you turn too.

Please don't say 'the union' that's too funny!

[Checkboard]

The Australian AIP has a section for traffic holding fuel. Each of the major airports is listed there, and you can look up your arrival time - for instance arriving in Sydney, between (say) 4:30pm local and 6 pm local, carry 30 mins holding. Carriage of this traffic holding is mandatory.

(Edit: It should also be noted that the Aussie fuel rules are written in such a way that carrying a diversion airport is not usual - unless the weather requires it. As opposed to Europe, where the regs a written so as to carry a diversion airport, unless everything is fine - in which you may decide not to - which results in it being quite uncommon not to carry diversion fuel in Europe.)

When I first came to Europe five years ago, I asked about traffic holding, and the only answer was "Oh, it's just based on local knowledge." !! There doesn't seem to be any answer if you AREN'T a local.

If CHIRP were to make a solid recommendation, then at least following the Australian tried and tested example would be better than a vague "recommendation" I think.

I do recognise that the CTOT system, where most traffic holding takes place on the ground, is better here than it was in Australia 6 or so years ago.

[Dengue_Dude]

I wrote a long report on a foreign operator and quoted names, dates, aircraft etc etc.

CHIRP pointed out that these occurrences did not happen in European airspace and therefore could not actually DO anything. What they DID do was place my report on the Operator's File, so that Inspectors carrying out Ramp Checks were able to read it before 'duty'.

Considering they 'couldn't do much', they did. Shortly afterwards the airline had a major accident (also out of Europe), however the operator now appears to be/or was banned.

I am satisfied that they did the best they could, and it was more than I expected. Had CHIRP not existed, I would have had to 'stew in my own juice' as there was nowhere else I could go.

Don't knock them - yes this latest comment is mealy-mouthed, but what can THEY (CHIRP) do if operators don't wish to "reflect" on their fuel policy.

CHIRP is the confidential reporting system NOT the sheriff - that's the Department of Transport.

[BOAC]

Safety Concerns - what difficulties do you have with The two are not mutually exclusive If it were not so, we would have NO airlines operating at all - but doing it VERY safely.

We have no 'profile' for you, but you suggest you might be a commercial pilot. Do you insist on no MEL items? Do you take 10% extra fuel everywhere 'just in case'? Do you always insist on an autoland where the facilities exist, even in CAVOK?

All 'commercial' flying is, by definition, based on commercial concerns. That is unavoidable. If I can safely save some operating costs for my employer, I do it. It is not 'mutually excluded'

I recall one 'deluded' senior manager who commented to me that "a ship is only safe if it never leaves harbour" when I threw a wobbly about some accumulative snags on a BA a/c. (However he had obviously forgotten Pearl Harbour....):)

[point8six]

CHIRP is read widely by those involved in professional aviation matters and is being copied in various other states. Whether or not its contents are acted upon by the relevant authorities is for those who have contributed to it, to determine. It is not a substitute for the MOR facility, but it is (in my view) a valuable insight into the concerns of those involved in any form of air safety - pilots, engineers, cabin crew, ATC etc.. The only alternative would be a 'whinge' in PPRuNe, which allows the non-involved to state their more-often-than-not irrelevant comments. At least the concerns of a CHIRP poster are commented on by 'an authority' (whether to your satisfaction or not).
Keep CHIRP going, it is at least an addition to improving air safety. If you feel it is not, then you have the democratic right to file it in the appropriate place!

[BOAC]

SC - are you therefore disagreeing with the CHIRP 'statement' or the fact that they have even mentioned the word 'commercial'? I prefer to look at CHIRP as taking a pragmatic approach to safety, highlighting issues and spreading the word. Taking the 'hot' topic of fuel loads, are you saying that CHIRP should just support unlimited excesses (as they are 'safe') and totally ignore the fact that the airline would soon be bankrupt if these uneccessary extra loads were carried all the time, or should they promote the sensible approach that fuel should be loaded as needed to assure as much safety as is practical - i.e. the 'commercial' approach?

The basic statement "Commercial Air Transport operations must be safe and also commercially viable." is surely beyond criticism - or the 'operation' ceases to be 'commercial'.

In a real world safety and survival as a business are not two separate unassociated items. CHIRP is simply reflecting the real world. If they chose to de-focus on reality, what credibilty would they have?

[Gus Hansen]

Guys (and girls to be PC)

I think we ought to agree to disagree on the use of the word 'commercial' by CHIRP.

At the end of the day we are all trying to achive the same thing, a SAFE operation that is COMMERCIALLY viable.

The CAA or whoever make the rules and CHIRP gives us a sounding board where we can raise concerns without sticking our heads up above the parapit... supposedly.
What isn't clear is what the CAA do with regards to the reports and whether they folow them up with the operator... from reading them regularly I tend to think that sometimes this doesn't happen.

I must admit what worries me is that a UK AOC holder can put in place procedures that enable it to intimadate crews into taking flight plan fuel when their judgement may suggest more is required. (Page 9 Sector Fuel - Relearning an old lesson) I think CHIRP should name and shame such operators, if only to highlight the problem. :ok:

I'm lucky in that we are simply encouraged to think about what extra we take (which to my mind is part of our job as professional pilots) but I have never heard of anyone being taken to task over their decisions, or even have them ever queried.

[stator vane]

which is, "both the DOT and CAA have declined to take ANY action in response to the reported difficulties experienced by flight crew..."

[manrow]

I think we are trying to read too much into the words published in CHIRP.

Since the major purpose of CHIRP Is to provide a communication channel for an observation which caused someone alarm, then it has certainly achieved its aim here!

What we are actually discussing here is the lack of action by regulators in cases where the accountants do now as a matter of course interfere in the decision making processes of the flight crew.

[BEagle]

The balance between safe operation and bean counter driven bottom line commercialism needs to be carefully considered by CHIRP. Their prime focus should be upon safety concerns, untainted by political or commercial pressure. Perhaps that's naive, but right now I think that CHIRP has lost focus in this regard.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

It puts me in mind of a colleague who went for an interview with a 'big airline' at a time when they preferred 'managers' to 'pilots'. As he already had an offer of employment from another airline, he was in a 'What the hell' mood...... He was asked which was more important to an airline - operations or management. "Simple", he said, "Operations!". When that brought a few grey stares and mumbling amongst his inquisitors, he continued "Poor management might possibly hurt a few shareholders, but poor operations will certainly kill a few passengers. I don't wish to work for any airline which doesn't understand that, so good-bye!!"

[BOAC]

OK - I'll bite: what would you two have expected CHIRP to say on 'sector fuel' and Level2 regulation, and when would you expect to see changes in CAA regulatory policy resulting?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I was somewhat perturbed at the Chirp Comment under this particular article, on Page 12, which concluded:

'In the absence of appropriate rest facilities and/or an Operations Manual procedure for sharing the flight deck duties, it is difficult to conclude that this practice achieves anything other than three tired pilots being on the flight deck, as opposed to two.'

Surely, the answer lies in flight crew and their respective Unions/staff representatives not accepting this situation, rather than a general resignation, as this article concludes, that this mode of operation will be accepted.

If flight crew don't like it, then don't do it!

Who are the airlines to dictate working practices which, while not necessarily contravening flight time limitation legislation, appear to contravene any semblance of common sense?!

I was fatigued by a constant 6 on, 4 sector day routine until, finally, I considered my performance was not safe. I had the Captain contact 'ops' and state I had a 'tummy upset' and got off after the first two sectors. Luckily the Captain was a CRM instructor who understood, and appreciated, the dilemma I had. On the assumption that, as pilots, we work on the premise of 'safety first', that was one day in which I could say I would not have wanted the wife and kids in the back.

Why do pilots continually take c**p like this without so much of a fight?

The pilot mentality is sometimes hard to comprehend and I can only assume that the 'tradition' stems from military edict that 'the mission must be completed' (hopefully not at all cost)?

Pilots seem to spend their time wingeing and moaning (for which PPruNe is the ideal platform) but seem less than 'heroes' when it comes to fighting for their own rights and conditions of employment?

Sorry to be on my high-horse, but I have always taken action if I don't like the way I am treated by employers - which in the past has involved BALPA fighting my cause and resigning from employment.

If others stuck to their guns then maybe the role of the airline pilot would not be diminished as it has been over the past few decades.

If I'm wrong tell me, but exploitation in any form is surely not acceptable?

KR

FOK :)

[FlyingOfficerKite]

anoxic

That's all well and good - but try taking on one of the largest low-cost operators in the World who, at the time, let it be known that any pilot who suffered from 'fatigue' would be looked upon unsympathetically. We were all supposed to get adequate rest as the airline complied with CAP 307 and it was the pilot's fault if s/he was 'tired'. Even with minimum rest (12 hours) when it took 1 hour to drive to and from the airport (10 hours left) and at least an hour to eat (9 hours left), time for leisure (2 hours) and then to sleep (maximum 7 hours) - and NO - few pilots lived within an hour of base (and why should they when the airline stipulated one and a half hours as a maximum?)

I didn't take them on - a few of us resigned.

Looking back the lifestyle was c**p and all to fly a jet at an hourly rate, when calculated taking into account the actual hours worked, was a pittance.

Been there, done that and on reflection I realise that the pilots who succeeded the best were the single guys and gals without many commitments outside aviation.

KR

FOK :)

[BOAC]

Hello again, SC. What, then, did YOU do to stop the a/c flying post 18.08, never mind 19.08, assuming, of course, you have any control? Have you yet come up with your re-write of the CHIRP editorial?

For the MODS:
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/349971-chirps.html#post4513439 - would you consider asking the poster to validate what is otherwise a libellous post (post number #3 'TURIN') with the names of officer/officers of CHIRPS and airlines involved or to withdraw the post? In the decades of dealing with CHIRP I have seen nothing but propriety and efficient action on my reports - but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, of course. Separate 'post report' on its way, guys.

[Zorst]

Perhaps we could have a comprehensive list of all the good things that CHIRP has achieved in its time? And a rough cost of all the good work?

Completely
Harmless
Immunity for
Regulators from
Problems

[manrow]

We have a dilemma here; a few want to kick butt, as they see imperfections in CHIRP's role or certainly their written responses.

There is another underlying thread which wants to talk about the difficulties pilots encounter when trying to operate complicated equipment in an era when the bean counters cannot evaluate the cost implications other than to say, if there is a cost implication don't do it!

It is for the regulators to demonstrate they they sit in the middle of this debate, (or should do), and show their backbone, as strident tones alone from CHIRP will not achieve all that the pilot fraternity seek.

[Zorst]

CHIRP has done a fantastic job over many years


Really?

What has it done?

What has changed?

What benefit has been gained?

...and (with apologies to the late and much missed Douglas Adams), what invisible losses accrue as regulators and authorities shrug their shoulders at anything which they can shove CHIRP's way, safe in the knowledge that it's Someone Else's Problem?

[FatFlyer]

The "20 minutes recommended holding fuel" which the AIC suggests, equates to approx 700kg in B737/A319.
Some rough maths -
extra burn on short haul sector for 700kg c. 40 kg per flight
large uk airline 300 flights per day to LGW,STN & LTN = 12000kg extra burn per day.
at about $1000 per tonne = 4.3 Million US$ (£3 M) per year.

One can see why management "encourage" carrying flight plan fuel.

An incident closing eg LGW would probably result in a few emergencies being declared. I have never had to hold for 20 minutes inbound to LGW, STN or LTN. Should this only apply to LHR?

Because of the large cost of carrying this extra fuel, the CAA need to make it mandatory if they consider it neccessary as operators are unlikely to comply otherwise.

[TheKabaka]

For the record

From my time operating under their {BA} procedures seem to recall something to do with using Gatwick and Heathrow as the same "airfield" therefore reducing reserves from 30 to 15mins.


Absolute rubbish

[BOAC]

Partly rubbish, 'TheKabaka' - in fact in BA LHR and LGW were 'second runways' for each other, thereby allowing 'the keenies' to g/a at LGW with 30 mins remaining fuel and arrive at LHR over the densely populated parts of West London with not a left. All fully approved by the CAA.

[Ayrshott]

Zorst,

A few years ago, at two UK civil airports, CHIRP was more than useful at getting things done. (At a time when the ATC Chief Officer could stop reports going off unit, all of them safety issues)

Ayrshott.

[Zorst]

Thank you for the reminder, Ayrshott.

Can anyone suggest a second good deed in, say, the last decade?

[AMEandPPL]

Can anyone suggest a second good deed in, say, the last decade?

Ongoing at the present time is a fascinating discussion in "Private Flying"
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/350176-clearance-cancelled-once-airborne.html

This was instigated by a CHIRP report, and has aired a large number of views and valid points.

1. ATCO's who read it will, hopefully, think more carefully about the effects of their instructions on inexperienced or VFR only PPL's.

2. PPL's who read it may now be more confident about declining ATC instructions in circumstances where danger could increase.

In either case, air safety has to be improved. Thanks are due to CHIRP for bringing this case to our attention.

[fmgc]

In my Airline we had a number of FTL issues most prominent being the use of 18-30 hour rest periods.

There was intensive CHIRP reporting by my colleagues and this led to a Special Operations Check by the CAA.

If people report then it does work.

If you don't like the feedback that CHIRP give on an issue, then report that.

It is only by proper use of CHIRP that it has any power to do anything. I would suggest that pilot apathy is the biggest problem.