jetstar curfew fine at YSSY

[bullamakanka]

Her it is folks.The "jury" has spoken.




Jetstar has become the first Australian airline to be prosecuted and fined for breaching Sydney Airport's curfew.
The airline was fined $148,500 in Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court on Tuesday for breaching the curfew on December 3, 2007, federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said.
Jetstar pleaded guilty to the breach in January 2009.
Mr Albanese said a Jetstar flight breached the curfew when it departed Sydney airport about 30 minutes after the 11pm curfew, even though an application for dispensation was rejected.
The court decision sent a strong message to other airlines, Mr Albanese said.
"Compliance with curfew legislation must be observed," he said in a statement.
"The government remains committed to the retention of the existing curfew and cap on movements at Sydney Airport."
The maximum penalty for a curfew breach is $500,000.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Oktas8]

What would it have cost for Jetstar to stay at Sydney for the night? Perhaps an unethical manager actually saved the company money...

[Mr.Buzzy]

What an embarrassment that joint is!

The world laughs at us!

The only good thing about Sydney airport is the Deena 4!.... oh and the kebab place in the VB terminal

bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[7378FE]

Jetstar don't care about the fine, QANTAS will be paying the fine. :ok:

7378FE

[Qantas 787]

Another reason why YSSY is a joke.......god forbid a couple of minutes late is going end the world.

I am sure all the JQ passengers on board agreed with the decision. Besides, the aircraft actually took over water, not land so the "disruption" to the precious residents would havebeen minimal.

[Mr. Hat]

I think a warning for a first time would have been enough.

[Ref + 10]

The curfew is an absolute joke.

The Hawker 900XP was rejected from the excemption list even though the 850XP which is noisier has been on it for years. During curfew you can only take off or land over the water anyways so what is the harm done? Are the ships unloading in Botany Bay going to complain?

The answer from the department was something about "not putting an additional undue pressure on the system during curfew hours". Please, SY controllers could make a killing playing the US stock market (at the moment anyway) or writing a thesis during curfew as there is nothing else to do.

"Undue pressure on my re-election" would have been far more appropriate!!

As for the fine. The re-election issue would be a likely consideration again. "I have been tough on the reckless airlines who so brazenly break the rules. Under this government, the airlines have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars....." :D:hmm::rolleyes:

[OneDotLow]

The curfew issue at Sydney is one to which I will not be drawn into deep comment, other than to say I think that any 'global city' should have an airport accessible by international jet operations 24 hrs / day.

That having been said, rules are rules, and to blatantly disregard them (and no it was not a matter of 'just a few minutes') is criminal by definition and deserves to be punished! If you don't like the rules by which the game is played, don't break them, lobby to get them changed. All this incident serves to do it weaken JQ/QFs position to get the rules changed.

I say again SYD needs another airport which is not affected by this curfew...

[clark y]

A question for the tower controllers in YSSY. Do you know if someone who wants to blastoff during curfew has a dispensation or do you just have to trust the pilots? I find it strange that the tower would let you TKOF knowing that it is breaking the law.

[airtags]

One Dot
before we go for another airport in YSSY let's try to make the one we've got work better.

The checklist to a better YSSY starts (and finishes) with getting the pollies and their tail covering flunkies out of the game - scrap the movement cap - open up the curfew for designated a/c types - and fix Air Services.

The green paper submissions under infrastructure and noise are full of well meaning advocacies but reality is that the numbers in the adjoining (possibly marginal) electorate offer a more convincing argument.

[heads_down]

$148,500 what a joke of a fine
even an average house in Sydney cost more than the fine, Jet* laughing all the way to the bank still.

The judge should be reminded Qantas boasts of its cash reserve at 3 billion dollars, I'd say maximum fine of 500,000 is still a little ripple in the Indian ocean. Not felt nor heard, not even newsworthy.

[schlong hauler]

The Captain should be demoted or punished for this total disregard of the curfew. Whether he was leaned on by a tosser manager or not does not obsolve him/her from his duty to obey rules including a curfew no matter what their opinion. I don't believe there would be a QF pilot that would have the balls or stupidity to try this on. Flagrant disregard for the curfew by the crew and Jetstar is a total joke.

[Starts with P]

A question for the tower controllers in YSSY. Do you know if someone who wants to blastoff during curfew has a dispensation or do you just have to trust the pilots? I find it strange that the tower would let you TKOF knowing that it is breaking the law.

Aircraft are advised that penalties may apply, and then they can depart if they still want to go ahead. ATC's lost the ability to stop aircraft a long time ago. It's up to the captain.

[clark y]

Starts with P,

thanks for the answer.

For all we know, the flight crew were told by operations that they had a dispensation.
As for the curfew, I fully agree with the above posts. what a joke.

[Dave Incognito]

'International cities'?

Does that mean other backwaters such as London and Frankfurt don't qualify either due to their night restrictions?

[Capt Kremin]

Taking off after 11.00pm is not a criminal offence by the way. It is an offence against the legislation, but not criminal. Other airlines have made the commercial decision to ignore the curfew and been fined as well. I am no fan of Jetstar but keep this in perspective.

[dodgybrothers]

if it comes down from the ceo to take off and he'll suffer the consequences then I'll go. Talk of sacking or demoting is utter nonsense considering the only offense is noise. Off the soapbox please.

[Old Fella]

Having an international airport which is restricted to only 17 hours of operation per day is a bit like having an interstate highway only able to be used in daylight. As others have said, if the politicians had any desire to do anything other than get re-elected they would tell the complainants to sell up and bloody well move. There would be very few, if anyh, that have moved into the noise affected area that did not know there was an airport nearby.

[littlehurcules]

Yeh - but now that the curfew has been in place for some years now - the public/locals/pollies etc are going to have a big fight on their hands to get that changed so that SY can ben used 24/7.

[hoss]

my 2 cents, get rid of the stupid cufew. the runway 16/34 alignment has been at SYD for probably 50 years. get over it if you live on a flightpath.

and 'up yours' to the limit of movements.

with the company's blessing, i would break the curfew with glee in a heartbeat!

ps. dodgy, when in SYD next dial 1800-HOSS-BEER.;)

[teresa green]

I am with you old fella, this curfew has been going far to long, as for JQ they probably needed to reposition this A/C, so decided, bugger, its cheaper to pay the fine, the airport has been there since your grandfather was born, if you don't like it move someplace else, aviation like interstate trucks should be allowed to operate 24/7 as in most civilised countries, :mad: stupid, because of spineless pollies, think of the jobs it would generate for a start. I LIVE under the flight path at OOL and don't give a ratz if they fly all night, they can compete with the hoons, police/ fire sirens,and the medical helicopters flying between hospitals, whats a few A320's and 737's to add to the mix, you get used to it like everything else, if you can't, go bush or buy some ear plugs.

[KittyKatKaper]

YSSY certainly has been where it is for a lot longer than I've been alive, but when Mr JW Howard decided to 'share the noise' because his electorate happened to be under the North/South runways, I suddenly got a heck of a lot more late-night westerly departures than I'd every had in all of my years living north-west of the airport.

I have zero sympathy for any noise complainers who decided to live near or under the direct N/S & E/W flightpaths within the previous 20 years.

What erks me is that the 'share the noise' philosophy means that I get frequent nights where the 'beat the curfew' technique has everybody initially heading west off 34L before they get on track.

[mikkk]

I think it is wrong to inflict noise on people late at night.

You will find that although the current residents moved in after KSA was built the houses they live in were there first. Should all those houses just be left vacant? KSA used to be a racecourse and was surrounded by suburbs long before the Wright bros were a glint in the milkmans eye. Saying they moved in there knowing is both disingenuous and selfish.

We are not talking national emergency or vital movement here we are talking late night businessmen and people going to or from holidays. Why should they get dispensation to destroy peoples sleep? Has anyone seen any of the recent research on sleep deprivation and sleep patterns in society? Dont forget we are also talking children here. What damage does interrupted sleep do to young minds and bodies? What are the effects of lack of sleep on pilots? Would you like it if the pilot of the plane you were flying in lived under a flight path with no curfew?

Not to mention stuff the airlines and their pursuit of profits at the expense of everyone else.

[ZEEBEE]

I think it is wrong to inflict noise on people late at night.

Aircraft (except Queenairs :uhoh:) are not noise.

I live on the flight path at YPPH where there is no curfew and though we get movements right through the night, it isn't really an issue.
In fact, if it were more consistent, we would probably notice it even less.

Only other problem is listening to the SFC BE58s "losing" an engine at the MM and the resulting howl of the "good engine" getting caned doing the missed app. Painful:eek:

[PyroTek]

How about a policy where RPT ops are required to have a flight scheduled before x time, however have till x time to get out?

How about no curfew and a surcharge of $5 for each passenger payable to tradies willing to install soundproofing to those on the flight path who want it.:p

[heads_down]

Just remembered if Qantas can and did criminal price fixing not for one day but for a few years, they can surely break curfews without feeling any guilt, because just like the criminal case, everyone in sydney gets off scot free as usual.

All fines are just a operating expense which is tax deductible end of financial year.

Therefore legislation should be changed not to allow companies claim fines as an operating expense so they will be more careful and think twice before they break laws again the next time.

I mean what's the point of a fine as punishment when at the end of the day, it is just an operating expense that can be claimed in full end of financial year, so on one hand the judge hands down the fine and on the other hand, the company takes it all back through ATO end of June. It's a joke, there is no deterrent, just a delay.

[KittyKatKaper]

Pyrotek
Replace 'scheduled' with 'with a taxi clearance' and that's pretty much the situation in Sydney.
(refer to "noise abatement procedures" in the Sydney DAP.)

There was a noise levy (ie tax) of around $3/jet-pax between 1995 and 2006, but did I get any assistance with noise proofing after the flight-paths were changed ??.....
(silly question)

[Stationair8]

mikkk, you do drugs by any chance?

No doubt you would complain about aircraft noise when the RFDS Kingair brings in a sick kid at 3am into YSSY, grizzle about the organ transplant flight in a Learjet in the early hours, no doubt you never need some piece of urgent freight for your business?

[Capt Kremin]

The whole set of rules regarding the curfew is a joke. For Rwy 16, as long as you call for taxi before 11.00pm then you can take-off. This has led to aircraft calling for taxi before they even pushback! The subsequent departure is deemed legal no matter how far past 11.00pm that it occurs.

Why?

The dispensation system is a joke as well. It seems to be purely subjective. Sometimes you get a dispensation... sometimes you don't. It can't be predicted beforehand.:ugh::ugh:

[bullamakanka]

I have benefited from what capt Krem is talking about in the past.
It was all legit though. We pushed, then got a taxi clearance before 2300, then on the taxi had a fault with the aircraft. We returned, to the apron, not the bay, thus not requiring another taxi clearance (at the advice of the helpful ATC). Got the problem fixed, then taxied again and finally departed well after 2300. It was all kosher and worked well. Many thanks to the ATC involved!!

[Ken Borough]

Regardless of what we think of the law or the curfew, the fact remains that there is a curfew at Sydney which the law requires to be enforced/obeyed. Thus, anyone who knowingly breaks the curfew and therefore the law must be punished. In the case of Jetstar and its fine, I can only say that the fine was insufficient - $140000 plus is f*** all compared with the cost of a night-stop and subsequent disruption. Until the curfew and law changes, the penalties should be significantly be increased, say $1m per infringement, to ensure that errant corporate cowboys comply with the law of the land.

And yes. There are strong reasons to justifiably get rid of the curfew but petty politics will always get in their way.

[Icarus2001]

What an embarrassment. I guess if you really need to get into Sydney during the night you could hire a business jet and land at Bankstown

Don't the 146 freighter aircraft go in there every night? So a 146 passenger jet could do the same? Just like London City?

[ZEEBEE]

Regardless of what we think of the law or the curfew, the fact remains that there is a curfew at Sydney which the law requires to be enforced/obeyed. Thus, anyone who knowingly breaks the curfew and therefore the law must be punished. In the case of Jetstar and its fine, I can only say that the fine was insufficient - $140000 plus is f*** all compared with the cost of a night-stop and subsequent disruption. Until the curfew and law changes, the penalties should be significantly be increased, say $1m per infringement, to ensure that errant corporate cowboys comply with the law of the land.

What a load of Bollocks.....All to appease a few pimply whingers who ought to be sent to Cobar or Warburton. :ugh::yuk:

[schlong hauler]

I thought it was illegal for an employer to coerce an employee to break the law? How can a Captain of an RPT jet knowingly take off after the curfew period commences. Yeah I know minimas dont apply too me either because I know better. Arrogance or absolute ignorance. I know of many times where late night departures were cancelled due to curfew problems by Qantas. This has nothing to do with Qantas Operations. If we did it our arse would be kicked all over QCC by the chief pilot. Judging by the way this thread has drifted off topic, most of you don't even understand the rules and laws under which you must operate and comply with.

[Eastwest Loco]

Easy fix - Compensate anyone living who bought or rented a house before the airport was built by a seven figure sum, tell every person who bought a house at deflated prices due to it being under the flight path to go pound wet sand up their arse and make it a 24 hour airport.

There will be none living who beat the airport in, and if there are any left they will be of venerable age and probably deaf.

The whingers have all had their houses double glazed for nothing.

For them, there is a bus leaving in 5 minutes - be under it.

Best all

EWL

[mikkk]

Station
How about you address my arguments instead of spouting abuse?

If it saves a life I would be fine with it. Did the Jetstar plane that got fined save anyones life?

[nick2007]

Ok, I am sure this is going to irritate a few people, but please consider how you have responded to this topic so far.

It amuses me that nearly every day I see new posts on this forum relating to pilots' poor working conditions, with sweeping statements along the lines of "management wouldn't know how to run an airline, they don't care about us pilots" etc.

Yet here we have a situation where our industry affects other people's lives, and we lash out with more sweeping statements: "I have zero sympathy..." etc.

My conclusion... pilots whine just as much as "pimply whingers who ought to be sent to Cobar or Warburton".

[teresa green]

Probably the Skippers, if he promised the missus he would be home to mind the kids, and didn't show, I had to dodge a few saucepans for that sin.:bored:

[captaintunedog777]

You clowns really do not have a clue. It was obviously done because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to cancel the flight. Business is business. Who cares I would have no issue if it saved bucks and got everyone to their destination.

Well done to Jetstar, the Cap and evryone else involved.

[QF DRIVE]

The only way to make the fine effective would be to fine the captain.

He may have had instructions from the company to go, but he went knowing full well he was breaking the law.

I'm sure that even if the company paid the fine on behalf of the captain, he would not want a criminal conviction on his record.

[Capt Kremin]

Its not a criminal offence. Can we get that straight? In the same way that exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/h is not a criminal offence.

[ZEEBEE]

Its not a criminal offence. Can we get that straight? In the same way that exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/h is not a criminal offence.

It was a POLITICAL decision to appease those who were in a position to inflict harm on the then incumbent. Nothing has changed in that regard except that we now have a Guvmint that is far less sympathetic to aircraft than the previous one was.
This infringement (that's ALL it was) would have probably been overlooked previously.

Whilst it could be argued that landings on 16 CAN be disturbing to the punters at Tempe or wherever, it's hard to see how a departure over Botany Bay (assuming it was 16R) could have concerned anybody.

let's just go back to the dark ages

Okay Okay, I was on the way out anyway

[captaintunedog777]

Criminal offence. Now that is funny. Even drink driving isn't a criminal offence.

[Derek P]

From what I understand is that the crew were ordered to depart by Operations which I would expect would have been approved by senior management considering the financial implications for departing after curfew.

This has nothing to do with the pilot. He followed company command for an act that did not place him, his crew, the aircraft or the passengers in any danger.

It must be obvious that it was in the best interests of Jetstar to send the aircraft versus park it for the night and overnight all passengers (on both sides) plus handle the follow-on disruption this would have caused. With only a few aircraft in the network, any disruption to the 'highly untilised' 330 fleet would probably cost the organisation more then what the fine did...

Obviously this is not a common event - in 5 years of operation this is the only such breach of curfew. The airline made a decision which was in its best interests for the airline and its customers.

[Ken Borough]

The airline made a decision which was in its best interests for the airline and its customers.

.....but they still broke the effing law. If every company and/or individual did what was in its/his/her best interest, anarchy would reign. What happened was corporate irresponsibility that should be been punished by a punative fine so that the offence would then 'be not in the best interests' of the comapny. Further, where is the responsibility of the individuals in JQ who authorised and sanctioned the law violation, not to mention the person who actually did it?

[ZEEBEE]

Ken Borough

but they still broke the effing law.

yes, and that's the problem...its an effing law that doesn't take unusual operational requirements into consideration.
Repeat after me...no one was endangered and no one got hurt.
Sometimes the law has to be broken if it's a stupid law that is purely a political expedient.

Further, where is the responsibility of the individuals in JQ who authorised and sanctioned the law violation, not to mention the person who actually did it?

Towards the company they work for obviously. :D
They would have weighed up the risk vs benefit and made the decision.
Anyone who can't/won't do that wouldn't be working for me.

Glad to see commonsense prevail. :ok:

[ozbiggles]

So where do you draw the line?
What laws can you break just because you believe they are stupid?
Crew duty? go that extra hour to make sure the company doesn't lose any money?
Carry that little bit less fuel so the company doesn't lose any money?
Push that extra 50 foot below minima?
The law/rule/regulation was there.
The company (I don't care what company) made a deliberate decision to disregard it based purely on economics.
Where would you draw the line? Thats why we have rules/regulations/laws. So people can't do what ever they feel like when it suits them, thats how accidents happen.
Some say this wasn't dangerous.
How much pressure where the crew under to get going? the ground crew? How was their crew duty? How much were they thinking about how much trouble was going to happen from that decision instead of thinking about the job at hand?
I can't think of any more blatant disregard of the rule. The company had probably written off the 500K, they must be laughing at HQ only being fined 100K.
You think your company will look after you when it all turns to tears? Ask the Qantas exec in jail in the USA.

[mcgrath50]

What I don't get is why, if it was illegal to take off, did the tower issue a take off clearance??

Someone earlier said they can only advise that curfew is in operation, how can they not enforce curfew, like they do separation standards or any other regulation. They wouldn't issue a clearance if the separation standards were broken so why would they issue one when the curfew is broken? :confused:

[GE90115BL2]

If the company tell me to fly from A to B and it's operationally safe ( as in this case ) then of course I'd go, who wouldn't? Operational decisions like these are made every day by trained OPERATIONS staff at each Airlines head office, that's what they're there for. If they wish to bust a curfew and the a/c departure is safe from a Pilot/Engineering/Wx point of view then that's their decision.

It's their a/c after all.

[Going Boeing]

If the company tell me to fly from A to B and it's operationally safe ( as in this case ) then of course I'd go, who wouldn't?

I wouldn't. Operations staff are there in a support role and even though they are well trained, they generally haven't experienced operations at the coalface. Pilots (especially Captains) have traditionally been paid well, not just because of their flying skills but because of their experience and management skills. We are paid to make these decisions - with advice from other specialists. If you let these decisions be made by other staff then you are endorsing Jetstar's low salaries - they are simply paying you to be a pilot, not a Captain.

It's their a/c after all.

And it's your licence.

In Australia, you may get away with just a fine, but try doing this in another country and you could end up in jail for a considerable time.

[TMAK]

GB

but it was Australia and it wasnt a criminal offence, this is why support people and the associated structures and systems are in place. This is not really different from a truck driver not following a "no engine braking" area at night...he probably wont get locked up..and certainly not fined over 100K.

It is not a safety rule...but exists simply to satisfy complaining people who moved into houses after the airport was built and probably had sound proofing installed courtesy of you and I travelling. Of course had it been a safety issue the tower would not have let them go....

Ask the 300 pax on the flight if they think the 100K is worth it...given the circumstances around this flight I find it quite poor that dispensation was not given. But such is life.

[Tankengine]

2 things, quite separate [which some don't seem to understand]

1 : Curfew rules stuffed, should change.

2 : Manager who ordered Captain to depart knowingly broke rules [laws,whatever!] put in place by the Parlament!
Since fines like this are an obvious joke that Manager should be GAOLED for perhaps 6 months!:ok:

I wonder if the next manager would do so again!

As a Captain there is no way I would depart without a dispensation!:ugh:

[blow.n.gasket]

oxbiggles has hit the nail on the head.
Whether you agree with them or not ,rules are rules, where do you draw the line?
To all the JetStar pilots supporting this curfew busting decision, what does this say about the culture at JetStar?
What other rules are also considered an impediment to the profit making ability of the Jetstar juggernaught?:hmm:

[bushy]

The captain knowingly broke the law of the land. And was allowed to do so without penalty.
The company also broke the law of the land and was fined an ammount that will not discourage a repeat of that event.
It is very, very unusual for these airlines to be in court at all. They are all powerful in Australia.

[GE90115BL2]

Most Airlines have fully trained OPERATIONS staff that deal with these type of things and instruct the crew as to what the company want you to do. They know lots of things I don't such as overflight charges, landing and parking charges, interline connections, Engineering rotations, fuel prices at each port, medical facilities, staff availability, hotel availability, catering availability , blah blah blah. IT'S THEIR JOB TO KNOW, not mine.

If the airport is serviceable ( lights on, aids on, ATC available, Wx ok ) then if my company make the decision to dispatch the a/c ( even after I remind them about a curfew ) then it's their call.

My control as Captain starts at doors closed and pertains to the continued safe operation of my Aircraft. Busting an airport curfew doesn't constitute a safety hazzard of any sort. It may be wrong and indeed illegal but...................that's another story for the lawyers and ops people to sort out.

[redleader78]

People here need to get a grip. This issue isn't the same as running a red light. Or any other laws like an epa law. Whilst you may choose to draw a long bow and say the issue is about sound pollution. The takeoff from the information that i have read stated it was over the water so the noise impact to those residents that get affected by the airport was probably very limited.

I ask myself why does atc help out so much with crews to give taxi clearances before 2300 when they haven't been pushed back? I am sorry I don't think atc are that blind or stupid to not know what goes on. It is a wink wink sort of thing cause like most times ATC are their to help and exercise a usage of common sense rather that strict adherance to the a set or rules and procedures. Ask david iredale how a rigid set of procedures helped him!!

Maybe if we think outside the square a bit. Most people in this industry and know more than me would be accutely aware that the margins involved to remain profitable can be miniscule compared to the capital involved. So for an issue(passenger lost baggage, technical, pilot checking updated notams etc etc) that may have delayed the scheduled departure it was not a case of breaking a safety induced type of law. Most of if not all other laws have a safety, personal well being issue tied up in the reason for the law. Ok the well being of the public that are affected by noise is mitigated by the taking off over water, or an intersection departure low thrust noise abatement takeoff or whatever was most likely done. But then you have to look at the well being of the people that have paid for a service and have an expectation that it will be delivered. The company paid if they only had 200 people on board a premium to provide for that at aprox 800 per passenger. I imagine the costs involved with putting people up and delays further down the line would add up to probably more than that. So the manager involved made a decisive decision and would have prepared to take the hit for the issue. Whilst I understand that ultimately the pilots have an ultimate responsibilty for the safety and well being of the passengers when they are under their command. As long as the captain and first officer involved are backed up by the company for following the allowance to break the curfew. We should get of our high horses. Understand the reason for the scales that are apart of the courts crest.

Okay i think it is good to do some navel gazing to understand how and why it happened to allow for prevention for the future. But the artificial constraints on an industry that is expensive to have airplanes just parked sitting their doing nothing as long as their was no safety issues like taking off with a maintence breach issue, we should stop bagging the decision out. To think in any otherwise is idealised too much and is too black and white. Where the world really is shades of grey.

Each circumstance is different and too summise that this is a start of something more sinister or grandeous than the company accepting a curfew was broken and is going to pay the fine. The arguements about whether the curfew should be their in the first place or that it is broken is a seperate issue.

I personally don't think there should be a curfew I have lived at tempe/st peters 15 or 20 seconds directly under the threshold for 16R and occasionaly a 747 would make a phone call inaudible but i moved their i knew what i would have to put up with and I not being so self absorbed in my own self importance can accept that other people that are flying around are just entitled to go about their business as I am to have my house free of noise. They are planes, they arn't the lakemba street racers with their domp domp music being fully sic, who are actually going about being disrepectful to people.

['holic]

Have a read of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995.
- Breaking the curfew IS a criminal offence.
- YOU as the captain can be held legally responsible.

By making the decision to depart after curfew, you are assuming operations staff are fully conversant with the law, that the company will be willing to admit liability and that the authorities will only take action against the company, and not the Captain as well. Unless I can answer all of these with 100% certainty, I ain't going.

FWIW, Ops have led me up the garden path plenty of times. They are an excellent source of information, but at the end of the day it's your licence, not theirs.

[Derek P]

By making the decision to depart after curfew, you are assuming operations staff are fully conversant with the law, that the company will be willing to admit liability and that the authorities will only take action against the company, and not the Captain as well. Unless I can answer all of these with 100% certainty, I ain't going.

If the decision has come down from the CEO 'to go', then you would have to be pretty comfortable with that. And I would have assumed he would have been consulted since the IOC does know the penalties for breaching curfew (since they deal with dispensations and policies on a daily basis.

This decision 'to go' would not have been made by the Duty Manager on the night. There would have been Senior Executive consultation.

['holic]

Doesn't matter where the decision came from. The act states that you are responsible for breaches of the act.

It's all very well to say the Duty Manager, CEO or whoever made the decision, but you're presuming the company will still be willing to back you when the dust settles.

Also, what happens if you depart and have some kind of inflight emergency, say a fire. Return to SYD, reduced ARFF and other services during the curfew, evacuation with injuries etc etc. All because you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I reckon the trial would take about 10 minutes.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

I've just read the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (one of the shortest Acts of Parliament I've read).

Unless it's been amended, section 7, subsection 2 clearly states that 'the Operator of an aircraft commits an offence' if the operator engages in conduct which results in a contravention to subsection 1 (which details the prohibition and exceptions during curfew periods).

Nowhere does it state that the Pilot In Command is liable under the Act.

In another section it also goes on to state that the airport can be used during emergencies, and for other approved operations.

Nor do I recall any Notam that states ARFF is reduced during curfew periods.

So please help me out with some references, and I'd be mighty grateful.

Personally, I say well done! AJ for putting pax ahead of profit on this particular night.

['holic]

If you click on the word 'operator' :
"operator" of an aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/saca1995267/s3.html#aircraft) means a person who conducts an aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/saca1995267/s3.html#aircraft) operation using the aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/saca1995267/s3.html#aircraft).
Sounds like the PIC to me.

Vaguely remember a NOTAM about the ARFF from a few weeks ago. Anyway, not all that relevant really. The point I was trying to make was after specifically being told that a dispensation wasn't available, if you departed anyway and had to return, evacuate with pax injured in the process where would that leave the PIC as far as future litigation.

I don't really want to get into a back and forth discussion about Curfew Acts, ARFF etc etc. FWIW I think the Sydney curfew is a joke and that the decision to depart was safe, was in the best interest of the pax and made good commercial sense. I just believe the PIC was leaving himself open to further repercussions. Not having a dig at him. Afterall, you and I have just had a leisurely read through the act, a luxury he didn't have. But I would like to think if I found myself in that situation I wouldn't blindly do what Ops told me to do. My lack of knowledge about the law would cast enough doubt in my mind not to go.

[Derek P]

I thought Sydney airport remains open after 2300 as there are freighter movments? Would that not require fire fighting services to be available?

[Reeltime]

So operations has told the Captain to depart after curfew because no dispensation was available..

Everyone involved now knows that a deliberate breach of curfew is to be undertaken. The law is to be knowingly broken. The Captain was just 'following orders'.

I don't envy the position this guy was put in.

I wonder what the consequences would have been for this individual, had they refused? Was he 'ordered' or 'requested' to depart?

[Ken Borough]

Here is an extract from the QANTAS CODE OF CONDUCT & ETHICS:

Compliance with Laws and Regulations

Qantas Operations – Compliance with Laws

4.1 The operations of the Qantas Group must, at all times be conducted in compliance with all laws and regulations applicable in
Australia and in the jurisdiction in which operations and activities
are being undertaken.

Observing the Letter and Spirit of the Law

4.2 Compliance with the law means observing the letter and spirit of the law as well as managing the business of the Qantas Group so that Qantas and Qantas Employees are recognised as "good corporate citizens" at all times.

Interpretation of Laws

4.3 It is recognised that, in some cases, there may be uncertainty about which laws and regulations are applicable and there may be
difficulties in interpretation. In such circumstances, Qantas
Employees must seek advice from the Qantas Legal Department to
ensure compliance.

Speaks for itself really. Who, and how many, have been counselled, disciplined etc for a serious breach of Qantas Group Policy?

[Duff Man]

Easy fix - Compensate anyone living who bought or rented a house before the airport was built by a seven figure sum, tell every person who bought a house at deflated prices due to it being under the flight path to go pound wet sand up their arse and make it a 24 hour airport.

There will be none living who beat the airport in, and if there are any left they will be of venerable age and probably deaf.

The whingers have all had their houses double glazed for nothing.

For them, there is a bus leaving in 5 minutes - be under it.

Best all

EWL
EWL you are an ignoramus. RWY 16L/34R was constructed in recent years and introduced the pleasure of aircraft noise to millions of Sydney residents. Their compensation at the time was development of noise sharing and LTOP, making sure every Sydney resident within cooee got their cop.

And to the wally who wrote about PER - the nearest residential area looks to me to be about 2.5-3NM from the southern threshold ... don't compare apples with foie gras.

[max1]

DuffMan,

They don't use that runway during curfew hours!

Ken Borough

Company motherhood statements aren't worth the paper they are written on. Would the legal department even be awake after 11pm? Would you like to be the Captain who refused to depart and then had this piece of paper waved under his nose by people with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

Would it even be considered a legal document?

[Ken Borough]

Max 1, if the Board and/or Chairman has any sense of complying with its own fiats, then some really hard questions should be asked about Jetstar's wanton and deliberate infringment of the curfew. Here's some more sober reading from Qantas website about Corporate Governance etc.

Be warned - look at how some Qantas Freight people were hung out to dry by their senior management. Indeed, one poor employee is doing time at the pleasure of Uncle Sam and if price fixing/collusion were a crime in Australia, several others would be cracking rocks by now. Bear in mind that those at the top were granted indemnities.


Performance of Duties by Qantas Employees

2.1 Qantas, its subsidiaries and associated entities (Qantas Group),
Directors, employees, consultants and all other people when they
directly or indirectly represent the Qantas Group must comply, at all
times, with all laws governing its Australian and international
operations. They must also conduct the Qantas Group’s operations
in keeping with the highest legal, moral and ethical standards.

2.2 All Directors and employees of Qantas, its subsidiaries and
associated entities (Qantas Employees) must conduct the business
of the Qantas Group with the highest level of ethics and integrity.
This obligation applies particularly to dealings with shareholders,
customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, regulators, other
Qantas Employees and all others stakeholders.

2.3 Qantas Employees must, at all times, act:

i. ethically, honestly, responsibly and diligently;
ii. in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the law and this
Code; and
iii. in the best interest of the Qantas Group.

Breach of the Code

2.4 Any breach of applicable laws, prevailing business ethics or other aspects of this Code will result in disciplinary action. Such
disciplinary action may include (depending on the severity of the
breach) reprimand, formal warning, demotion or termination of
employment.

2.5 Similar disciplinary action will be taken against any supervisor or manager who directly approves (and/or condones) such breach or has knowledge of the breach and does not immediately take
appropriate remedial action.

2.6 Breach of applicable laws or regulations may also result in
prosecution by appropriate authorities. Qantas will not pay, directly
or indirectly, any penalties imposed on a Qantas Employee as a
result of a breach of law or regulation. Qantas will also not pay the
legal costs of a Qantas Employee convicted of breaching such law
or regulation.

[captaintunedog777]

Now once again you little clowns. Think about it. It is basically the cost of departing during curfew hours. I reckon the government is happy the curfew hours are broken. It is a easy income source. Money for jam. That is the reason they are able to taxi in the first place. If the goverment was serious about the curfew they wouldn't even let you taxi to the line up position. And yes it is Australia. I wouldn't be doing it anywhere else.

Depart if you like. But beware there is a big cost associated with doing this action whch will inturn allow operators to depart who are ging to suffer severely if the flight is delayed.

['holic]

dog, let me make this really simple for you. If you were (apparently) the captain faced with this decision and you were 95% sure you wouldn't face legal action, personally, for breaking the curfew would you go?

Only a one word answer required ....

[bushy]

All that is needed is a one million dollar fee for departures during curfew hours. That's the only thing big companies take any notice of. It also saves the cost of the court procedures and moves money the lawyers would get back to aviation, where it should be.

[GE90115BL2]

Are we PILOT'S or LAWYERS boys?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.............not unless you have a lot of colleagues along with you :ok: ( ie a good Union )

You are reading way too much into this..............

Our job is to fly the damn plane Maverick, not be bush lawyers.

[Stationair8]

Funny thing that YSSY curfew, Elton John's Gulfstream3 was allowd back into YSSY each night after midnight during his last tour after he had finished playing in Brisbane and Melbourne , likewise the HS-748 and C580 freighters could operate into YSSY during curfew hours, bet you the RAAF B737 wouldn't cop a fine taking VIP's somewhere during the curfew.

[ozbiggles]

Isn't that the point GE
Do we fly the plane like Maverick or do we fly it IAW the laws/regulations/common sense we have.
Doesn't take even a bush lawyer to know this was against the rules (agree with them or not). Where do you draw the line?
I agree with your point too Station8, the RAAF only gets away with it because the government would have to pay to upgrade the aircraft to make them meet the regulations they set. Instead the government (all sides) just goes the cheap option and calls them a state aircraft to avoid the laws they set for everyone else. This applies to safety as well.....but thats for a different thread

[Adamastor]

The RAAF have never broken the curfew at Sydney. Political suicide.

Not one million, bushy. Ten million. The fine was lifted from $110,000 to $550,000 a few years back after our middle eastern friends broke curfew, and look where we are now!

And, yes, Sydney goes to CAT9 vice 10 RFF just before Curfew.

[ozbiggles]

Sorry Ada, I should have been a bit clearer there. Not saying that defence ever broke the curfew. It was more in relation to the 707, easy cheapish ways to husk kit the old girl but never did, just declared it exempt because it was a state aircraft

[missy]

I have seen the RAAF park the aircraft when they couldn't meet curfew. I have never seen RAAF VIP fleet arrive or depart in breach of curfew. I do recall a C130 landing at Sydney during the curfew after declaring an emergency (which is permitted in the legislation).

I think the fines were significantly increased after a SE carrier elected to depart. It was Mardi Gras so no accommodation was available, cheaper to pay the fine...

Missy (missing you already)

[Wellhung Unit]

A Question.....

I was under the impression a Jet aircraft could depart syd off Rwy 16R ONLY after 2300, provided they had "pushed back" prior to 2300...

Is that not the case anymore.?
What Rwy did Jet* depart from..?

[blow.n.gasket]

Who cares when you are the world's best LCC :ok:

[airtags]

.....yep.....and the Y gens vote for Home and Away at the Logies...

gasket...all those hours on the Skytrax site.......and......

:E

[missy]

Question.....

I was under the impression a Jet aircraft could depart syd off Rwy 16R ONLY after 2300, provided they had "pushed back" prior to 2300...

Is that not the case anymore.?
What Rwy did Jet* depart from..?

Jetstar departed RWY 16R from TWY G. Aircraft pushed after 11pm local.


Missy (missing you already)