Qantas:Cockpit Access

[DEFCON4]

Pilots take controls of cockpit issue: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | September 11, 2009
Article from: The Australian
QANTAS pilots have caused a furore in federal parliament by successfully lobbying to get legislation restricting access to aircraft cockpits disallowed.

The Australian and International Pilots Association had been lobbying to get the legislation overturned because it placed the criminal responsibility for allowing access to the flight deck on the captain rather than the airline.

It also meant that off-duty pilots were no longer eligible to fly in the jump seat unless they were commuting to and from work.

The Howard government introduced regulations in 2005 that restricted access to cockpits but the Rudd government in February moved to tighten what it saw as a loophole in the rules and doubled the penalty for breaches.

While pilots recognised the need to restrict access to cockpits, they complained they were not consulted about the new rules and warned the changes would affect their safety culture.

They also argued the regulations were inconsistent with global best practice, a view that was supported by international and US pilot groups.

The disallowance was put forward by independent senator Nick Xenophon and supported by the opposition and the Greens.

AIPA president Barry Jackson said the Senate had disallowed a flawed piece of legislation about which pilots were not consulted.

He said the strict liability meant that a captain would be responsible if a flight attendant inadvertently left a cockpit door unlocked.

"All we wanted to do was to be able to discuss this," Captain Jackson said. "The criminal liability to me was the big thing and I think the Greens made a good comment about safety culture.

"If you know you are going to be criminally liable either financially or through jailable offence then you are not going to be so forthcoming with any information. So it's completely at odds with a just culture or a proper safety-management system."

Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.

He said pilots were happy to work with the government on the issue, which he believed needed "just a little rejigging".

A legal opinion by Bret Walker SC, suggested that existing Civil Aviation Regulations could be easily changed to oblige airlines to include cockpit-access instructions in operations manuals.

However, the disallowance was blasted in question time by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.

Mr Albanese said there would now be no effective legal restrictions on who could enter a cockpit or penalties for unauthorised access. Other aviation regulations also had strict liability offences.

"It is completely unsatisfactory for such an important measure in such a vital security regime to rely on industry self-regulation," Mr Albanese said. "The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union."

Labelling the regulations bizarre, opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss said his party voted to disallow the rules after attempting to negotiate amendments with the government.

"Regulations should not turn pilots into flying doormen and force them into spending more time checking that the cockpit door is closed than flying the plane," he said.

[packrat]

About bloody time.
Albanese should pull his head in

[Keg]

Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks....

That comment needs some qualification! :eek:

Good work otherwise. :ok:

[flypy]

How ironic that this comes after that thread about kids in the cockpit...

[Mr. Hat]

Albanese - clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed. He and his mates are nothing but a dissapointment to the percentage that voted for them.

[Old 'Un]

So this politician Albanese knows more about aviation security and decision-making that aircraft Captains do, does he? I wonder if he wants the same restrictions on ocean-going liner Captains on their respective bridges?

Perhaps airline Captains should be setting his salary and terms of employment. After all, those Captains know what a pollie is worth, don't they? Or maybe, said Capts should be deciding on the priorities of legislation in this legislative round.

Yeah, right....

Keep him on your side of the Ditch please. We don't need that sort of dangerous behavour on this side of the Tassie.

Le Vieux

[Mr. Hat]

Well done to the QF union guys and gals that stood up on this one.

[breakfastburrito]

Labor ignored whistleblower on airport security flaws

THE Labor Party turned away whistleblower Allan Kessing and refused to act when he provided federal MP Anthony Albanese - now the Transport Minister - with access to a secret report on security flaws at Sydney airport.

When Labor was in opposition, Mr Kessing, a former Customs officer, provided a clandestine briefing to the Sydney office of Mr Albanese, his mother's local member.

Despite accompanying that briefing with a report on security failures that had been suppressed for more than two years, Mr Kessing's attempt to persuade Labor to take up the issue was rebuffed. Several days after briefing Mr Albanese's electorate officer, Nathan Cureton, Mr Kessing telephoned to check on Mr Albanese's intentions. Mr Cureton told him Mr Albanese would not be taking any action.

Mr Kessing has retained Mr Cureton's business card and has provided The Australian with telephone records showing he made a call to Mr Albanese's electorate office that lasted two minutes and four seconds. That call took place on April 5, 2005, less than a week after Mr Kessing's visit to Mr Albanese's office.

Mr Cureton, who is a solicitor, no longer works for Mr Albanese. He confirmed he met Mr Kessing but said he could not remember the details of the meeting and it was inappropriate to discuss his work for Mr Albanese.
Mr Kessing said Mr Cureton took two pages of notes. Halfway through the briefing, Mr Cureton took the report into an office normally occupied by Mr Albanese.

He could not see if Mr Albanese was present but Mr Cureton remained in that room with the report for 10 minutes.

Mr Albanese said yesterday: "I am confident my electorate office in general responds to representations appropriately, but I will check any records to ensure an accurate response, given this is back in 2005."
Mr Kessing's leak to Mr Albanese, whose electorate of Grayndler borders Sydney airport, means at least some elements within the then Labor opposition knew about the security risk at Sydney airport almost two months before its disclosure in The Australian on May 31, 2005.
Kevin Rudd, who criticised the Howard government's approach to whistleblowers before the last election, last night declined to say whether he knew that Mr Albanese had rebuffed Mr Kessing.

When asked if the Prime Minister had been aware of the incident, a spokesman said: "Mr Rudd's comments during the 2007 election campaign related to whistleblowing and the approach of the Howard government in this area.
"The Rudd Government is developing its response to the House of Representatives committee report on whistleblower reform."

Mr Albanese's inaction on the airport security leak has only come to light now because Mr Kessing has volunteered the information to The Australian in full knowledge its publication could prompt federal authorities to charge him with breaching public service secrecy laws for a second time.
Mr Kessing has already been convicted of providing the report on airport security to The Australian - an accusation he still denies, despite freely admitting he leaked it to Mr Albanese.
"If I am going to have a criminal record it may as well be for something I have done rather than for something I have not done," Mr Kessing said.

He also wanted to show the nation why the government needed to greatly improve the limited whistleblower reform plan it is soon expected to make public. His experience in attempting to have Mr Albanese address an issue that was clearly in the public interest meant the federal government needed to extend the likely scope of its whistleblower reforms.

The government has been considering a report that calls for most public interest disclosures to remain criminal offences unless they are made to authorised groups inside the public sector, including federal politicians. By revealing his contacts with Mr Albanese's office, Mr Kessing has also cast light on why he never gave evidence in his own defence during his trial over the leak to The Australian.
Had he been asked if he had ever leaked the secret report, he would have been required to reveal the leak to Mr Albanese, potentially exposing Mr Kessing to liability over events that were unknown to the authorities.

However, Mr Kessing adopted that position reluctantly. On July 31, 2007, he sent an email to his solicitor, Joe Weller, that said in part: "I'm still tempted to drop Albanese & Kendall/Bevis into this, since AA had the docs in April." The "Kendall/Bevis" reference is to Rod Kendall, a staffer for federal Labor backbencher Arch Bevis.

Other documents supplied by Mr Kessing had been passed on to Mr Bevis's office by Mr Cureton in Mr Albanese's office.

An email from Mr Kessing to Mr Kendall dated November 7, 2005, says: "I have heard nothing from you or your office since giving Nathan (@ Grayndler) the requested docs for you in Canberra that w/e?? beginning of October? I hope they were received, understood and proved useful."
Mr Kendall replied the same day: "I did receive the information and used it as the basis for some questions I submitted to Senate estimates hearings."
Mr Kessing's decision to admit leaking confidential material to Mr Albanese comes soon after he abandoned a plan aimed at laying information about the affair before the NSW Supreme Court in an attempt to reopen his conviction over the leak to The Australian.

For more than a month, Mr Kessing and a small team led by independent senator Nick Xenophon, have been assembling information aimed at persuading NSW Chief Justice Jim Spigelman that Mr Kessing's conviction was unsafe and needed to be reopened.
Mr Kessing, who still owes money for past legal fees, has now abandoned that course, saying he is in no fit state - financially or emotionally - for another extended round of legal action.

Source:The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26036378-601,00.html)

[Howard Hughes]

"The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union."
Perhaps it should be set by the regulator in consultation with affected parties (ie: pilots), not some pompous fool whose only experience with aircraft is quoffing wine in the back...:rolleyes:

[Reeltime]

Pollies should stick to what they know...making short term decisions based on the next election, rorting allowances and super, acting like 10yr olds in Parliment etc

Just leave aviation to the professionals...ok?

[Mr. Hat]

Howard there's far too much common sense in your point.

What a shame this country can't get a decent team to run it. Both sides are crap.

[Howard Hughes]

I apologise Mr Hat!:}

[Erin Brockovich]

Therein lies the problem

Pollies should stick to what they know...making short term decisions based on the next election

I can’t see this pattern changing in my lifetime. Especially with the current crop of clowns running the circus. They are so out of touch with reality and don’t represent anyone but themselves.

All I can do is build my nest as big as I can to try and insulate me and my family from the government’s bad and misguided decisions. Oh – and vote in vain for the lesser evil.

Albanese you’re a d1ckhead

[framer]

What is the email address of Albanese?

[Mr. Hat]

Framer here is the link:

Australian Labor Party : Email Anthony (http://www.alp.org.au/people/email/albanese_anthony.php)

[Capt Claret]

Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.

News to me. I'm yet to hear any pilot advocate the banning of families. :*

[clear to land]

Probably worth as many people as possible emailing him asking him to explain his qualifications in making such a statement, and asking him on what safety case such a comment is made. I just sent one! (Thanks for the link:ok: )

[chainsaw]

framer,

You'll be totally wasting your time writing to the Minister my friend! :ugh:

I've done it a number of times, and I've never had the courtesy of a reply (or even an acknowledgement) from the pr1ck! Also cc'd the PM...........didn't get the courtesy of any response from him either. Why am I not surprised? :ugh:

I've now realised it's simply a wasted effort, so I've given up, I regret to say. :ouch:

The same thing happened when I wrote to my local (NSW) member re a matter under the control of Albanese's 'better half' in the NSW bearpit. She was asked the question in the house, stood up, said 'No', then sat down! And that was that........'fcuk you Jack'........one 'concerned' NSW constituent consigned to the sh1thouse! Just like that! :mad:

And it's no different in Canberra I'm afraid. Particularly if you ask a question that 'ruffles' some Ministerial feathers!

It seems to me that neither Albanese NOR the PM either understand OR give a 5hit about aviation! It also seems to me from listening to both, that they clearly adhere to the proposition that it's entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end! :confused:

Notwithstanding, and despite both 'gentlemen' persisting with the misguided belief of trying to convince the electorate that a turd's a sandwich, they're both still feeding the electorate sh1t!

Dickheads! :mad:

[Keg]

News to me. I'm yet to hear any pilot advocate the banning of families.

A few of us queried that one also Clarrie. There is some background to it. I'm not entirely convinced but it was enough for me to give the AIPA Pres the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

[framer]

You'll be totally wasting your time writing to the Minister my friend! :ugh:

yeah fair enough but what if 500 of us do it?

[chainsaw]

yeah fair enough but what if 500 of us do it?

Not sure, but based on his past 'form', he'd probably ignore the 500 of you! :uhoh:

[Starts with P]

I have written to Albanese three times. Each time I received a reply. One from "him", and two from his aviation staffer. They kind of read like form letters, but they did at least answer my questions.

If nothing else, in my experience, I get replies from his office.

As for voting him out: Grandyler is the safest Labor seat in Australia.

[ZEEBEE]

It seems to me that neither Albanese NOR the PM either understand OR give a 5hit about aviation!

Actually, ChainSaw they not only don't care, they're positively ANTAGONISTIC towards it.

KRudd has long been quoted that he is for curfews at ALL airports and some of his actions leave little doubt about the labor party's stance on Aviation. Toys for the rich, that shouldn't be subsidised by the guvmint.

As for Albasleeze, he is one of the 97% of labor politicians that give the rest a bad name.

[Worrals in the wilds]

If you ever write to a Minister, cc the letter to the shadow Minister with an additional letter about how you've given up trying to contact the Minister and then cc both to the newspaper of your choice complete with a letter about your lack of response(s). If you're honourable, give them time to respond first :E.

Not a guaranteed method, as it relies on media interest, but it's worked on pollies before now. If 500 of you do that, you may get further, particularly if you can tie in a media buzz-concept like Safety, Kiddies, Diggers or Environment.

IMO If Ministers could keep their sticky little noses out of hot issues and let their department staff do their jobs we'd have less knee-jerk, poorly drafted laws needing constant amendments and they'd avoid looking quite so silly when stuff gets overturned or proves totally unworkable in the real world.

P.S. Good work to get it to Parliament.

P.P.S. Just read your post Zeebee, too true, except there's bound to be an exemption for the Government jet! Busy little bizjet, these days.

[teresa green]

Make a appointment to see your local member. You could well be surprised by their interest and input. I did it over a dispute with Telstra and much to my amazement something was done, worth trying.

[ampclamp]

written to rudd and local member several times and always got a response.
also wrote to health minister and received phone calls & emails to follow up my complaint.
frankly and surprisingly she did a good job.

said aviation minister maybe wrong on this issue but if he , his boss,your local member AND the opposition spokesman on aviation get enough flak from enough voters they may do something.
if you dont try dont complain when it goes against you.

ministers often act on advice from their staff and departmental heads so often they become a mouth piece for the dept, so without voters input they cannot possibly know what industry people really think.

[B772]

Wrote to a Minister on 18 Dec 08 and received a detailed reply dated 12 Aug 09. (your reply is in the mail)

[Mr. Hat]

While you're at it highlight the stupidity of security screening pax and crew but not others.

All or noone.

[airsupport]

Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.

It is a very sad World we live in now. :{

I worked for Airlines all my working Life, and our Children, now all Parents themselves, used to love visiting the cockpit. :{

[PPRuNeUser0198]

I am told a motion of disallowance in paliment has resulted in a removal of the revised flight deck access policy. The government will be issuing a revised flight deck access policy soon.

Commonsense can prevail :D