PDA

View Full Version : Govt Trying To Ban Jump Seats Again Today


Jay Arr
23rd Feb 2010, 22:24
Heads up: The Aust Govt is trying today to reintroduce the legislation that banned off-duty pilots using jump-seats. The Senate last year, as many of you know, voted last year to disallow the legislation following a great deal of work by aviation professionals.. The Govt has dragged it back to the Senate, attempting to have the disallowance rescinded today (they are trying to get a "rescission" of the disallowance).

You can see the dynamic order of business in the Senate here: Dynamic Red - Wednesday, 24 February 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/DynamicRed/Index.html) The item is to be debated after carbon pollution and health issues, likely prior to 1245pm.

ABC radio is broadcasting live coverage of the Senate today, or you can listen to it live on the internet also.

I'll make no further comment at this stage, other than to say I'm pretty close to the politics going on here and even I'm not sure which way this will go. It will be very interesting listening and I encourage every professional aviator to listen in if you have a chance.

ga_trojan
23rd Feb 2010, 22:29
I assume this means they want a total ban on the jumpseat other than CASA FOI or a check captain on a check flight?? The airline I work at allows ASIC holders who work directly for the airline access to the jumpseat which I think is a reasonable policy.

Ixixly
23rd Feb 2010, 23:14
Who exactly will this affect? And why is it even being considered?

Surely theres not some security concern is there?!

Transition Layer
23rd Feb 2010, 23:17
If you've got Foxtel, The Senate is also being broadcast live on Sky News Active (Ch. 600), if you select the 'National' news prompt.

Mr.Buzzy
24th Feb 2010, 00:00
Nothing more than a case of
"How dare you challenge me! I'll show those pilots, just like my mate Bob"

bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

KRUSTY 34
24th Feb 2010, 00:16
Ironically, banning Jump seat travel may just assist a would-be hijacker.

The advent of Ballistic/Lockable flightdeck doors will in no way stop the ingress to the cockpit of a well organised and determined hijacker(s). Unless the flight crew choose to keep themselves locked in for the entire flight, it only takes a moment to grab the opportunity when the flight attendant delivers the coffee/meals, or a pilot needs to use the bathroom!

Asside from the infamous FEDEX incident some 15 years ago, can anyone tell me the last time an aircraft was taken over by the Jumpseat passenger? Most turboprops, and a large number of medium size jets have a jumpseat that when occupied, effectively acts as a barrier to the flight-deck and the pilots sitting behind the controls.

By taking away the Captain's right to asses and determine the suitability of travel in the jumpseat, the politicians and knee-jerk reactionaries of this world just may be playing into the bad guy's hands.

Perhaps the Government could debate in the Senate the viability of pilots wearing diapers, and/or preparing their own meals as well as flying the aircraft! :rolleyes:

404 Titan
24th Feb 2010, 01:01
Email this to you local federal member ASAP.

To the Federal politicians of Australia,

Please ask yourself why is there a need to ban the access jump seat by airline staff, people who have already been deemed safe to have full access to a cockpit because of the requirements to now have an ASIC card.

Has the US banned jump seat passengers? NO.
Has the UK banned jump seat passengers? NO
Has Europe banned jump seat passengers? NO

So why does Australia need to ban them now? Before casting your vote ask some serious questions and donít be blinded by so called security experts who are only justifying their own existence. Remember they are the same people that had you ban nail clippers and sewing needles.

Use common sense and sanity will prevail.

Regards
YOUR NMAE HERE

Jay Arr
24th Feb 2010, 01:09
Looks like debate has been deferred to later in the day, since the Senate spent forever debating private health insurance.

skipper1981
24th Feb 2010, 01:14
I think this is all about the Government whipping up hysteria about terroism to deflect from their other problems(e.g. ceiling batts).I say leave the decision about who enters the cockpit to the airline and or Captain of the aircraft.

GAFA
24th Feb 2010, 01:26
Just sent my email, look forward to the reply (if any)!

sleeve of wizard
24th Feb 2010, 01:34
404 Titan,

From what I have read the UK has a partial ban on the jump seat. The UK allows the jumpseat to be used by operational personnel that are on duty, ie you can not occupy the jumpseat into or out of the UK if you are on staff travel.

chimbu warrior
24th Feb 2010, 01:40
I think they should ban on-duty pilots from using the jumpseat.

No more line checks!:)

Socket
24th Feb 2010, 02:23
Krusty I know the captain has a lot of authority but he has no right to our asses, maybe a diaper is in order if he does gain that right.:eek:

DutchRoll
24th Feb 2010, 05:54
By taking away the Captain's right to asses......
Oh there are soooo many one-liners which immediately spring to mind after that most unfortunate spelling error!

Anyway, this was completely predictable. Albanese totally had the shits when the pilots successfully lobbied to have his little love-child (and stupid) piece of legislation disallowed. As a matter of personal pride, he will now do absolutely anything to "show us who is the boss".

Included in his little gem was the fact that a Captain would be criminally liable if a cabin crew member left the door unlocked after leaving the cockpit.

Albanese is a Class A Angora. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angora_goat)

Narrowbody
24th Feb 2010, 07:15
Well in that case if you were wanting to do what they are suggesting. Why wait to be on staff travel ect. Just wait till you are on duty that way you have access the the metal fork the plastic knife thats just as strong as the metal fork and the best one the flamin crash axe. So really i am amazed that they even allow pilots onto an airplane, let alone unsupervised behind that locked door. All i can say i guess what a bunch of W**kers that we pay to run this country.:ugh:

Dog One
24th Feb 2010, 08:45
That should make the entire operation completely secure by not allowing pilots on the flight deck.

GS2008
24th Feb 2010, 09:54
One less seat which can be used to get home....:{
Maybe now is the time when guaranteed seats, and higher priority for staff travel, has more relevance? :suspect:

Note to self - make staff travel a priority for next EBA negotation. :ok:

obie2
24th Feb 2010, 10:11
Unless it's a company check captain why allow any others access to the jump seat?

Whether it's another pilot, a CASA amateur pretending to be a professional pilot, a flight attendant (God help us!) or a company employee, they're all a pain in the ass in the cockpit!

I got rid of the pax years before the 9/11 thingy took off.

Best thing I ever did!

Keep them all out suits me fine.

HotDog
24th Feb 2010, 10:29
obie2, you sound like such a nice chap. I bet F/Os do roster swaps to fly with you.:rolleyes:

Jay Arr
24th Feb 2010, 11:11
The Senate was so busy talking about climate change and health insurance today (Wednesday) that it never got to the Aviation Security legislation. I note the matter is in the Senate Order of Business for Thursday 25th Feb.

Dick N. Cider
24th Feb 2010, 21:16
For what it's worth, ATCs would love to have access to a jump seat solely for the purpose of professional development. forget about a jolly to (insert location here) for the weekend, just a trip somewhere and back to observe the cockpit workload, put into context the impact of the instructions you give day in day out, and god forbid, get to know some of the people we talk to.

Personally I'd like to see every ATC do at least 1 trip a year - we certainly don't get any Sim time to practice anything, at least we could discuss issues with operational tech crew.

DNC

kookabat
24th Feb 2010, 21:48
Does anyone have a copy of the actual bill?

Erin Brockovich
25th Feb 2010, 00:57
DNC the problem with your idea firstly is that it's a good one.
Secondly it makes sense, would benefit the industry and cost the taxpayer and operators nothing.
That in itself should rule it out.

Iím with Dog. No pilots on the flight deck = 100% security

1746
25th Feb 2010, 02:16
For what it's worth, ATCs would love to have access to a jump seat solely for the purpose of professional development.

and that goes for LAME's too....it would be nice to see the a/c operate the way the tech crew do.

but alas.......

Pitch Up Power Up
25th Feb 2010, 22:25
hey guys, what happened at the senate? did it go through?

Jay Arr
26th Feb 2010, 02:32
On Thursday the Senate talked about everything under the sun, except this issue. They do not sit again until 9th March. The Order of Business (the "Red") has not been issued for that day yet.

I believe the Opposition and other non-Govt senators continue to support the pilots' position. However two weeks is a long time in politics and deals can be worked. If your MP is a non-Govt one, and you feel like doing to, a short note to them might be valuable. Simply say you understand the Govt is attempting to rescind the Senate vote that squashed this overly prescriptive piece of legislation; furthermore that there are clear safety and security benefits from having off-duty pilots jump-seating and hope (the MP and his/her party) can continue to support that position.

If your MP is a Govt one I don't think you'll be able to change their mind.

jaded boiler
27th Feb 2010, 13:56
Perhaps AIPA's recent "Pilots Change Law" article was a tad premature..

J52
27th Feb 2010, 23:46
The good old days as a LAME when you were actually taken on a test flight and sat in the jump seat to see what was being tested and how things were working. We used to call it shared risk. If you worked on the aircraft and something went wrong during the test flight then you copped it the same as the flight crew.

Most memorable commercial jump seat rides, ANZ DC-10 from Los Angeles to Auckland from terminal to terminal and a rare invite from Qantas to ride in the jump seat from Sydney to Jakarta in a 767 (after take off to the terminal). I did not realise how confusing Jakarta was to navigate the taxi ways to the terminal and neither did the flight crew as it was their first time there.

Chances of getting these sort of flights now or even onto the flight deck? Zero.

Boomerang
28th Feb 2010, 02:07
Sleeve of Wizard,

Jumpseats still available to stafftravel crew in and out of UK. Commuters would often be lost without this! Captain has final say.

neville_nobody
28th Feb 2010, 04:01
If this law was passed in the USA then airlines would come to a grinding halt. It's never going to get passed over there, so why on earth do we need it?

Ken Borough
28th Feb 2010, 07:38
Commuters would often be lost without this! Captain has final say.

Ahhhhhhhhh. The secret is now out in the open! Poor old Boomerang will be sent to Coventry by his brothers if anyone establishes his identity.:}:rolleyes:

I challenge anyone here to honestly state why commuters or anyone not directly connected with the safe operation of an aircraft should be permitted to ride the jumpseats and be present in a sterile environment. And, pray tell us, why the Captain should have the final say?

porch monkey
28th Feb 2010, 08:02
It's his ship. A useful tool for those commuting, staff travel when loads are heavy, atco's as above. There Ken, couple of reasons and that only took me 10 seconds. All ASIC holders as well. Been working just fine for years, so why change it? Because Albanese is a fool, and doesn't like the fact that he was shot down the first time. As for his comment that pilot's shouldn't decide who gets on the flight deck, and politicians should, he has simply proven himself a registered idiot. The funniest part is any one of us could do his job, probably a whole lot better. The reverse however, is not true. Fu:mad:wits. The lot of them

YPJT
28th Feb 2010, 08:15
And, pray tell us, why the Captain should have the final say?

Ken,
You don't by chance work for the OTS do you? They'd love to have someone of your mindset on their team.

If you want to make sure the flight deck remains sterile, might as well stick an esky with food and drink and a camping dunny in there and lock the door tight for the duration.

PorchMonkey - indeed they are f-wits!

KRUSTY 34
28th Feb 2010, 08:26
Crikey porch', just say what you think, don't hold back! Gotta' agree though, [email protected]'n politicians, their arrogance and ambition knows no bounds. Mmmm, sound's like some check captains I know, but that's another story.

Jeeez' Ken, lighten up mate. I reckon the opportunity to allow travel in the Jumpseat is of huge benefit to the industry. Sterile flightdeck? No arguement from me. Can and should be managed below 10,000 feet. Hardley rocket surgery for a competant and professional crew, such as yourself perhaps.

Aside from all that, my comments in post #6, I feel are definitely worth taking into consideration. Socket and Duchy: Crackup guys. I didn't edit the post because what fun would that be.

Safe flying,

Krusty. :ok:

Reeltime
28th Feb 2010, 10:00
Yes Ken the Captain does have the final say, and I know how that grates with you ground pounders. As I alluded to in a different thread, you management types (although I suspect you are fairly low on the totem pole) just hate it that Captains have the ultimate authority as to the disposition of an aircraft under their command.

In fact I'd say thats probably the top reason you hate us so much..it's our authority isn't it?

Sure you envy our lifestyle (I've been to work once in the last three weeks) our pay..still pretty good..hehe I could go on! But I'd hate to give you a brain embolism as you relate this to your fellow slaves in the staff canteen.

Don't worry though Ken, I'm sure you will rack up enough KPI's to treat the family to a feast at Sizzlers very soon.

Bon appetit!

Tmbstory
28th Feb 2010, 12:04
Out of Sydney in the 1980's and 90's we had a scheme going where the ATC people were welcome to the Jump seat to see how the system worked from our side.

Tmb

Fly_by_wire
1st Mar 2010, 00:38
Do all the airlines have different SOPs surrounding this issue? Or is it always just at capt discretion?

teresa green
1st Mar 2010, 04:28
How all so bloody sad. Only twenty years ago you could have little kids visit,sometimes you would get a second world war fighter pilot, who could spin a few yarns and give you some insight to his war and his survival, all of which made for a interesting days work. If you were unlucky, even your missus turned up with more digs about sitting down all day.... It made the job more interesting by far, with the people you met on the flight deck, how the world has changed since 9/11, the innocence gone, sorry to say it, but sure glad I flew when I did......:(

Jay Arr
1st Mar 2010, 11:17
The issue did get a hearing on Thurs 25th Feb after all. I missed it since it was contained within debate on another Aviation Transport Security amendment (to do with cargo).

Have a read of Hansard here if you are interested: http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/senate/dailys/ds250210.pdf . Scroll forward to page 36 - the jump-seat issue starts at the end of 36 and runs through 37 and 38. The excellent AIPA press release from last week is quoted extensively. The Opposition appears firmly on the side of sense and logic, I'm happy to read.

AN1944
2nd Mar 2010, 11:28
why cant the polies stick to s..f.ing the country and keep out of a business they know nothing about although they havent got an airline to destroy have they? No ansett is gone.:D

neville_nobody
2nd Mar 2010, 12:08
Guess I better move that money out of the Virgin Islands quick smart after reading the item before the jumpseat review :}

indamiddle
3rd Mar 2010, 04:17
was't it a flight attendant with BA who stopped the captain getting sucked out the window of a 737 some years ago while the f/o was busy trying to fly/land the aircraft?
bet the f/o would have liked some more help from another pilot

Ken Borough
3rd Mar 2010, 04:25
indamiddle,

To put the record straight, said aeroplane was a BAC1-11. It made an emergency landing at Southampton. I'm sure the F/O would have liked some help but the Capt's station was more than fully occupied by an F/A who was hanging onto the ankles of the skipper who was dangling outside the window.

That aside, are you seriously suggesting adding a jump-seat rider to cover freak contingencies? Are you people so desperate to selfishly retain a perk that you'll say anything to justify its retention? Get real. :ugh::ugh:

breakfastburrito
3rd Mar 2010, 04:52
Are you people so desperate to selfishly retain a perk that you'll say anything to justify its retention? Get real
Personally I haven't use the jump seat for "staff travel" purposes for over 10 years. However, recently during a fumes event it was most helpful having a J* flight attendant (duty travel) in the jump seat to act as our eyes in the cabin. Moron.

404 Titan
3rd Mar 2010, 05:02
Ken Borough

And your job doesnít come with benefits and perks? Get real. You obviously arenít a pilot because if you were you would realise having an additional set of qualified eyes on the flight deck greatly improves safety and guess what, itís free. The chances of a Fed Ex style scenario is miniscule compared to the number of times a jump seater has brought to the attention of the operating flight crew a potential stuff up or been an extra set of hands in an emergency. I find it mind boggling that you are willy wagging such an issue. Quite frankly it is childish point scoring.:ugh:

Ken Borough
3rd Mar 2010, 05:11
having an additional set of qualified eyes on the flight deck greatly improves safety

Are you suggesting that safety is being diminished or compromised by not having someone in the jump seat? If as you say that safety is greatly improved, why isn't the extra set of eyes carried at all times?

porch monkey
3rd Mar 2010, 05:30
You're simply digging a bigger hole for yourself Ken. On the a/c I operate, a duty/staff travel rider in the jump seat enhances cockpit security actually. Positioning of the seat and proximity to the door actually pretty much guarantees NOONE is getting in uninvited, and their eyes are always welcome to oversight the other pair on the flightdeck. Get over it. Anyhow, why do we have to justify it to you? Are you Albanese?

Ken Borough
3rd Mar 2010, 05:38
why do we have to justify it to you?

You don't, and obviously can't! However, once assertions are made, it's always good to have the proof.

BTW, (1) are you implying that the strengthened flight deck doors are inadequate?

(2) how can any non-qualified lay jump-seat rider, including dead-heading or off-duty F/As, enhance safety?

(3) Is it not possible to have a sensible discussion without emotion or personal invective? This forum is not Jet Blast.

breakfastburrito
3rd Mar 2010, 05:42
Are you suggesting that safety is being diminished or compromised by not having someone in the jump seat?
Why frame it in the negative? I am saying that safety is enhanced by having a trained tech or cabin crew member in the flight deck.
Answer this simple question. Is safety
A. Enhanced
B. Diminished
by having a trained crew member in the flight deck in your opinion. A or B simply question.

ad-astra
3rd Mar 2010, 05:46
Ken why is it so difficult to understand that another set of eyes in a cockpit is a bonus.

Ask the travelling public whether they would prefer one, two, three or four pilots and the answer will be as many as they can fit in the cockpit!

This is not as you describe an exercise in retaining a perk.
This whole sorry exercise is an attempt to strip the authority of the pilot in command as to how he manages his/her aircraft.

Funny how when the sh*t hits the fan the PIC has the authority to go outside SOP's and Regulations to ensure the continued safety of the operation but yet when the PIC tells a legislator that a proposed rule is in fact counterproductive and achieves less margins of safety the pilots are howled down as being self serving.

Can you tell me what the safest option is -

1 737 Cockpit door open in flight and being 'guarded' by a 21 year old 40Kg size 2 Flight attendant.

or

2 737 Cockpit door open in flight with the jump seat deployed, the back rest in place, and the head rest erect with a jump seat passenger strapped in and seated with the 21 year old 40 Kg size 2 Flight attendant also guarding the door.


Depending upon your experience in 737's you may or may not know that it would be physically impossible to gain access to the flight crew if the jump seat is occupied!

Tell me why the legislators want to have that seat down and unoccupied which will allow free access to my cockpit for all who want to tackle my size 2 guard.
Tell me why you are so interested in having that seat empty.
Tell me why when the sh*t truly hits the fan you want a current and endorsed pilot in row 29 instead of the jump seat.
Tell me why MY office is such an item of importance to YOU

Freak contingencies or not overall safety is improved and I have yet to have it explained to me why a pilot in the jump seat is a threat.

That's Reality!

404 Titan
3rd Mar 2010, 05:59
Ken Borough

Are you suggesting that safety is being diminished or compromised by not having someone in the jump seat?
Potentially.
If as you say that safety is greatly improved, why isn't the extra set of eyes carried at all times?
Because it would cost airlines money and it legally isnít required. Do you think airlines would have two pilots if it wasnít legally required?

airtags
3rd Mar 2010, 08:17
sorry Ken - can't agree. Extra eyes, extra ears and an extra brain.

Certainly would not write off CC as deadhead dunces as suggested in your post-
proof point: I know quite a few CC that hold PPL, CPL et. al.,
- one QF CC now on the A380 has a lot of fixed wing and rotary wing experience, including a main rotor failure - I'd have him in the seat anyday.

In fact a CC in the jump seat of a 767 inbound to YSSY a couple of years back noticed that the seatbelt sign was still off. (F/O a bit embarassed & red faced - but several debriefs and lengthy reports averted, flight crew very grateful :ok:).

End of the day this issue is wholly about bureaucrats lobbying their pollie masters.

We don't need any more Nannies trying to tell us how to run our office - we have more than enough within our own organisations!

AT :E

PS: The good Minister should punt the flunkies on this one and stick to the slightly more important issues.

Mozzie75
3rd Mar 2010, 08:38
First post after 10 years reading PPRuNe!


Ken Borough:

In addition to ad-astra's arguments regarding physical access to the cockpit, having other flight crew, ATC staff etc in the jumpseat is another set of qualified eyes and / or ears watching the operation.

As a private pilot and ATC'er for a few years now, I can recall at least 2 ocassions where I have been the only person on the flightdeck to have heard either an ATC instruction (cancelling pushback clearance due to traffic incorrectly passing behind) or another aircraft's initial call on an MBZ freq. On both ocassions I was able to advise the crew of a probable call for the aircraft which in a small way may have helped to prevent the holes lining up in the swiss cheese.

Solely from an ATC perspective, the more exposure we have of flightdeck operations, the better.

Mozz

jaded boiler
3rd Mar 2010, 09:04
"Selfishly retain a perk" eh Ken?

What arrant, offensive, grossly uninformed and buffoonish nonsense.

breakfastburrito
3rd Mar 2010, 09:53
Ode to Ken

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an attorney's firm
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor
And I polished up the handle of the big front door
I polished up that handle so carefully
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk
I served the writs with a smile so bland
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand
I copied all the letters in a hand so free
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

In serving writs I made such a name
That an articled clerk I soon became
I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
For the Pass Examination at the Institute
And that Pass Examination did so well for me
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership
And that junior partnership I ween
Was the only ship that I ever had seen
But that kind of ship so suited me
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament
I always voted at my Party's call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

Now, landsmen all, whoever you may be
If you want to rise to the top of the tree
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navy

ARTIST: Gilbert and Sullivan
TITLE: The First Lord's Song

FOCX
3rd Mar 2010, 11:58
Ken,

I gather you don't like the idea of the captain having the final say as to who sits in the jump seat. Why shouldn't he, how many managers have people just come and sit in their office all day, listening to all the conversation business or otherwise, during meals etc? Not many I bet.

The cockpit is a fairly confined environment regardless of aircraft type and the crew (specifically the captain) should have the final say if they are going to share it.

Why should this put your nose so far out of joint?

aussie027
3rd Mar 2010, 13:03
Ken,
Since you seem to be struggling with the concept of an extra pair of trained pilot eyes in the jumpseat enhancing safety when they are available, let me give you a simple example from my past.

Many years ago back in 1991 , I was sitting in the jumpseat of an Ansett B727 for the descent and landing into Adelaide on a flight from Perth thanks to a Captain who was very happy to have a keen professional general aviation pilot sitting in his cockpit.

As we were on a right base leg for the landing into Adelaide on a nice VFR day, and getting very close to the finals turn, it was my eyes that spotted a Piper Chieftan at our 12oclock low , very close ahead against the ground clutter of the city when boththe Capt and the FO couldnt see it too save themselves ( it happens to us all).:uhoh:
My callout and ID of the traffic and the Captains flying got us safely behind him whereas the situation /spacing would have required a go around by us if the traffic had not been seen for another 10-15sec as we would have flown thru the final approach path and be too close to the traffic to follow at a safe distance down finals.

I'm sure dozens of pilots on here could tell similar jump seat stories.:ok:

Bullethead
3rd Mar 2010, 17:56
I'm sure dozens of pilots on here could tell similar jump seat stories.

Sure can.

Recently operating YBBN-YSSY in a B767 I had a paxing B747 Captain on the jump seat. During climbout we had a minor airconditioning system problem, the FO was PF so the paxing Captain, who also has many years of B767 experience, and I sorted the problem leaving the FO to handle the aircraft and deal with ATC.

Could we have handled the situation without the jump seat rider? Certainly, but having him there ensured that the present level of safety was maintained.

An definite asset having a trained, competent jump seat rider.

Regards,
BH.

maggotdriver
3rd Mar 2010, 19:30
Like a time I remember where two jump seat riders were helping out getting weather and other details for an unforecast severe thunderstorm in Brissie.

jaded boiler
3rd Mar 2010, 21:13
Sioux City United Airlines DC10.

Pretty "selfish" what went on in that flight deck.

fender
4th Mar 2010, 02:26
Sad case the other day where the crew was asked for jump seat and the pilot in the left seat was heard clearly stating,"f*&^ him". I hope I can return the favor one day, but I don't think I could.
If we don't look after each other what hope do we have as a professional pilot group.

Jay Arr
4th Mar 2010, 06:44
As the one looking after the risk analysis project that AIPA commissioned, I'm right across the science and the numbers.

Taking into account the two-dimensional nature of risk - (a) probability and (b) consequences - we looked at the positives and negatives of having an off-duty crew-member jump-seating. The ratio of positives to negatives was scientifically shown to be about 3000:1 That was even after having a very high consequence multiplier on a "rogue/fake pilot" event. The reason that type of event doesn't destroy our arguments is that probability of that sort of event occurring is so low. Rogue pilot includes suicide and FedEx type events. Historical data was used as well as analysing current protocols/procedures for gaining jump-seat approval.

Other data was used to evaluate the occasions where jump-seaters contribute positively and mitigate errors. A lot of reports from Australia, Europe and the USA were analysed as to what jump-seaters contributed. A huge number of Australian pilots contributed to a survey seeking their personal examples.

The numbers are clear: a jump-seater is 3000 times more likely to be of benefit than a hindrance/danger. And that is being extremely conservative and aggressively biasing the multiplying factors towards negative events. A truer ratio is almost certainly higher.

Guys like Aussie027, Bullethead, Maggotdriver... and others: great examples. You know what? Don't just write about those examples here, write to the Opposition/Independents or your own MP and tell them too. As I said, I'm quietly confident the Opposition is on side. But anecdotes such as yours can only help reinforce that.

Key supporters are the following:

Ms Peta Credlin, who is Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff (and formerly Malcolm Turnbull's Deputy CoS). (Email: [email protected]) I have met with her personally and she is extremely astute. She immediately understood the merit in having off-duty professionals jump-seating but said "Convince us formally". Hence the risk analysis. And that worked.

The Hon Warren Truss, Nationals Leader and Shadow Minister for Transport. (Contact link: Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=GT4) ) Skeptical at first and convinced pilots were just trying to hang onto a "perk", he has become a important supporter. The win in the Senate could not have happened without his support.

Senator Nick Xenophon, Independent, South Australia (Email: [email protected]) An enthusiastic supporter of professional pilots and also very sharp. As an independent he holds a critical balance of voting power in the Senate.

The Greens, esp Senator Christine Milne, Greens, Tasmania. (Email: [email protected]) Again, the Greens are all very astute and keen to see Govt held accountable and producing quality outcomes through good legislation.

All these people are worth 30 minutes of your time corresponding with - to shore up the argument that off-duty professional pilots add safety and security layers when they are jump-seating. AIPA and other groups are lobbying on a daily basis that this is not about "perks", but about increasing safety and security.

You can help too - believe me. But not by just writing on PPrune. By writing to the decision-makers. I'm impressed with what we have achieved so far through logical and unemotional reasoning.

glastar
4th Mar 2010, 20:35
Ken.
why is it that on long range flights where a double crew is rostered, that the second crew are required in the cockpit for take off and landing.
My last engine failure in a B747 was departing Athens at night with a full load for Singapore. Crew, 2 captains, one F/O. 2 F/Es. all in the cockpit.
At 300' in a left turn No4 engine failed with a shudder that caused the jump seat Captain to strike his head on the wall. We shut down the engine as a crew procedure and when stable on climb I divided the crew duties to utilize each member in the cockpit. I set the a/c on autopilot and proceded to a dump area.
At his suggestion the second Captain made a PA to the cabin. The F/O monitored tracking and LSA and the second F/E was sent to the cabin to check the engine visually for any sign of fire. The operating F/E calculated the dump at 80 Tons and 45 minutes and on return to the cockpit the second F/E double checked these figures and helped monitored the dump. With 45 minutes in the dump area we had plenty of time to discuss any extra procedures and the junior F/E suggested that as we had departed at max T/O weight and would be landing at max landing weight we should extend the gear early on final approach to dissipate the brake temps. I am glad I had all those extra eyes and experience that night because the pressure on me as Pilot in Command was greatly reduced. Save the captains prerogative as to who occupies the jump seat.

teresa green
4th Mar 2010, 21:06
Ken, They Used To Have Another Set Of Eyes And Hands They Were Called Flight Engineers And Very Handy They Were Too. Bloody Disgrace You Cannot Give A Lift To A Colleague/mate So They Can Get To Work, What A Load Of Crap....

rmcdonal
19th May 2010, 21:43
Its back on the table.

Pilots group warns against changing cockpit access rules (http://www.smh.com.au/national/pilots-group-warns-against-changing-cockpit-access-rules-20100519-vfcl.html)

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

DEFCON4
19th May 2010, 23:34
This has nothing to do with safety security or anything else except Albaneses" wanting to show that he is in charge and wants to save face.
Live in his electorate ?
Pay his office a visit

newsensation
20th May 2010, 00:19
'We are taking these steps to restrict cockpit access and safeguard Australian travellers based on advice from aviation security experts,'' a spokesman for the Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, said.

and who are the "aviation security experts"?:ugh:

Ken Borough
20th May 2010, 03:04
To all the nay-sayers putting the dubious argument of 'another pair of eyes'. Well, it is all very circular. A certain A340 from the Middle East, on departure from Melbourne, had not an additional pair of eyes but two pairs of eyes. These additional eyes did nothing to prevent a near disaster.

Teresa - I hear what you say about giving "A Lift To A Colleague/mate So They Can Get To Work..." but why can't people live where they are employed like most mortal beings? Commuting pilots should not receive any special perks that are unavailable to other staff simply because they possess an ASIC card and live away from their place of employment. If a ground- staffer lived in MEL, would you give him/her a lift to the office in SYD? The answer is probably 'no' but most would neither ask nor expect a ride on the jump seat. The truth should not be manipulated to support an unjustified perk.

And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?

And to newsensation who asks "who are the "aviation security experts"?", I don't know but perhaps they just may know much more about aviation security than pilots ever will. If the pilots collective wisdom is better than that of the security experts, then the pilots are in the wrong job!

RENURPP
20th May 2010, 03:28
Ken,
generally, however I have no knowledge of the event you mentioned, jumseaters board either with or just prior to the main pax flow. Considering that the calculations that lead to the error were "probably" complete prior to the jump seaters being present your comments may be irrelevant. If they were present and did run an eye over the calculations, then the following incident may not have eventuated. Either way I agree with your point, allow pilots on the flight deck. What is lacking fromyour general argument is a reason tochange the regs and NOT allow pilots inthe jump seat.

As for the "security experts" they are a joke and I have obsolutely no doubt about that. Perverts and time waisters creating an illusion for the general public.

maggotdriver
20th May 2010, 04:50
It's very simple, you either trust the pilots or you don't. Their security and investigation of us prior to issuing ASICs should be sufficient, if not they are deficient in their jobs. If I'm not a threat with my big fat hoof on the rudder peddles at 150 knots rolling down the runway, then I shouldn't be one sitting in the back seat helping to possibly stop someone from gaining access. Whilst they're at it, why don't they endorse the security experts so that they can deal with the engine failure when it occurs. Oh! F... where are those untrustworthy pilots now??:eek:

newsensation
20th May 2010, 05:58
HA HA Ken, you make me laugh

And to newsensation who asks "who are the "aviation security experts"?", I don't know but perhaps they just may know much more about aviation security than pilots ever will
You don't know who the so called experts are but you do know they are more expert than pilots......:D:D

KRUSTY 34
20th May 2010, 06:36
You know Ken,

It's imb#c!les like you that are the reason the once enviable profession of Commercial pilot is where it is today! :yuk:

maui
20th May 2010, 06:57
Geez Krusty.

You make it hard for a bloke. After so much past opposition, I have to agree with you on this one.

Maui

nitpicker330
20th May 2010, 07:32
but why can't people live where they are employed like most mortal beings?

Train drivers and Bus drivers all commute from their home to work by..............you guessed it Train and Bus. ( and usually free )

Pilot's commuting to work using their own companies form of transport ( in this case an Aircraft ) are no different.

It's just pure damn jealously on the behalf of the Pollies and they are trying to show us who the boss is.

Pure and simple.

Capt Kremin
20th May 2010, 07:57
I notice AIPA seem to be ramping up the issue of airside security. Is that purely coincidental? Maybe if Mr Albanese wants to play hardball, then pilots can too.

What would happen if you questioned one of the cleaners on your aircraft whether or not they had been through a proper metal detector screening before being allowed on to your aircraft? If the answer was no, then presumably the PIC would be in their rights, nay compelled by the law, to have the aircraft thoroughly searched before departure.

A few of those instances and who knows what change of attitude may be experienced by our dear Minister?

Capt Kremin
20th May 2010, 08:12
The relevant section of the current regulations:

4.04 Things to be detected by screening
(1) This regulation is made for paragraph 44 (2) (b) of the Act.
(2) The things that are to be detected by screening are:
(a) on a person, or in a personís belongings, or in stores
entering a sterile area ó weapons and prohibited items;
and
(b) in checked baggage ó explosives; and
(c) in a vehicle or in goods entering an enhanced inspection
area ó weapons.

Unless all personnel entering a sterile zone are subject to metal detection screening or full body searches, how else can this part of the regs be properly observed?

adsyj
20th May 2010, 08:50
Ken you said:
And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?

You are kidding aren't you.

By the way what is exactly your interest in something that does not directly affect you, I am assuming you are not an airline pilot.

Tony John
20th May 2010, 11:06
I read the Minister's media release which stated


"The Pilotís Association is wrong when it says the regulations exclude licensed company pilots from travelling on the flight deck when they are not actually flying the plane. If the airline allows those pilots to travel in the cockpit for an operational, safety, security or training reason they can do so, and the airline Ė not the pilot Ė carries legal responsibility.


"In fact, the pilot in command of a plane will be able to allow people to travel in the cockpit (such as other pilots), so long as they have an operational, safety, security or training reason for being there. The pilot is then legally responsible for doing so."


I ask you - If we can let another pilot into the cockpit to help with safety, what's the big deal?

YPJT
21st May 2010, 03:13
To my mind, the problem at the moment is not the non-screening of engineers, cleaners, baggage handlers, refuelers etc. Rather the theatrics of forcing aircrew to be screened.

kimir
21st May 2010, 12:32
Ken B, you have no idea obviously. I make decisions about operational safety every day. I can therefore make a judgement about who can sit in MY jumpseat. A.S.O.'s are trusted to carry firearms on board aircraft, can we not be trusted at some point with the bulletproof door at our backs not to mention the crash axe! It is all for show, Alabanese is just power mad with no idea and no interest in making things genuinely safer. Sad that non professionals keep making ill informed decisions based on information provided by people who are merely trying to keep themselves in a job.

malroy
21st May 2010, 23:48
I still miss the days when as an ATC (at that stage trainee) I could visit your workplace, and get a feel for your workload. Helped so much in understanding both our jobs...

Capt Kremin
22nd May 2010, 02:57
YJPT has it in one. Screen all those publicly entering an aircraft; so the public can see the government is "serious about security", yet exempt all those entering an aircraft from airside from the same theatrics because to have a proper electronic screening point manned 24 hours a day would be expensive and damned inconvenient.

Albanese, when the first aircraft is hijacked with weapons supplied from accomplices who were exempt under your silly laws, then you should be held directly accountable.

vee1-rotate
24th May 2010, 20:18
Looks like it is already in place at DJ. An operational bulletin came out yesterday stipulating only operating crew, or those with a safety, security, operational or training reason, are permitted to ride in the jumpseat.

Australian government hard at work again helping to keep us safe...not

Taildragger67
25th May 2010, 04:51
Can't an argument be made that ATC familiarity flights are permissible due to a safety, security, operational or training reason?

The justifications being:

- safety - ATC having better understanding of flight ops will help promote safety;
- security - ATC will gain a better understanding of flight and flight-deck security issues;
- operational - ATC will gain a better understanding of the flight crew's operational environment and workload issues which their instructions may create for the flight crew;
- training - encompasses all of the above.

Does DOTARS not trust ATC-ers enough to allow them flight deck access?

Re red-ASIC-ed staff, could there not be an argument on safety and security grounds - "As PIC, I consider the flight is inherently safer and more secure with an extra trained company pilot on the FD so I will endeavour to find one on every flight" - so should paxing company pilots maybe make themselves known upon boarding?

flamingmoe
25th May 2010, 12:09
I sincerely think ol' Ken is having a lend of you all, no-one could possibly be so simple. :ugh:

Funk
25th May 2010, 14:13
As an soon to be ex-ATC'er and a lifelong Labor voter I will be returning home to Oz in time for the next election to help vote these fools out :ok:
I just did a famil from OMAA to VCBI in the jump seat, gave me no end of appreciation for the airspace, changes in cockpit technology as well as cockpit procedures since the last famil flight I did in Australia back in 1999.
'Unjustified perk', obviously hasn't sat in a 737 or regional jump seat for any length of time :ugh:, perk is where you get to fly your entourage business class at the tax payers expense whilst screaming about the state of the radisho lettuce dressing.

Worrals in the wilds
25th May 2010, 15:28
Albanese, when the first aircraft is hijacked with weapons supplied from accomplices who were exempt under your silly laws, then you should be held directly accountable.

Absolutely. Either do it properly or accept that the risk of terrorism related hijack is extremely low in Australia and best addressed by well funded, properly trained intelligence agencies, rather than government spin and knee jerk, low cost media friendly 'initiatives'. While we're at it Kevvy / Albanese, how's the budget looking for the border agencies? Well funded, or starved of resources? :yuk:

metrosmoker
25th May 2010, 23:49
Worrals is 100% correct.

the last group of emoployers sacked for misconduct(trafficing drugs) were those well screened ground crew after passing extensive security check(some had criminal records).

But you got it right there Albanese you fool. I am a bigger threat to the safety of an aircraft with my 110grams of toothpaste, that is half empty!

VBPCGUY
26th May 2010, 12:45
Looks like it is already in place at DJ. An operational bulletin came out yesterday stipulating only operating crew, or those with a safety, security, operational or training reason, are permitted to ride in the jumpseat.

Australian government hard at work again helping to keep us safe...not

Yes read it today not freaking happy:ugh:

The Bunglerat
27th May 2010, 00:19
Great idea, Duxnutz; a very practical & common-sense approach to the issue. Which is why it will never happen. :ugh:

Bazzamundi
27th May 2010, 01:33
Perhaps flying as low as cleared with gear down and flap out over the Transport Ministers marginal electorate by all of us will change his attitude, and possibly the companies attitudes also (once they realise it is costing them money).

MrWooby
27th May 2010, 04:37
How about captain's refuse to allow CASA inspectors on the flight deck. We are not allowed to have a fellow company pilot, who you've probably know for years in the jump seat because he is a security risk, Yet a CASA examiner who you've never met before can rock up to your flight deck show a ASIC and be allowed access for the purpose of surveillance of your flight. Tell him to politely sod off, as he is a security risk.

notaplanegeek
27th May 2010, 08:58
Again, consultants and people in that line of work of meaningless and pointless jobs.....FFS

Eric Arthur Blair
27th May 2010, 11:37
It seems you don't need access to the flight deck to pull off a hijack. The NTSB data from the FDR of American Airline's 77 on Sep 11 indicates that the flight deck door remained closed for the duration of the flight from Dulles to the Pentagon. AAL77 FDR Decoder (http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/index.html)

rmcdonal
27th May 2010, 12:11
Perhaps flying as low as cleared with gear down and flap out over the Transport Ministers marginal electorate by all of us will change his attitude, and possibly the companies attitudes also (once they realise it is costing them money).
Don't do that, I live about 500m from his office.... Actualy do that but just check with my roster first. :ok:

teresa green
1st Jun 2010, 09:54
This all seems unbelievable for a bloke from my era. Off course we would give a bloke a lift to work, the only problem I ever had was to get one who barracked for a different team to me! What a innocent world we lived in, how bloody sad you cannot give a mate a lift to work, even after 89 we still gave a lift even if it was conducted in silence, (and it often was)! The whole thing is nuts!:{

Mr Sheen
1st Jun 2010, 10:56
Dear Ken,

I registered so i could tell you what a complete mumbling moron i think you are!! Just like your friend ALBY..:mad::mad:

I havent bothered to read your other posts to get an idea of what you do in aviation(just a stab in the dark your not a pilot) but i wouldnt let you make toast let alone look at an aircraft!!