Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Capt_SNAFU]

The other question is. If two people have similar training are they better with 200 or 1500hrs? We all know the answer. Quality of training is very important no doubt. But if training is all that is required, why not have DE captains with 200hrs. Perhaps because all organisations realise that experience does count. I can only believe that no airforce pilot flying multi crew goes straight from training into the LHS. If they are going to fly single seaters they spend a lot of time in the dual seat training versions under very very strict supervision.

[Sunstar320]

180ft above the ground for 12 seconds and no investigation. Why is Mr Dolan still in a job?

[Jabawocky]

Is there a recodring of JB's speach anywhere on the net?

[Spotl]

As a matter of interest for those that didn't know, the Inquiry was televised on (FOXTEL - APAC Channel) for the full day of hearings.

I recorded it all on DVD and am in the process of converting it to .avi format. However, as it goes for about 4 hours, I suspect it will be a large file (several hundred MB, if not a GB or more?)

However, I'm willing to share it with Pprune members who didn't see it.
The question is can a large file be uploaded on Pprune? If, yes, then how do you do it?

[Roller Merlin]

Sunfish you are clearly very astute ... the cost-reduction battleplan will have a few more strategies to play out yet. However the senators have exposed raw nerves and the fatigue issue amongst other things has also been dumped into casa's lap. Fatigue limits=duty times= pushing range of operations and number of sectors alowed=overnighting costs=staff numbers needed. There are big dollars is this equation.

The question now is, how long will the current labour government allow it to continue to remain in the spotlight, including FWA impending decision on jetconnect, all the while gathering more momentum before it reaches critical mass and becomes a workchoices type of issue in the media, and threatens public trust? And how long can the CEOs keep their heads down hoping it will blow over?

[fmcinop]

Questions raised over aviation regulation - The Irish Times - Thu, Mar 17, 2011 (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0317/1224292406816.html)

Says it all. You can't buy experience!

[The Kelpie]

Doesn't have the snippets of the audit but here goes

Senate gets scathing Jetstar audit CASA didn’t see fit to send to airline
March 18, 2011 – 6:35 pm, by Ben Sandilands
Senator Nick Xenophon today tabled an internal and damning CASA human factors audit of Jetstar that the CEO of the aviation regulator, John McCormick,* said wasn’t in a suitable format to send to the airline.

The document produced at the public hearings today of the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety contradicts Jetstar claims to put safety above all else and points to a culture of intimidation and rule bending in the Qantas low cost subsidiary.

The Special Fatigue Audit: Jetstar dated 10 May 2010 was prepared by CASA’s manager human factors and found, among other things that:



The present system has been managed with a strong emphasis on achieving operational outcomes with insufficient consideration given to potential fatigue risk. This was evident in a number of loose interpretations and applications of* rostering practices … and further supported by the feedback obtained from operational personnel.



The human factors audit was discussed with the AIPA delegation, Captain Richard Woodward and its safety and technical consultant Captain Dick Mackerras before the public part of today’s testimony by CASA and the ATSB continued in camera.

Woodward said the audit found Jetstar was legally flying under its current staffing dispensations tougher back-of-clock consecutive rosters than would be lawful for train drivers. He drew attention to a finding that* in January 12 out of 21 of the flights between Darwin-Singapore-Darwin exceeded Jetstar’s own limits, primarily because the roster was based on a 40 minute turnaround at Changi airport which was very hard to achieve in reality when it took up to 12-15 minutes to taxi to the terminal before disembarkation, cleaning and the embarkation of the next passengers could even begin.

“There is a culture of fear and intimidation at Jetstar” he said. “I would like to have a Jetstar pilot sitting beside me this afternoon…We get many, many complaints about what is happening at Jetstar….but the damage to career and income from speaking out publicly prevents that.”

Woodward said the pilots association wanted to see Australian regulations dealing with cabin crew fatigue as well because of the safety function they perform, which was their primary role, rather than serving or selling refreshments. (In later testimony CASA outlined a provisional timetable for this to happen starting later in the year after ICAO produces* a framework and set of definitions of fatigue to be applied world wide.)

Dick Mackerras described part of the problem as out of date regulations which had been written on the basis of reasonable people doing reasonable things and not the intense commercial realities of modern long haul and low cost flying.

“This document (the human factors audit) goes to the heart of having the appearance of good safety management systems but if you don’t really have a good system where the rubber hits the road, then you get lots of complaints coming through from the pilots.

“This is happening in Jetstar.”

Senator Bill Heffernan asked the AIPA representatives if there were airlines around the world that through risk analysis and the availability of good insurance were taking the view that an ‘occasional hole in the ground’ is acceptable.

Woodward said the reality was that there would be some carriers prepared to ‘wear a hull loss’ as affordable in terms of complying with legal minimum standards rather than investing in higher standards.

Senator Heffernan: It has been put to us that it is better to have a Senate inquiry than sit around and watch a Royal Commission.

In his public testimony the CEO of CASA, John McCormick, explained that the human resources audit was but one third of an audit conducted by a jet airliner pilot, and a safety systems expert as well as the human resources manager (who has since been recruited to another senior position outside CASA).

McCormick said not all of the findings in the human resources audit were suitable for inclusion in the resulting document which was sent to Jetstar* because some sections were not verified or supported.

He also said that as a result of the combined audit and its recommendations being sent to Jetstar all of the those findings had been satisfactorily addressed by Jetstar.* Pressed by Xenophon and Heffernan for more details of as to how CASA was satisfied, and what exactly it was satisfied with, McCormick said he would provide the inquiry members with a copy of the document sent to Jetstar.

McCormick also said there was a new audit of Jetstar schduled for May this year, which wasn’t quite the answers that the senators appeared determined to establish, as observed on the small screen of the Senate inquiry webcast.* Greg Hood, CASA’s executive manager, operations division, said “We will go back and review the Jetstar responses.”

In a lengthy exchange about fatigue issues, McCormick said “There is only one cure for fatigue issues and that is money.”

During this afternoon’s public sessions the chariman Senator Heffernan said “We haven’t finished….with Jetstar and Qantas, and we are assembling evidence to call them back.”



And another. Great reporting ben

[Alistair]

but if they can make the training of a high enough standard in these cadetships then there is no issue

My bolding.

No issue, BS! How many 200 hour guys have you sat next to in a Boeing or Airbus to be qualified to make that statement.

I have, and they are fine to a point. If the proverbial hits the fan then there is a high probability that you will be on your own. Yes, it can also happen with higher time people too, but the chances are smaller. Have seen it in the sim and on line.

Yes, they pass the same checks for their licence in the sim, but to a certain extent most sims are a standard format exercise that we have seen (similar) before. In the real thing, with a mortal threat to your own life and an unexpected, complex scenario to deal with it can be totally different. It is dificult to find any form of training that will be of a high enough standard for a 200 hour cadet to cope with a situation like this. The only form of training I know of that could is called experience.

The only reason that companies are putting these cadet "schemes" in place is that it is cheaper (sometimes even makes money for them) and they have a compliant work force that will do as they are told. Financial pressure can have a great affect on what you will and won't do and most of these cadets are under financial pressure from day 1 as they have a huge level of debt and a subsistance wage to live on. (As alluded to by the CASA chap (says a lot about his personal motivation and character) when he said that the only cure for fatigue was more money or words to that effect. Funny, I always thought it was rest). Their contracts are also used to undermine the contracts of existing employees both in their own company and others. Don't believe me, go and ask someone what they were earning 15 years ago in the RHS of the same aircraft.

[rmcdonal]

In the end of the day you have to sit your checkride and tests the same as everyone else. If you pass it, you pass.
This is true, however the sim rides only check basic manipulative skill (how well can you fly a sim), and airline procedures. Most sim sessions come with a briefing available to pilots well before the session allowing them plenty of time to figure out the best management of the session. This effectively removes the component of experience from the equation as it gives the pilot weeks to come up with a solution to a problem where in real life they would have seconds.

[Low and Fast]

Just a little off subject.
But the question needs asking

What will happen to Australia's GA industry and what effects will this have on the regionals if these cadet schemes continue to grow within the majors?

[wheels_down]

By the way it was an A320 not an A330 as written in the article.

[WynSock]

DominicYPGV,



Weather radar interpretation takes a long time to learn in my opinion.
Local knowledge is not taught in a course.
Big picture situational awareness takes years to develop.
Real situations are nealry always very different than the sim.
If I am faced with a potentially dangerous development, it is more often experience that will get me out of it and experience that helps me avoid it in the first place. Training is great for CRM, systems knowledge and emergency management, I don't disagree with that.

If you ask me, the control seat of a jet is no place to have L plates.
Lets face it, most of what we learn comes from trial and error.

The thing is you have to baby-sit the buggers! Watch them like a hawk.

Maybe it's just me, but when I had 1000hrs I was freaking dangerous.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Here are a few questions I would love the Senators to ask Dumb and Dumber if they ever get the spine to appear again.

1. If the A380 incident happened with a Captain and a 200+ hour Cadet from the Jetstar cadet program, would you be confident the result would have been the same?

2. Why do you need a Jetstar cadet program? Was the Qantas program not sufficient? Or is this driven purely by profiting from this scheme?

3. AJ, with the amount of distrust and distain that is evident towards you and your management, how can it be possible to maintain safety to the highest standards, taking into consideration the continual threat to your employees livelihoods?

4. Do you believe executive and management bonuses are at the detriment of a safety orientated business like an Airline?

5. Should KPI's and bonuses be driving decisions in a business like an airline?

6. Do you believe flying Australian registered jets with 200 hour pilot, based overseas, working under the overseas states regulations, being paid local wages with no benefits (e.g housing allowances, accommodation, transport and superannuation/provident fund etc), is in the best interest of the Australian traveling public?

7. How do you believe that this benefits Australia in any way? Considering tax would obviously be avoided in Australia and our industrial laws would be circumvented. Wouldn't this set a precedent for other organisations?
For example, we could have Rio Tinto fly in Indonesian miners for a dollar a day and fly them out after two weeks, undercutting current Australian condition, would this not be the same thing and be detrimental to working Australians?

8. Are your mothers proud of you both?

Just for starters.

[max1]

I may be hijacking the thread to an extent, but I am severely underwhelmed with the organization tasked with the responsibility of overseeing aviation safety in Australia.

QUOTE]Did I hear CASA correctly, did he just say "The only way to fix fatigue is to pay them more money" ? [/QUOTE]

I have concerns about the Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) in Airservices Australia and ASAs application of InterDynes' FAID system. I have repeatedly spoken to InterDyne and they agree that ASA are misusing the application. I have an internal email trail going back years for ASA to address the issue and talk to InterDyne. ASA will not refer the concerns to InterDyne. ASA seem to begrudgingly recognize that they have a requirement/responsibility from the Senate Transport Inquiry ( beyond the Midnight Oil)of the early 2000s to address fatigue. Since that time ASA (and others?) has treated these statuatory obligations like tax laws, as something to be subverted or minimized.

We had CASA in to do an unassociated audit. I was told that one of the auditors was very interested in FRMSs’, when I outlined my concerns and gave him examples of the abuse and blatant disregard of FAID he asked about the new FRMS that ASA were supposed to be introducing. I told him that this was supposed to be introduced last year but wasn't. His attitude was that ASA were now working to address the issue. I asked him that if someone was flying people around in a non-compliant manner/aircraft but said that they would fix this up in the future would CASA consider this acceptable. He would not answer.
I offered to CASA person that I would send him the email trail I had and he could refer to above or investigate, if he would give me his email address. He said he would not even give me his CASA email address. He asked what Civilair ( the ATC Association were doing about it), I said that you are supposed to be the regulator and I am making you aware of ASAs conduct and what will CASA do about it. He said that he would not ask these questions.
I am still attempting to follow these questions up internally in ASA, and through CASA. I spoke to one of the canteen workers yesterday, in conversation she told me that if they worked 6 days it was a compulsory 2 day break. In ATC after 10 days or 80 hours it triggers a 1 day break and you can then do 10 days or 80 hours again. That sandwich toaster/chip fryer must be a dangerous place.
Why is it now so damned hard and so personally fraught with penalties to do the right thing in Australia????

[The Kelpie]

I was on jq62 a few months back and the level of English on the cabin crew was abysmal. The guy doing the announcements read it parrot fashion so much so I swear he did not understand what he was saying. I was fortunate that I had the A321 exit seat with lots of leg room. I was not only asked to open the exit in the event of an emergency but rather assist the cabin crew and provide assistance for them to get out of the aircraft I'd necessary. Bugger that, any problem requiring an evacuation and I'm gone!!!

Anyway:

I wouldn't be surprised if Immigration Officials (given that they have offices at international ports of entry) will be standing at the JQ62 and return leg domestic gates in Melbourne and Darwin over the next few days to check crew immigation status. For Aus citizens or PR it will not be a problem!!

Fines, jail terms and exclusion periods are significant for breach of Visa conditions.

I took advantage of the 'dob-in' line!!!! I would encourage others to do the same as it is the duty of every citizen to protect our country and our jobs!!

Immigration didn't seem too chuft that it was alledged to be happenning right under their noses, or so to speak!

[Skynews]

Immigration Dob-in Line

Telephone: 1800 009 623
Use this number to advise the department about a person working or living illegally in Australia
Hours of operation
8.30 am to 4.30 pm Monday to Friday (voicemail facility available out of these hours)
Fax Number
1800 009 849
Alternatively, you can fax information to the department.
See: Immigration Dob-In Line

I've made my call. It costs about a dollar from a mobile , FREE from landline.

[GAFA]

Ben needs to amend his Virgin article as it should be 'Stuart Haynes' not 'aggs'.

[Icarus2001]

Did I hear CASA correctly, did he just say "The only way to fix fatigue is to pay them more money" ?

In a lengthy exchange about fatigue issues, McCormick said “There is only one cure for fatigue issues and that is money.”


Settle down fellas. READ WHAT McCormick said (assuming the quote is correct). He DID NOT say PAY MORE, he said MONEY will fix the issues.

Read it carefully!

Meaning pilots flying less hours etc leading to more crew required or more rest leading to less fatigue. Which COSTS MONEY.

40 minute turn around at Changi? What do they do leave them running?

[The Kelpie]

It seems the mainstream press are aware although the author should check his facts I think:

Jetstar flight crew feared death

Geoff Easdown From: Herald Sun March 19, 2011 12:00AM


A JETSTAR flight crew feared for their lives late last year after their plane came close to crashing during a tropical storm over Darwin, a Senate inquiry has heard.

The hearing was told that the A320 passenger jet would not climb and stalled for several minutes.

A Qantas A380 captain, who gave evidence on behalf of the pilot of the Jetstar plane, told the inquiry that a report given to him of the incident told how the pilot and first officer were convinced they would crash.

Richard Woodward, the A380 captain representing the Australian International Airline Pilots' Association, said it was strange the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had closed an inquiry given that the incident was so serious.

"He (the pilot) was quite concerned and thought that they were going to die because of the severe weather event. It (the plane) actually stopped climbing for quite some period of time," Captain Woodward

"The storm was directly overhead and they (the pilots) couldn't have seen it," he said.

[Skynews]

"The storm was directly overhead and they (the pilots) couldn't have seen it," he said.I find that a rather strange comment.The hearing was told that the A320 passenger jet would not climb and stalled for several minutes.as is this. I wll put them down to the media.

[Dehavillanddriver]

GAFA

Stuart Haynes is the Manager Flight Training and Checking not the chief pilot.

Stuart Aggs is the GM Safety Systems

Rick Howell is the GM Flight Operations and is the Head of Flying Operations, the Chief Pilot in the old vernacular.

[The Kelpie]

John McCormick of CASA said

McCormick also said there was a new audit of Jetstar schduled for May this year,

Which part?

Or is it the way that CASA only check one franchise and all the other franchises are checked and self-regulated by QF Group to see if the 'brand reputation' is being maintained?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[SW3]

Who learnt to drive in a Kenworth truck? Ask any passenger if they would prefer a newly qualified pilot with little experience flying them in a multi million dollar jet?
Time for a reality check here....
Yes you can train someone to fly a jet with only 200 hours experience, you could teach a monkey to do it. But what happens when it's not a fine and beaut CAVOK day and all systems aren't working as they should be? Oh yes you can pass the sim check, but what about when it happens FOR REAL? Cant hurt yourself or anyone else in a sim. You draw on from past experience, prioritise and apply what you have learnt. Hard to do if you have no experience. You need to remain calm, fly the aeroplane and sort the problem. You need the spare head space to focus on the issue at hand, not just thinking about how to fly the plane. Situational awareness? And it's not just all up to the Captains to deal with it. They need to delegate tasks, but as an FO you also need to be able to prioritise tasks being handed to you and provide valuable support. Hence the reason there are two pilots up front.
It's not about a 'right of passage', it's a point in your career when you're suitable for the job. Who passed uni and became a top manager?
At 500 hours you think you know it all. At 1000 you realise you don't know that much. Every thousand after that you become more humble. Applied knowledge through experience.
It also needs to be the right hours in the right aeroplanes. 1500 hours in a C172 doesnt give you sufficient background for a jet.
As for the airforce and pilots flying jets with minimal hours. They are the cream of the crop. Take a look at their selection process. And they are trainined by the best of the best to impeccable standard.
In my opinion, if you want to fly for the airlines, learn to fly and gain the required experience. Enjoy the journey, it's a fantastic career path with many life experiences. If you started off in a jet, what do you have to aspire to? And people wonder why there are issues with Gen Y.

[Sunfish]

I want to tell YPGV something about "experience".

I am a low time private pilot. I will never fly big jet aircraft.

However, I believe that if you can safely operate a little aircraft then you are going to be able to safely operate a large one, furthermore you will do it better and more safely than someone with no GA experience. The reverse is not true, as numerous instructors who have sat beside airline captains in small Cessnas will tell you.

There is such a thing as "seat of the pants" experience acquired in GA and small aircraft that is priceless. It is an innate understanding of the forces acting on the aircraft at all times, I say "innate" because you ****ing feel them directly.and sometimes violently, and learn to take immediate corrective action - or else.

You do not get this feeling in Three hundred tonnes of aircraft, however exactly the same forces are at work, as can be seen in the many videos of crosswind landings of large jets. What the basic GA flying does in my opinion is give a pilot a basic feeling of anticipation of what the aircraft is about to try and do much faster than someone with no GA experience, and therefore allow them to react faster to stimuli.


I base this opinion on my knowledge of the behaviours of sailing boats - vessels that move in Two different fluid streams at once - wind and water, that are in many ways considerably harder to manoeuvre than aircraft, and the people that helm them.

I learned to sail at age 9. I have sailed more or less continuously for fifty years. I can say categorically that those that learned to sail in a little boat can sail a big one competently after instruction, much more competently than someone with no small boat experience.

It is very common in sailing to see a person come late to the art with no small boat experience, buy a very large, heavy and expensive vessel, acquire experienced crew, and instruction, then attempt to race it.

No matter how intelligent they are, no matter how much instruction is given, no matter how much money they throw at the boat (Five million is typical, and a million a year in expenses) it always ends in tears, because even the best of them is ALWAYS half a second or more behind the boat compared to an experienced dinghy sailor.


And Jetstar had a heavy landing? Surely that is getting behind the aircraft? Surely a botched approach is the same thing - getting behind the aircraft.

Of course there are "bad habits" in GA and operational skills that can be taught and learned, like the care and feeding of engines, navigation, etc., but the fact remains, how do you ensure that pilots don't get behind the aircraft? I don't think you can teach that in a large aircraft.

My gut feel is that the cadets schemes and "GA is not relevant" crowd are self serving arguments by those who want to drive costs down, and nothing else.

[The Kelpie]

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said safety was the airline's priority and CASA regularly undertook such audits.
He said the audit ''delivered no formal request for corrective action into areas assessed''.
''Jetstar is currently formalising its integrated fatigue risk management system in accordance with best practice.''

Perhaps Mr McCormick of CASA would like to comment on Mr Westaway's comment to the Bribane Times?

[clotted]

Kelpie,
Bugger that, any problem requiring an evacuation and I'm gone!!!
You show your true colours here mate. You're all mouth. You're part of the me, me, me, me, mob. The rest of the world should be perfect but not you.
It is part of the rules for the operation of the aircraft that a person who occupies an emergency exit row seat be willing and able to open the emergency exit doors. That's what they're there for. If you're not prepared to open the exit door then bugger off and give someone who is, the responsibility. In my experience most if not all 320 and 737 operators worldwide do the same thing, not just JQ. but any excuse to grandstand will do eh?
More to come MFA

[mister hilter]

From the kelpie

'I was not only asked to open the exit in the event of an emergency but rather assist the cabin crew and provide assistance for them to get out of the aircraft I'f necessary. Bugger that,'

My bold (and red). Clotted, don't think opening the emergency exit was the problem, rather doing their jobs is what may cause him to baulk. Don't see any grandstanding from my POV.

[The Kelpie]

Clotted

I did not say that I would not operate the emergency exit. What I said if you would take a moment to go back and read it is that I was asked by the single cabin crew in the centre if the aircraft to assist passengers by shouting directions and such. Even if need be, when I eventually leave the aircraft after all other passengers using that exit have gone, to make sure that the cabin crew was also able to leave the aircraft, otherwise to take her with me.

I just wonder how many pax actually listen to that special pax brief and understand exactly what they are asking?

IMHO most people have heard the standard 'operate the emergeny exit' Brief so many times they switch off.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Sunfish,

That is BS, you still get the same "seat of your pants" feeling flying a big jet as you do flying a c152.

Only difference is it takes a bit of experience to recognise that feeling.

[The Kelpie]

Well it's not just me that believes there is a problem and something is not quite adding up.

Jetstar contradicts CASA’s evidence to Senate inquiry
March 19, 2011 – 9:58 am, by Ben Sandilands
Jetstar’s reaction to the tabling of an unfavourable CASA audit of its rostering practices and fatigue management at the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety yesterday contradicts the testimony given by CASA chief executive officer John McCormick.

In the Brisbane Times this morning this appears:

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said safety was the airline’s priority and CASA regularly undertook such audits.He said the audit ”delivered no formal request for corrective action into areas assessed”.

”Jetstar is currently formalising its integrated fatigue risk management system in accordance with best practice.”

Yet John McCormick said:

…. that as a result of the combined audit and its recommendations being sent to Jetstar all of the those findings had been satisfactorily addressed by Jetstar.

Westaway doesn’t speak for Jetstar without his words being approved by the most senior levels of the airline. This is unlikely therefore to be a mistake, raising the question as to whether McCormick was mistaken.

Or whether McCormick is mindful of the relationship between major Australian carriers and the safety regulator to the point where documents that say in a direct manner that any of them aren’t properly managing safety issues are suppressed, edited, or otherwise defanged to avoid causing harm to the relationship.

There may be only one way that the dilemma created by Jetstar’s response can be* resolved in fairness to all parties.

That is, for the Senators to compare the human factors audit to the full audit document sent to Jetstar in May 2010.

Then, for the Senators to ask,* as some of them did yesterday, exactly what CASA required of Jetstar, exactly what Jetstar did in response, and exactly why CASA was then satisfied with the responses made by Jetstar which its spokesperson says they weren’t even asked to address and thus presumably never made.

These questions, and the resolution of the disparity in positions, is surely as critically important as Jetstar improperly changing the standard operating procedures for missed approaches on A320s, failing to keep any written records, failing to acknowledge its culpability in its Senate submission per Qantas, and leaving the pilots of one of its jets on July 27, 2007, so dangerously confused that they comes within metres of smashing the jet into the ground at Tullamarine Airport.

Jetstar is very proactive about throwing around the ‘proactive safety’ phrase. But it is very opaque and defensive, and at critical times, undocumented, when it comes proactively explaining actual events, processes and reasons concerning matters of direct relevance to its performance of regulatory obligations.

Its group CEO, Bruce Buchanan, should, with respect be begging the Senate to return and explain all of these matters, oh and a few concerning its apparent attempt to evade Australian labor laws and tax and superannuation obligations concerning its not-really-NZ New Zealand cadet pilot scheme and the offshoring of jobs and assets in Singapore.

It’s a wonderful opportunity for Jetstar to put the pro-active into ‘pro-active’ and talk these things through, one step at a time, without any flights to catch or weddings to attend or any other time pressures, in a Senate inquiry of vital interest to Australians beyond just those of air travellers.

[KRUSTY 34]

WRT the A320 T/S incident, I wasn't there but I dunno', personally I wouldn't even contemplate departing if I wasn't completely sure I wouldn't encounter a microburst. the fact that the crew requested information, were unable to elicit a response, and then decided to depart anyway has me more than just a little concerned.

About 6 months ago we waited on the ground at KSA for 90mins as a particularily nasty front moved through before we were convinced it was safe to depart. In that time there were no less than 3 runway changes! Now Krusty isn't particularily over cautious, but he has had enough scares in his previous G/A career to know when to go and when not to.

We all at some stage have lived and learnt. I'm sure this crew have learnt a valuable lesson and will use that hard won experience to good effect in the future. But, the cockpit of a Jet airliner is NOT the place to be learning such lessons!

Senators, are you listening.

[framer]

That is BS, you still get the same "seat of your pants" feeling flying a big jet as you do flying a c152.

Only difference is it takes a bit of experience to recognise that feeling.
Yeah I agree, especially about the experience bit. I did about 3000 hours out bush and it took me about 2000hrs on 737's before I realised that my seat of the pants reactions (ie when to add thrust etc) were actually applicable to jets. Prior to that I was a fraction of a second behind the 8 ball because I would wait to see whatever needed done be shown through the instruments. It is much more subtle in my opinion but still there. if I hadn't already known the feelings which are so pronounced in lite aircraft I think I would still be waiting for the instruments to confirm my suspiscians before acting because I wouldn't have recognised the feelings in the first place.

[SW3]

So true! Because jets are so automated initially we tend to rely on instrument indications and autopilots wheras the seat of the pants flying still applies and is completely essential! Like the instructor told us in the sim on the endorsement, "it's just a f...ing aeroplane!".
In addition I've found I learn so much from the older generation, guys with tens of thousands of hours and decades behind them. Why? EXPERIENCE. You can't teach experience.
At 200 hours we are all extremely green. We know the basics with a licence, but it's a licence to learn. We learn on every flight. But a jetliner is no place to polish your basic flying skills and management of a flight. I'm sure insurance companies would love it. Bit why P-Plate drivers aren't allowed to drive high powered vehicles.

[Oxidant]

It's a bit like being a CEO of a multi million dollar Company, you need to have many years of experience & not just straight out of school..........:rolleyes:

[Captahab]

Quoting clotted...
It is part of the rules for the operation of the aircraft that a person who occupies an emergency exit row seat be willing and able to open the emergency exit doors. That's what they're there for.

So, I am in an emergency exit on a flight from Sydney to Perth, I've had a big day and decide to have a few as the missus is picking me up at the other end.

After about five beers and no lunch I am feeling a bit tipsy so I think I could go a few more.

My question clotted, I may be still willing but am I still able and who decides that I am no longer capable, or that I should move and where to on a full flight ?

[airtags]

Lets put the whole exit row thingy to rest as there are much bigger issues at hand:

1. SLF Type III exits were 'delegated' to pax use by proxy for no other reason other than to facilitate a reduce crew compliment (20:16:3)

2. The exemptions granted to JQ DJ & QF by CASA for their operation rely WHOLLY on the a/c manufacturers' claims that
a) pax can be briefed to operate them and;
b) the a/c can be evac'd within the magic 90 secs.

3. The conditions attached to the exemptions are very clear in respect of a compliant pax briefing HOWEVER - alcohol consumption is not a preclusion unless you are obviously franz list in which case you should not be on the a/c or should not have been served enough booze to get you that way- age, fatness (xtn seatbelt) and disability are.

4. CASA is SUPPOSED to have an active audit program especially in respect of exit row briefing compliance - however......it only happens on the way to other meetings typically....

5. The RENEWAL of exemptions is SUPPOSED to include review of practice and review of operators manual (but it does not - DJ's were renewed 'automatically)

6. IF you're in an exit row and you are not briefed correctly (ie the PAX has to open the exit as the CC are at opposite ends of the a/c) then ring REPCON and report it. Also inform the Cabin Manager inflight and ask him or her to please inform the Captain accordingly. (he might as well get started on the associated paperwork)

7. If you're in an exit row and you hear the crew using the 'e' word (or in DJ's simplified language coz Branson-speak always has to be different....) the phrase 'Get out' ..........then check safe to open, open the bloody exit, step onto the wing and get the hell away from the a/c.

As with just about everything else, the regulatory environment is the new frontier for cost cutting and CASA is the lazy old dog asleep on the verandah that doesn't want to bark too loudly.

Back to the serious stuff

AT :E

[airtags]

Kelpie
Loose Bruce won't go near the Committee Room unles he is forced to.

As for Westy's carefully worded comments in relation to JQ's FRMS ...........................

Interestingly Vaus has been issued with an exemption from CASA regarding duty limits which also references CC.......

Aside from the clear lack of wisdom on CASA's part the inclusion of the CC in the exemption seems like a precursor for some heavy patterns.

Any V drivers got a comment?

AT

[The Kelpie]

airtags

Oh I think the next communication from the committee chairman will not have the word 'request' in it.

The Senators are going to want answers, the travelling public want and deserve answers.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[hotnhigh]

Well if the respective ceos, managers are too busy attending weddings, parties, anything, perhaps the chairman of the board would suffice?

[clotted]

And Jetstar had a heavy landing? Surely that is getting behind the aircraft? Surely a botched approach is the same thing - getting behind the aircraft.
Sunfish,
The best of them can get caught out with a heavy landing and the best of them can botch an approach and it ain't necessarily about getting behind the aircraft. In some cases it can be the result of poor decision making but it isn't always.

[FlareArmed]

Dick Mackerras described part of the problem as out of date regulations which had been written on the basis of reasonable people doing reasonable things....

Therein lies an important point; the regulations used to be a reasonable safety net, but now they are a target pursued (or lobbyed against) by unreasonable people.

Ansett pilots accepted the CAO 48 trial partly on management word that the long duty days would be occasional; for disruptions and a couple of problem sectors. What actually happened: crews were routinely rostered to the limit, and expected to extend for disruptions. I recall an FOs anecdote flying with a management Captain faced with the need to extend – Captain: "I'm management – I guess we should extend". FO: "You're management – why don't you follow the rules".

Jetstar is currently formalising its integrated Fatigue Risk Management System in accordance with best practice risk management approach.

This reads like crew welfare is a high priority: In reality, it's more like a dairy farmer using best practice to get a few more drops of milk from each cow just short of killing them (well, at least until long-service nears).

My hope: the Senate realises airlines are no longer run by reasonable people, and regulates accordingly – the 1500 hour rule is probably a good start.

[The Kelpie]

Flarearmed

Probably the conclusion that the US Senate came to and why they did it!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[beat ups are fun]

Very interested into the diverse perspectives of different pilot on here, both experienced and inexperienced.

Being a pilot is mainly a decision making job. A very wise CFI once told me this:-

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

Hence I don't support cadetships in any way, shape, or form. I'd sooner see a pilot make a fatal decision and prang a C206 rather than a A320. (I'd rather not read about a crash at all!)

Of course there are all the other reasons that cadetships are nasty. E.g. IR laws, cost saving etc.

[The Kelpie]

I take it that if the Senate are minded to not introduce the 1500 hours rule then they will also recommend that the minimum requirements for GA and high / low capacity charter work undertaken on behalf of the many Government Agencies will also be reduced accordingly.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Cadets are not the problem, I work with and are friends with cadets that have been through the QF cadet scheme and they are very competent operators. Not better, not worse, just very competent like most of us with experience in aviation.

The problems begin with cadet programs when unscrupulous execs see this as another way of cutting costs by bypassing experience, charging the cadet exorbitant fees and bonds and paying a pittance. And as I said before, you can bet that they will identify more cost savings in the training program over time until all the cadet will eventually graduate with is the minimum CPL and a basic endorsement. Which I am sure at a royal commission would be described by Dumb and Dumber as meeting "industry standards" :yuk:

Airlines currently run on KPI's, and it is dangerous. Until this culture is finished with they cannot be trusted to govern there own safety standards. CASA, and the government for that matter, need to be stronger and not be seen as another employee on the payroll. Until such a time, airline minimum requirements for Aircrew must be considerably increased for the good of all traveling Australians.

Cost cutting and safety go hand in hand in aviation.

[Icarus2001]

Being a pilot is mainly a decision making job

Sorry, not in high capacity jet operations it isn't.

Pretty much everything has been decided and laid down in a manual by either your company, the aircraft manufacturer or the regulator.

The PIC gets to choose final fuel load (based on rules laid down and experience) and which meal to eat, which leg to fly. That is the reality. Anyone who tells you anything different has their hand on it.

I do agree with your sentiment though...

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Icarus,

Experienced pilots get paid for what they can do, not what they do.

Your statement may be true to a point about day to day airline operations but the reality is when the sh#t hits the fan management are the first to pat each other on the back because the experience of the crew have saved the day and their KPI driven bonus has been saved.

Maybe these incidences are becoming less and less, but would you gamble on your families lives as part of the traveling public that that trend will continue?

Things usually go in cycles and regularly come back to bite us on the ass.

[4dogs]

Krusty,

I think your implications about the windshear event do not reflect the facts.

The crew pursued all available information before deciding to take-off and only did so in the belief that neither they nor their aircraft was at risk.

The AIPA reps stressed to the Senate Committee that they both believed that the crew acted responsibly and professionally - it was the system that failed to have all the information available and that should be investigated further.

Stay Alive,

[breakfastburrito]

Pretty much everything has been decided and laid down in a manual by either your company, the aircraft manufacturer or the regulator.
Icarus, we still have high capacity RPT flying into non-towered aerodromes. The sh!t I saw today in the circuit from VFR-on-top traffic circuit entry vs high capacity RPT would make your hair stand on end.

[SW3]

Icarus that's extremely short sighted. Day to day ops are governed by SOPs. Thats why airlines are so safe. But these don't cater for every scenario and nor can they. They can't tell you exactly what to do in an emergency when you're required to think outside the square. The whole reason why captains are given the power to overide them if required to uphold safety is because procedures cannot encompass all scenarios. Every flight is different. A monkey can follow standard procedure, so can a low hour pilot. It's when it all hits the fan you need experience. Hence the senate enquiry. That's being said without a 'hand on it'.

[Avturbound]

I Don't know what is worse... The fact that this industry is going towards the 'idea' of cadetship schemes.. after all that's all they are "SCHEMES" a way to make money.. simply put its easy for them to hire in house from kids with silver spoons in their mouths if they are willing to pay 35K for an A320 endorsement.. or 18k for a job to fly as an FO on a dash 8 with little to no progression in some time.

If I had a dollar for the number of pilots I know that disagree with these so said schemes... pilots that have already paid well above what we should be for a commercial pilot licence only to have to slug it out in GA for the hope of one day getting into an airline, I would have enough money to sue these hypocritical, money hungry, business fed companies and make the Australian public aware of the ongoing and continued safety risks that are imposed by adding a kid, more so with 200 hrs flying a jet capable of putting it on the ground when.. like the incident on the DHL a321 that lost all hydraulics and with the added safety net of and experience crew landed safely with little but not controlability... now add into the equation a 200 hr cadet pilot that doesnt know how to spell the word situational awareness let alone have the experience to apply CRM...which being implemented in ATPL flight exams must mean that it is an important attribute to have..?! no?

Bottom line if the media.. which they do in many areas had as much pull as they could have to spread the word on these issues that are currently being descussed I would happily take these 1000+ posts and send them to ACA god only knows that a real story like this should be trumped on the news for who has the cheaper groceries in your suburb?!

aviation... started from a simple 6o sec flight in history through passion but will evidently end as how could the wright brothers done what they did but reducing the cost...:ugh:

[ejectx3]

Sunfish, I agree with a lot of what you say but you are so very wrong saying "You do not get this feeling in Three hundred tonnes of aircraft, however exactly the same forces are at work".

Having flown ga and now those 300 tonners I can tell you exactly the same 'seat of the pants' reactions occur.

[Keg]

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

Hence I don't support cadetships in any way, shape, or form. I'd sooner see a pilot make a fatal decision and prang a C206 rather than a A320. (I'd rather not read about a crash at all!)

If you think experience ONLY comes from making bad decisions then you're closing off your mind to probably 99% of the information through which you can increase your experience levels. That you base your decision to not support a cadetship on a flawed premise means that you're ending up with a flawed outcome. How do I know this? Not all cadetships are the same, not all cadets are the same, not all cadets come from the same background, not all cadets go through an identical career path post cadetship.

The irony is that your post actually proves your CFI's point. You've made a bad decision with respect to your premise, hopefully you'll be able to now increase your experience due to your poor decision. :ok:

[40years]

Re the CASA audit:

Jetstar is correct that the 12 observations are merely that and do not require action or compliance. HOWEVER, as all good managers know 9or should know) This audit's observation will very likely be a strong focus for the next audit, and lack of action or response can very quickly trigger RCAs. The May audit, if it happens, should be interesting.

On another tack, it's about time that eligible managers from CASA, ASA, ATSB, as well as relevant Department execs and Legislators renounced their membership of the QANTAS Chairman's Lounge. This is a blatant conflict of interest if ever there was one!

[A37575]

You could have 1500hrs flying in GA using incorrect procedures, and teaching yourself bad technique
One word: Rubbish.

Second comment. Blatant generalisation without a shred of evidence supported by ATSB incident/ accident reports in any statistically significant number.

[1a sound asleep]

Jetstar flight crew feared death | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/flight-crew-feared-death/story-e6frfq80-1226024517141)

Jetstar crew feared for their lives, inquiry told
Jet 'would not climb, :=stalled:sad: for several minutes'
Pilot, first officer 'were convinced they would crash':D

Richard Woodward, the A380 captain representing the Australian International Airline Pilots' Association, said it was strange the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had closed an inquiry given that the incident was so serious.
"He (the pilot) was quite concerned and thought that they were going to die because of the severe weather event. It (the plane) actually stopped climbing for quite some period of time," Capt Woodward said.

[flyhardmo]

That article about jetstar crew fearing death has come up a handful of time in the last 3 pages.. You really must be sound asleep 1a.

[1a sound asleep]

flyhardmo - sorry jetlag

[PLovett]

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

I think your CFI was wrong. One of the adages I have always believed in for aviation (slightly paraphrased to fit the above quote) is that you learn from the experiences of others because you won't live long enough to experience them all yourself. Besides, it is cheaper that way.

The talk from airline executives about safety being the number 1 priority is male bovine excreta. I recall a talk given in a CASA seminar on safety management systems by the former head of the USAF safety division. He advised never travelling on an airline that advertised safety as being their priority because it means they haven't properly considered the safety issue. If safety was their first priority they would never take an aircraft out of the hanger. What he said was necessary was a very robust risk management approach to flying.

What we are seeing with the Jetstar approach to cadetships, which I understand Jetstar have contracted with the suppliers to be the cheapest form of training that is available, is a complete abandonment of proper risk management principles. Unlike a lot here I believe the cadetship approach can work, it has in many other places of the world with far worse flying conditions and crowded airspace than Australia, as it also did with QANTAS given that the entry point to the airline was a second officer position.

It strikes me that there are two models for low-cost carriers, the original which is Southwest Airlines and its b@rst@rd love-child, Ryanair. It is interesting that Southwest has never to my knowledge taken cadets and still has applicants falling over themselves to get a job there, whereas Ryanair has set the standard for pillaging cadets and now has a queue at the exit door and is still advertising for direct-entry captains.

It is also interesting to note that there is an increasing toll of incidents and accidents with Ryanair. I know Southwest had a hull loss at Midway Chicago but given the intensity of their operations I think their safety record to be better than Ryanair.

Somehow I think the Ryanair model, which I believe Jetstar have adopted is ultimately self-defeating as well as being dangerous. The Senate would do well to take this into their considerations.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

PLovett,

You may be suprised to know that many here think Cadetships can work and are a good thing, just not in its present format.

Cadetships should not be about:

* fleecing applicants for a whole brief case of Mummy and Daddys money,
* used as a means to lower employment standards within the industry.
* used as a means to employ a captive and quite compliant workforce ( a quite compliant workforce is not essentially a safe workforce ),

Cadetships should be about ( IMHO, like the QF cadetships was ):

* succession planning,
* providing quality training ( "spending lots of money on training" and "providing quality training" are not always the same thing or directly related ), and,
* used in 2nd officer positions, I would hate to be PIC in an aircraft with a Cadet beside me who is experiencing a rough night on one engine for the first time.....

How can "Cadets" and "Direct Entry" Pilots be on the same seniority list ?.

[mcgrath50]

How can "Cadets" and "Direct Entry" Pilots be on the same seniority list ?.

I don't understand? If you have been a cadet, and I am DE and we both start as a Second Officer on the same day, how can our seniority not be the same? Separate lists will just lead to an A and B scale.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

McGrath:

Cadet A starts with 200 hours.

DE B starts with 3,000 hours and previous turbine above 5700 command.

Which one will sooner be ready for a window seat or a command in the regionals ?. Most recent cadets have not gone to mainline/international.

Not all new starts come in as SO's on the 400/380.

[take procedure]

question for the senators,
a certain airline in the fragrant harbour was having an industrial dispute and was about to unfairly dismiss 49 of its pilots, you are a management pilot in the room and you know what they are doing is both illegal and unethical, yet you assist in the process of putting a red line through 49 names. does he ;
A. resign from mangement and go public
B. assist the pilots union to defend the unfair dismissal
C. appear in court on behalf of the 49 pilots
D. become the chief at CASA

:ugh:

[Mr. Hat]

....Ouch..

[PlaneWhisperer]

I was interested in what plovett had to say a out Ryanair and their cadet scheme, if I'm not mistaken hasn't easy jet also recruited a large amount of cadets with around 200 hours as well, and lastly have similar issues been raised in Europe regarding the safety of lower houred pilots?

[gruntyfen]

"Re the CASA audit:

Jetstar is correct that the 12 observations are merely that and do not require action or compliance. HOWEVER, as all good managers know 9or should know) This audit's observation will very likely be a strong focus for the next audit, and lack of action or response can very quickly trigger RCAs. The May audit, if it happens, should be interesting."


Rumour has it that J* safety team includes ex CASA staff including the former manager of the Melbourne office.

[rodchucker]

Hey Kelpie another little job for your incisive mind.

Having worked (briefly) in a regulatory body (not airline related) I suggest that it may also be interesting to look at how the draft reports evolved from version to version.

That may give the Senators an interesting perspective on the events as they progressed from first report to the final and also the time between the various versions.

Good luck.

[The Kelpie]

Rodchucker

The Senators are already onto this as I understand. They are particularly interested in the CASA guys who have signed off CAO 48 exemptions, changes to CC numbers on A321, reduction of CC training and changed the cadet approval and where they are in the industry now!!

In terms of the watering down of reports I think Senator X, a lawyer by profession has a handle on this.

McCormick should be a worried man now. So should Mr Dolan for that matter!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[SW3]

McGrath50 that's another issue with cadet pilots with no experience being in a place where they shouldn't be in the first place! Seniority only works to a point, a DE with more hours should get further sooner (I'd hope!) but I know I'd be annoyed if a cadet was bumped up ahead of me after working so hard to get into a jet and not having thousands of dollars to buy my way in.
There will be a breeding of pilots who will not have any command time with cadet programs. What happens when all the captains retire? It's a big issue for the future to consider. Sure 'filling the right hand seat' works in the short term.
Consider also, a 200 hour pilot is in the RHS of a jet. The captain becomes incapacitated. All of a sudden a pilot with no command time is in command of a multi million dollar aircraft with hundreds of lives on board.
As for some people coming out with 'GA creates bad habits'. If you allow it yes they can creep in. However, airline SOPs are concrete and a checky will belt any bad habits out of you.

[airtags]

rodchucker:
that would be interesting - but even more significant would be the briefings prepared by CASA and AirServices for their Minister.......

Not for a second would I believe that the Minister (or his COS) were not regularly briefed and I would tend to think that the order of play from the Minister's Fortress is to call for heads to be kept low .....especially as this Committee is now essentially traversing all aspects of airline safety.

One of the big threats to the great work being done by the Senators though is that ultimately part of the bucket will no doubt be tipped on the dangers of Ministerial delegations of power. Neither side will have an appetite for that call -

AT

Speaking of flying and pollies:
Have heard another whisper that there's more frustration with the VIP fleet breakdowns similar to the leaked email from the RAAF a month or so ago. - Source says that the 737's while sitting in the hanger have been used "from time to time" as a "client supplied spare parts resource" for other RPT aircraft that have gone US.........anyone else aware of this??

[Icarus2001]

They (SOPs) can't tell you exactly what to do in an emergency when you're required to think outside the square.

Sorry, pretty much all emergency responses are laid down in a QRH, emergency checklist, whatever your company/manufacturer calls it. There is NO DECISION to be made 99% of the time, only a process to follow.

Of course we all love to throw up the QF 380 incident but the reality is that represents an almost unmeasureable percentage of flights that took place in that year alone. Clearly pretty important if that happened to be the flight you were travelling on!

Listen to what the crew did. They followed checklists, did some handling checks etc. Most of which is prescribed in emergency checklists or manuals.

Your statement may be true to a point about day to day airline operations but the reality is when the sh#t hits the fan management are the first to pat each other on the back because the experience of the crew have saved the day and their KPI driven bonus has been saved.

The crew do their job by following procedures. There is no room for free thinking here. The fact that management glow in the reflected glory is not something we can change.

Icarus, we still have high capacity RPT flying into non-towered aerodromes. The sh!t I saw today in the circuit from VFR-on-top traffic circuit entry vs high capacity RPT would make your hair stand on end.

I hear you. I still do the same and probably see and hear the same as you. However a busy clusterfeck of a circuit area does not mean lots of decisions to be made. Mostly it is applicaton of logic to keep the aluminium apart :eek:

[no one]

SW3,

short, blunt, but to the point.

I agree with what you are saying and at Rex seniority is dictated by the hours you have on start date, so a direct entry will be above a cadet on the same ground school but below other pilots (direct and cadet) that started on ground schools before them.

I don't understand why it is necessary here in Australia to start up cadet programmes with all the guys and girls slugging it out in G.A. (probably been said once or twice before on pprune)

no one

[rmcdonal]

The crew do their job by following procedures. There is no room for free thinking here
Sure there is, I am just having a look at a QRH for a regional and the double engine failure section has nothing on where you should crash, only what buttons to push once you have. Having had a bit of practice picking out fields, and judging distance would certainly come in handy here.

I know of at least one occasion when a particular heating system stayed on when it should have turned off. Nothing in the QRH, Capt. decides to pull the CB contrary to the company manual and is told he is not allowed to by the Junior FO. Eventually the Capt. overrides the FO and has the CB pulled. Shortly after the QRH was amend to include pulling the CB for this event.

However a busy clusterfeck of a circuit area does not mean lots of decisions to be made. Mostly it is applicaton of logic to keep the aluminium apart Just as long as that application of logic is not the same one being used by some of the flying schools I see around "I am on finals, if you are on finals then that is your problem" and that attitude is still used by some students even once they get onto the Lear :eek:

[SW3]

Icarus, the QRH guides on and provides checklists for emergencies. However it is nowhere near 99% of the decision to be made!
An engine fails .. Complete QRH.... What next??? The QRH does not tell you where to land. It does not tell you how much fuel you have. It does not tell you how heavy the aeroplane is, what weather and icing there is, terrain, destination runway length, instrument approaches, engineering support, passenger handling, dealing with cabin crew, notifying ATC. The list goes on. And this is where the experience kicks in! Prioritising and managing..
Procedures are there to be followed, pilots are there to manage the procedures and safety. If you need a book to 99% fly an aeroplane you're in the wrong job. Otherwise we would have been engineered out by now. Every flight is different, and not every issue that could arise in flight has happened yet. What happens when there is no checklist? And multiple failures. Where do we start??
Geez wouldn't our jobs be easier if we didn't have to make decisions, some of which under pressure and time constraints.

[tsalta]

Icarus2001, are you actually a pilot?

So, all the thinking has been done for you eh?

That would be why a new pilot on a particular type performs exactly the same in a flight assessment as a pilot with thousands of hours on type.

No, gee, wonder why? Maybe becuase one guy can make better decisions for some bizzare reason.

Probably one of the dumbest posts ever on pprune.

tsalta

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Icarus,

I am sure Cpt. Sully over there in New York would be pleased to hear your views, I'm sure he was following the QRH all the way to the waterline! :ugh:

[C441]

Latest Ops bulletin amendment:

Henceforth the CRM acronym GRADE will be referred to as GRAE.
Decision making should not be attempted at any time when operating to Standard Operations Procedures.

In future all decisions will be made by the Decision Integration Centre as the DIC heads of staff will be in possession of all relevant information. It should be noted that despite all decisions being beyond the comprehension of line operating crew, the PIC will still be responsible for the consequences of any decision made.

This will be practised to proficiency in the next Simulator planned for each crewmember.

Capt. Buck Stops-withyou
Chief Pilot.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Definitely nothing in the 380 checklist about conducting handling checks following an engine failure. Nothing in the 767/747 or 737 manuals either. Just good ol fashioned airmanship. Not prescribed but a great idea.

Also the crew on the 32 had to stop many times during the ECAMs and discuss if the actually wanted to follow what the ECAM was telling them to do. In most cases they followed in some of the others they didn't. They had an obvious fuel leak yet the fuel leak ECAM never came up!:uhoh:

I come from a cadet background and believe given proper training and importantly time, I think they are a one of many avenues into flying. As I said earlier in this forum I know I wasn't ready to go into the RHS of a jet after my 250 hours of training. Keg who was also a cadet has said the same. Could have I done it and succeeded, I like to think so, was I adequately prepared to deal with line ops. Not at all. Would I have been a liability in RHS. No doubt. I knew the systems and procedures, yet the practicalities of flying a jet where foreign for quite some time and I was sitting in the back watching others do it. I had little idea when first starting of radar interpretation (I had not encountered a lot of WX during training) amongst many other things important to line ops that I've mentioned earlier.

I said it earlier but will repeat, book knowledge is different to practical application. I'm sure most of my fellow classmates and other cadets would agree.

Maybe the senators should call all ex cadets to their enquiry and ask them how ready they were at the end of their course to go into the right seat.

[TLAW]

Interestingly, Sully's water landing might not have had such a happy outcome if he hadn't done one thing. He switched on the APU when it was clear they were about to lose both engines for good. He knew how dependent the A320 systems are in having a steady source of electrical power, the QRH was silent on the matter of the APU, but recommended the crew keep attempting to restart the engines.

[desmotronic]

just as any half decent GA CP will grill you on whats not in the POH... :suspect:

[The Kelpie]

I have a question:

On what basis did CASA issue the MPL licenses to the China Eastern Cadets who carried out the course as a beta test?

Petteford told the inquiry that the MPL concept included only approx 70 hours in an aircraft and then was 100% level D sim. Assuming those are similar requirements to the CASA beta test how did they get around the requirement to have 240 hours of Aeronautical Experience prior to taking the flight test. Not total time, not sim time but Aeronautical Experience.

Aeronautical Experience is a CASA defined term and does not include sim time but only flight time and in that co-pilot time to be factored by a half.

Can someone explain this? Can CASA explain? Or is this just a big stuff up?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Icarus2001]

An engine fails .. Complete QRH.... What next??? The QRH does not tell you where to land. It does not tell you how much fuel you have. It does not tell you how heavy the aeroplane is, what weather and icing there is, terrain, destination runway length, instrument approaches, engineering support, passenger handling, dealing with cabin crew, notifying ATC. The list goes on. And this is where the experience kicks in! Prioritising and managing..


First up...99% of the time and engine DOES NOT fail. So how many decisions do you make on a routine flight from A-B huh?

Secondly, the fuel vs weight status has to be known preflight, you know calculate a CP PNR yada yada yada, to comply with regs and OM.

The other things you mention are PROCESS driven, the runway length is either suitable or not, an instrument approach may be required, not because the PIC decides that one is required but because the conditions are below prescribed conditions, from the regulator. Passenger handling, yep, give a PA, where is the decision? DEALING with the cabin crew? DEALING WITH? Do you mean managing them by keeping them informed?

Interestingly, Sully's water landing might not have had

Come on guys, the A380 and Sully account for two flights. Get some perspective here. More than 99% of flights are routine. So far in aircraft above 5700 kg I have a ONE engine failure, two hydraulic system problems, one partial depressuristaion and one generator failure. In all but ONE case we continued to destination as planned after completing the QRH.

So, all the thinking has been done for you eh?

That would be why a new pilot on a particular type performs exactly the same in a flight assessment as a pilot with thousands of hours on type.

You are confusing handling experience, confidence and familiarity with the task with DECISION making.

Thinking is not DECISION making.

My point is only this. On a regular line flight with no major failures, the PIC makes very few decisions, those that are made are generally selected from a limited choice avalable, no free thinking. If you feel that my post was ...

Probably one of the dumbest posts ever on pprune.

then you either don't understand my point or have an overdeveloped sense of your own importance as a pilot. Do you wear a big watch by any chance?

My post was a response to the assertion that the main role of a pilot was to make decisions. I believe this is incorrect. Our responses are almost all pavlovian. (Look it up). If not shown by our use of memory recalls and QRH and FCOM type checklists then by the fact that Captain X can be replaced by Captain Y on a sector and FO Z would still know what to do and what to expect from the different Captain. In a given situation we know and are expected to perform certain things in a certain way. No free thinking. Few decisions that are not apparent at the flight planning stage. eg An engine failure at position X would require fuel dumping and a return to A or it would require continuation to destination due to commercial reasons, pax and engineering support say.

Try the experiment. Next sector in a high cap RPT jet. See how many decisions you actually make that are not as a direct result of a requirement to comply with a reg, OM, etc. In other words are process driven by the logic of the situation.

Let me know how it goes.

[32megapixels]

Kelpie and others who contribute here. I must thank you for you ongoing updates and information passed on. I have not posted for a long time on Pprune. I must thank those that post important information. Look at the turn of events in the middle east, the internet, through people power has bought about change. This is what can happen here too. I just want to say I do strongly dislike greedy accountants! They do not see the art of aviation!

I would like to express my concerns for the direction of this industry too. I am a highly qualified airline pilot in this industry. I have worked hard, and got into this industry when it was seen as a viable and respected careeer. I am not stupid, ga background, uni degree and worked hard, started by digging holes and de-horning cattle in the bush, to get rewarded well.

What I see now is a continual spiral downhill. If I could only tell you the **** I have heard and seen, you would be reading a novel. So I won't.

What the problem is, with the continual deterioration of this industry is the skill set and brains being bought into it are being reduced. This is with cadets and ga guys and the lot. Less money being paid, less skill into aviation. Bus drivers of the sky. Whilst at the moment, great skill exists. The next 15 years could be interesting.

I think I need to get out of the airlines and work in corporate. Where Billionaires actually appreciate what was once a recognised career.

Please keep working hard. I am a member of both Unions. Don't know why sometimes, but I am. Thanks for all the hard work to you all that contribute here and keep those of us that don't usually post informed.:D:D

[Skynews]

Try the experiment. Next sector in a high cap RPT jet. See how many decisions you actually make that are not as a direct result of a requirement to comply with a reg, OM, etc. In other words are process driven by the logic of the situation.
As is suspect a lot of people value the original direction of this thread I won't hi jack for long.
Driving a car requires no decision making either using your logic ICARUS :confused: there are plenty of road rules and the vehicle has an operators manual.

Absolute rubbish. Can I suggest rather than distract from this thread you make a decision to start a new one and we can continue to discuss your idea.

[noip]

Icarus,

What an appropriate handle.

So many posts, and so little knowledge ...

sigh



N

[swh]

Assuming those are similar requirements to the CASA beta test how did they get around the requirement to have 240 hours of Aeronautical Experience prior to taking the flight test. Not total time, not sim time but Aeronautical Experience.

Aeronautical Experience is a CASA defined term and does not include sim time but only flight time and in that co-pilot time to be factored by a half.

Can someone explain this? Can CASA explain? Or is this just a big stuff up?

Aeronautical experience is not a constant definition, it changes for aircraft, helicopters, airships, gyroplane, and types of licence (PPL, CPL, ATPL, Flight Engineer). One needs to refer to the recent experience applicable to the type of licence being sought.

The requirements for a MPL(A)L are defined in CAR 1988 5.214

"(1) For paragraph 5.207 (2) (g), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training.
(2) The 240 hours must include:
(a) at least 40 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane; and
(b) at least 10 hours of solo flight time in a registered aeroplane; and
(c) at least 5 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command in a registered aeroplane; and
(d) at least 12 take‑offs and 12 landings in the type of aeroplane mentioned in paragraph 5.207 (2) (f).
(3) For subregulation (2), the same flight time may be counted towards the time required by as many of paragraphs (2) (a), (b) and (c) as describe the flight time.
(4) The balance of the 240 hours of training may be in an approved synthetic flight trainer."

These requirements stem from ICAO Annex 1 Personal Licensing

"2.5.3 Experience

2.5.3.1 The applicant shall have completed in an approved training course not less than 240 hours as pilot flying and pilot not flying of actual and simulated flight.

2.5.3.2 Flight experience in actual flight shall include at least the experience requirements at 2.3.3.1, upset recovery training, night flying and flight by reference solely to instruments.

2.5.3.3 In addition to meeting the provisions of 2.5.3.2, the applicant shall have gained, in a turbine-powered aeroplane certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or in a flight simulation training device approved for that purpose by the Licensing Authority in accordance with Appendix 3, paragraph 4, the experience necessary to achieve the advanced level of competency defined in Appendix 3."

'4. Simulated flight

4.1 The flight simulation training devices used to gain the experience specified in Chapter 2, 2.5.3.3, shall have been approved by the Licensing Authority."

CASAs requirements actually exceeds ICAOs.

[The Kelpie]

SWH

Thanks for that, I see where you are coming from however there is still something troubling me.

The CASA wide definitions are included as follows on the CASA website:

Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Time Practice in an approved simulator or trainer may be recorded in the section provided at the rear of the log book. The instrument flight element of the simulator time may be transferred to the 'Ground' column of the Instrument Flight section of the flight record.
If a Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Practice section is not available in the log book, the details may be entered chronologically in the flight record, and the Instrument flight element transferred to a suitably titled column.
In older log books, the 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column of the Instrument section of the flight record may be used for 'Ground' entries.

and

Total Aeronautical Experience Total aeronautical experience is calculated by adding the totals of flight times recorded in each column but in such a way that that any flight time is not included more than once in the grand total hours.
Note also that only 50% of the time logged as a co-pilot may be included in the total.

given that


Flight Time means, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing. This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
In the case of a helicopter, whenever helicopter rotors are engaged for the purpose of a flight, the time will be included in the flight time.

On the basis of your suggestion that 'Aeronautical Experience' is not a constant CASA definition, How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??

Given that nowhere in the Order is there an alternative definition offerred, I would suggest that there is a problem with the drafting of the CAO in that the use of the terms 'aeronautical experience' has been used inappropriately should the CASA wide definition not have been intended and that there is a world of difference between this term and a possible alternative '240 hours of training' which I believe CAO 40.1.8 should have adopted within Appendix 3.

Can I suggest also that the wording of CAR regulation 5.214 is also a little ambiguous, and whilst offerring a little further clarity on the matter it does nothing more than require that a pilot's overall aeronautical experience must comprise (read 'include') 'at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training' for which the remainder of the regulation offers confirmation of the content of the 240 hours.

Also Appendix 3 of CAO 40.1.8 states that the 240 hours of aeronautical experience is a pre-requisite for sitting the flight test, whereas regulation 5.207 (2) g considers this to be the level of aeronautical experience to hold the licence. There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.

Sorry for the thread drift but I thought it was worth a look at as it is relevent to the possibility there is a problem within CASA given that if my suggestion is correct they may have issued 5 MPL licences illegally that are currently being held by pilots flying the line in China.

Kelpie

[SW3]

Icarus like it or not being a pilot is all about decision making. And in reality this is the issue with cadet programs, you can't put every decision to make into a book!
How about this, next time I go to work and don't make any decisions, then I will let you know. Otherwise we will pre program the FMS, engineer us out of the cockpit and put us out of work.
It's also as much about judgment as decisions. How many accidents boils down to an error in judgement? Judgement comes down to, shock horror, experience!

[ThePaperBoy]

Kelpie,

Check your PMs regarding MPL info. Petteford has had nothing to do with it in Australia. The contact I've given to you will be able to explain how Alteon and AAA worked with CASA on the trial.

[The Kelpie]

Paperboy

Thanks for the info. Yes I know Petteford had nothing to do with it but my research lead me to come across the information that raised questions. I suppose CASA are on my scope now.

Does anyone have a copy of the Conditions CASA put on the approval to Jetstar's Cadet programme?

During the Inquiry I could not work out whether CASA has audited the initial cadets and satisfied itself that Jetstar had complied in all respects. I think McCormick said they did.

Cheers

Kelpie

[airtags]

Kelpie:

McCormick said they were satisfied with the process

which does of course afford him with a very slim out in respect of the specific application of the process.

The CARE factor (acronym) is no doubt at the top of his list of things to do.


AT

[swh]

How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??

For the flight time same as normal. For the ground FTD/FFS time, same as normal. For the totals, same as normal.

I do not understand the problem you have with this.

There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.


No discrepancy at all, CAR 1988 207
(d) has completed an approved course of training;
(e) has been awarded a pass in an appropriate flight test; and
(g) has the aeronautical experience set out in regulation 5.214.

Para (d) means at the approved course (i.e. minimum is 240 hours), (e) means the addition of a flight test pass (as that is not part of the course of training), and (g) means 240 hours of training which must include 40 hours in an aircraft, 10 hours solo, 5 hours cross country command.

[The Kelpie]

SWH

So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??

You are only entitled to log sim time in the instrument columns and these are not used in the Aeronautical Experience calculation.

On the other matter. The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).

Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!

Kelpie

[Low and Fast]

Kelpie

Has the senate proposed the next hearing date?

[swh]

So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??

The FTD/FSS time is logged and counted the same as it does for a non-MP(A)L holder. It is one consistent standard. The MP(A)L course allows the applicant to use more FTD/FSS time to count towards the issue of a licence.

FTD/FDD can be counted towards the issue of other licences, i.e. for a CP(A)L 10 hours in accordance with CAR 5.112 (1). In this case a CP(A)L holder may attempt a test with 140 hours flight time, and 10 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer.

The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).

CAR 1988 207 "(d) has completed an approved course of training;", i.e. completed at least 240 hours. That is also on the MP(A)L test form.

It does not include the test, you are misrepresenting what is clear in black and white.

Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!

You are wrong on this one, and clearly do not understand the MP(A)L process. It was introduced by ICAO as an international standard, not CASA, it is being used worldwide very successfully.

Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.

[The Kelpie]

Not yet as far as I am aware.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.

RUBBISH! A bigger load of tripe I have not heard in quite some time. The MP(A)L is only endorsed by airlines because they think there will be a shortage of pilots in the future and they need a mechanism to get more through the pipeline. Not because it is a better way of doing things but because it is more expedient. A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type. I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.

[The Kelpie]

....and that is why Easyjet are apprehensive, however have agreed to a trial of 30 cadets trained by this method with the king of cadetships Petteford.

The poor suckers that sign up are in for a rough ride unless they focus on the bigger picture!!

['holic]

That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?

[Sunfish]

'holic:

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.

I'm "competency based" qualified and on a good day I'm competent, on a bad day, not so much.

You think I don't know this? You think cadets don't know this?

The fact that I can do something when I'm on my best behaviour proves nothing.

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.

"Competency based" ???? Compared to what?

['holic]

G'day Sunfish,
Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. The point I was trying to make was that you often hear the phrase "competency based training" used as if it was some kind of revolutionary new training method. swh uses it justify "embracing" the MPL, AJ uses it in the senate inquiry to justify the cadet scheme.

But in reality, what is the difference? Under the traditional training system, you still had to be assessed as competent at various stages of the training. The way the phrase is being used on occasion might leave a person with limited knowledge flight training with the impression that under the old system you just did your 150 hrs and got handed a CPL.

When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed. Everything else was business as usual.

[The The]

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.



There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.

[swh]

A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type.

MP(A)L holders are not trained for single pilot operations, they are trained as part of a total airline apprenticeship. Part of the process of getting a MP(A)L training organisation approval, the organisation has to demonstrate that they MP(A)L holders have continuing post course education. It is not like a CP(A)L where pilots can effectively be thrown into a GA charter operation without getting any ongoing professional development ever.

I am guessing most people on this thread think that the Day VFR syllabus which is the course outline for the CP(A)L gives the required knowledge and skills required in today’s multi crew airline operation.

People have not come out and said it, however reading between the lines they think that reducing the number of hours in a GA single is somehow reducing the MP(A)L holders ability to perform as a pilot in a multi crew airline operation. I would disagree, the syllabus for the MP(A)L is geared towards the required knowledge and skill required for a multi crew airline operation.

If anything I think new MP(A)L holder would be a more capable FO than a new CP(A)L holder with a new type rating. If you get a chance have a look at the required training in ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and then compare that to the Day VFR syllabus, and make you own assessment of which pilot is given the better training for a multi-crew airline environment (i.e. IFR high performance turbine).

I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.

I do not have the exact numbers, it is in the order of thousands, the process has been around internationally for 5 years. This is how airlines like Lufthansa now train their new pilots. To quote Florian Hamm, CEO Lufthansa Flight Training, "Despite the enormous cost pressure facing the industry, Lufthansa is introducing MPL not in order to save costs but to improve the quality of training."

Those who actually do the numbers know that a Level D sim is more expensive to run than a GA piston twin or single. People who are making claims that this is a ”cheap” way of training have not costed a MP(A)L training process.

Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?

No we are not, the MP(A)L holders were all from an overseas airline. Australia exports over 500 new 150 hour CP(A)L holders a year to airlines overseas. That is the market where industry is asking for the MP(A)L approvals.

As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?

Try and get yourself a copy of ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and you will see what a CP(A)L student does not cover in their training.

When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed.

A lot of larger organisations due to the very size of them had a lot of these processes in place as part of their standardisation team.

In other organisations, a lot more should have changed, however you may have been unaware of the changes. For example when doing a V1 cut, under the old system, it was up to the checker to decide what technique is acceptable or not, under a competency based system, the checkers have to be trained how to deliver and assess competency based training, this means for a V1 cut the required outcomes that define "competent" have to be defined by the training organisation upfront. This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.

There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.

Very true.

[ernestkgann]

Doesn't the balance of the argument centre on whether the MPL can provide suitable directed training to candidates that has, in the past, been gained in terms of experience by pilots operating in GA and the military. It may not have been jet specific but it is the esoteric aspects of our craft learnt in those spheres; weather, decision making, SA etc that we are now hoping to teach candidates in x hours in a sim. It may have taken x hours of airline operation or x arrivals and departures for a pilot to have encountered a similar problem and taken appropriate action such that an incident/accident is avoided. It is unarguable that the crew of QF32 gained incredible insight (experience) from their incident yet every aspect of this non-normal cannot be taught in a sim because you literally had to be there. Most of us haven't had such an extreme situation but have had situations thousands of times in thousands of hours.
It's ironic that my son is learning to drive a car in a competency and experienced based system. He must complete 120 hours of experience before he can sit his, competency based, test. Then for a year he can only drive with one passenger to mitigate risk to others while he gains experience. Perhaps we should get the RTA to submit at the enquiry.

[rowdy trousers]

In the media, and in staff communications, BB repeatedly stated that he "welcomed" the senate enquiry as it would get all the facts out in the open - now these "facts" seem to be a secret - oh dear!

When is someone who can, going to call this guy's bluff and expose him for what he is?

Can/do the board member's read?, or do they just hope this will all go away and is not really happening at all?

(maybe someone with a bit more techno skills could post the media statements he made when the enquiry was announced)

[Centaurus]

While CASA surveillance would ensure this type of situation would not happen in Australia, it certainly is more food for thought for the current Senate Inquiry looking into pay to fly schemes whether overseas or in Australia.


DGCA to bring over 10,000 commercial pilot license holders under scanner (INDIA)

NEW DELHI: Aviation regulator DGCA plans to bring under the scanner over 10,000 commercial pilot license (CPL) holders and conduct third-party audit of all flying schools in the country in the wake of cases of forgery behind securing of licences coming to light.

As the forgery cases have given rise to fears that travellers' life is being endangered by incompetent pilots, the regulator is planning a slew of steps to check the malaise.

Apart from this, the regulator is also worried about the problems faced by a large number of Indian youths, who go abroad for training and return with fake or invalid licenses, after spending lakhs of rupees.

Besides the six cases of pilots using forged documents to get their licenses, "we have got some more suspicious cases, but there is nothing confirmed as yet and investigations are going on," DGCA chief EK Bharat Bhushan said.
The six cases of forged documents that have come to light are two each from air carriers IndiGo and SpiceJet and one each from Air India and MDLR.
While all the 4,000-odd holders of Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPLs) are currently being probed, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation is "considering looking into all the CPLs", he said. There are over 10,000 CPL holders in the country.

In a bid to combat fudging of records, the DGCA is determined to have an online option for students, beginning with "at least in some (examination) centres, by July," the Director General said, adding, "We are working with the National Informatics Centre on this project" that should be in place soon.
Asked whether flying training schools were following stringent standards laid down by the regulator, Bhushan said: "There have been cases ... there is suspicion that at least some of the flying hours that they are logging in the student's log books, are not genuine".

He also indicated that problems relating to training infrastructure have also been found.

These training academies provide flight training and issue CPLs to the successful students. A separate set of aviation regulations or Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) have also been framed for such institutions.

"I want to examine the condition and quality of training they are giving. We have to ensure that the conditions and quality of training are maintained. My intention is to have a team from outside, a third-party systematic audit of these schools," Bhushan said.

There are about 40 flying schools in India. Under the CAR, a flying school gets a license which is valid for a year. It is renewed after a DGCA inspection and "on satisfying that the institutes maintain their required capability. The inspection is carried out as per the standardised check-list", the DGCA chief said.
In this context, the DGCA plans to get the quality of training being imparted by such flying schools abroad examined by the regulatory bodies in those countries and organisations like the Federation Aviation Administration of the US.

"We have plans to examine the quality of training given in some of these flying schools (abroad) by some international bodies or our counterparts like the Federation Aviation Administration to authenticate the quality of training imparted by these centres," Bhushan said.

The DGCA was also considering sending a team of his officials to visit some such flying schools abroad, where many Indians have been getting pilot training.

[Centaurus]

This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.


But it turns out to be nothing more thana huge box ticking exercise. If you look at the number of seconds from brakes release at the start of the take off run, then the rotation, followed by an engine failure, the identification, the initial climb followed by the acceleration segment until full clean up then setting of max continuous thrust on remaining engine (s) etc.

Now look for example, at the Day VFR syllabus competency based boxes starting with the actual start of the take off roll, you will be able to see a continuous listing of every single "skill" movement by a pilot and these are numerous - each of which must be assessed and ticked.

The instructor or testing officer will need total recall of every facet of the take off and subsequent engine failure procedures in order to accurately assess the student's competency. Most of the time the instructor will not only be unable to write fast enough as the student accelerates from a standing start, he may even miss a box or two while heads down busily scrawling comments.

This is anal marking at it's worst. But yet it is called Competency based marking. Surely it is better for the pilot under test and certainly more efficient, to allow the testing officer to take a broad view of the conduct of the take off and climb out with a failed engine, rather than have to assess so many individual parts and tick the numerous boxes in the limited time available until the next sequence of box ticking for competency begins.

[Alistair]

Doesn't the balance of the argument centre on whether the MPL can provide suitable directed training to candidates that has, in the past, been gained in terms of experience by pilots operating in GA and the military

Depends on your point of view..

Is it easier/safer/cheaper to teach someone who can fly how to operate a (insert aircraft here)? or..

Is it easier/safer/cheaper to teach someone who can operate a (insert aircraft here) how to fly?

[ernestkgann]

I think I would say it was easier/cheaper/safer to teach someone who knew how to fly to operate a B777.

I would contend that the airline would find it easier and cheaper, but not necessarily safer, to teach someone who could 'operate' a B777 to fly.

I get your drift though Alistair.

[chockchucker]

Are the government of this country really so happy as to silently stand-by and to allow all this to occur?


Although protected (read legal) industrial action is not going to happen at Qantas this side of Anzac Day, what would happen if the pilots, the engineers, the refuellers and the baggage handlers all withdrew their current pay claims?

Nothing. Based on nothing more than the statements made by Qantas group CEO Alan Joyce about how unprofitable its international business is, and how crippling labor costs are in Australia, it wouldn’t matter if the respective unions lined up outside Joyce’s office tomorrow morning promising a pay freeze for the next three years or five years.

Their jobs are still toast, because no matter what productivity deals they offer, no matter how much they are prepared to curtail pay and conditions, the company refuses to negotiate guarantees over keeping flying and engineering jobs in this country.

In a real sense, the noise the pilots and engineers and other Qantas employees are making about job security, are giving a failed management a cover behind which to hide.

While the timing is coincidental, and simultaneous protected industrial action by pilots, engineers, refuellers and baggage handlers may seem bad news for Qantas and travellers, the labor unrest is no more serious than the apparent failure of the current management and board to run an expanding, profitable and useful company.

For at least the past three months the tired old clichés about Qantas being undermined by ‘dumping’ on international routes have looked absurd beside the likes of Singapore Airlines and Emirates charging more for their premium products than Qantas, and holding their market share steady or rising while Qantas, clinging to aged jets and poor network decisions, keeps sinking toward single figures in market share.

(Qantas had only 17.7 percent of the international market in February, and even with Jetstar international reaching 7.6 percent share, it only had 25.6 per cent of the market as a group compared to a 35 per cent share in 2003 before Jetstar was invented, only to help drive Qantas customers elsewhere.)

The lesson from international traveller defections to foreign carriers may be that premium payers don’t care what a fare costs, and are abandoning Qantas for what they see as superior quality and convenience.

The current Qantas group strategy seems to be one of continued contraction, in international travel, and a line in the sand in domestic which is starting to look as much under threat from Tiger as Virgin Blue. It can’t go on.

In this morning’s installment of the industrial-action-about–to- tsunami-Qantas genre, in The Australian, its spokesperson says:

“The unions are threatening industrial action while the company deals with rapidly increasing fuel prices, an underperforming international business and the operational impact of natural disasters in New Zealand, Japan and in Australia.”

But its competitors are dealing with the same misfortunes, yet benefiting from the rebound from the GFC far more successfully than Qantas. Apart from the A380 groundings, Qantas has the same challenges as its peer airlines, who are all posting record profits and paying their shareholders dividends, while Qantas isn’t.

It is this group under-performance that leaves Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, and Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford and the board, no-where to run.

Their only answer is to pursue a policy of shedding Australian jobs, and Australian taxation and superannuation levy obligations, by sham arrangements in which its pilots, cabin attendants and engineers, some of them still resident in Australia, are paid according to Singaporean or New Zealand work place agreements.

The implication of what Joyce says is that Qantas cannot afford to be Australian to be competitive. It intends to deal with foreign competition to Europe for example, by basing Australian registered jets in Singapore, where they will fly between Singapore and Europe and Singapore and Australia, thus imitating the advantages it says Singapore Airlines enjoys.

This de-Australianisation of Qantas may reflect a wider view in business that Australia cannot maintain internationally competitive enterprises in its own country. It’s a debate quite a number of business leaders have joined one way or the other in recent decades.

But it is a painful position when it involves a strategy to gut the piloting and engineer excellence of Qantas for the cheapest source of labor available abroad. It even involves under cutting Australian jobs within Jetstar with Asia sourced Jetstar employees being paid according to Asia terms and conditions while flying in Australia.

These strategies, which also included Jetstar flying cadet pilots to NZ to open NZD bank accounts for pay which would avoid Australian superannuation and taxation obligations while working and flying exclusively in Australia, are at the core of union unrest and calls for job security clauses, whether pilots or engineers.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of demanding job security, there is a much bigger issue for the government of taxation security. Will it allow a precedent where anyone can be employed under a foreign contract issued by a foreign entity and evade Australian taxation and super levies while performing duties in Australia?

For Qantas, this off-shore migration of assets and labor is unlikely to lift earnings enough to sustain the profits and dividends shareholders might have expected if Qantas and Jetstar continue to drive customers away because of poor management decisions on fleet and network.

Qantas needs to attract customers more than it needs to destroy its traditions of skills and excellence in flying and engineering. If it fails it will not be in a position of strength when, as most analysts expect, the Asia-Pacific airline industry gets serious about trans border consolidations.




Wake up Australia! We're being eaten alive by the so called 'Smartest Guys in the Room'.:sad:

[The Kelpie]

"The Qantas tail is like Uluru and the Sydney Harbour Bridge—we want to look after it, and we want you to look after it for us. But we need assurance on that side."

Senator Bill Heffernan, 25 February 2011


Do we think he feels assured??

[hongkongfooey]

The implication of what Joyce says is that Qantas cannot afford to be Australian to be competitive

Cathay Pathetic is run by over-cautious fools ( very sly, greedy ifools ) pay their pilots more, probably has triple the ground staff ( check in, baggies, cleaners etc etc ) operates lots of flights into China ( especially through dragonair ) which thanks to the Chinese generally burn 25% more gas than a normal flight and still manage to post a profit well in excess of 14 BILLION HKD.

So what the hell is that little leprechaun :mad: doing ?

[DirectAnywhere]

Once again, thanks Ben Sandilands.

You (assuming you're reading this) have really got to the heart of this issue.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

It's not only Australian employees that AJ is trying to shaft, he and his pals are thumbing their nose at the Australian Government and its industrial relation laws, (including entitlements like compulsory superannuation), and taxation laws.
An Australian Business, Australian Aircraft, Australian staff based in Australia, on Singapore/New zealand contracts?????? Where will it all end?

On top of that AJ then expects to lobby the same government for protection.

AJ's QF master plan;
1. Cut costs
2. Lobby the government
3. Offshore the business
4. Whinge and blame everyone else
5. Cut more costs

Not exactly a sustainable business plan for the future is it AJ? Wouldn't the costs of damage to the brand far outweigh any gains from the cost cutting?

How about;
1. Engage and work with your employees which in return will allow you to create a more efficient workplace.
QF used to have very loyal employees until you and your mentor destroyed that goodwill.
Maybe have a read of Bransons book for some ideas, I'm sure JB can lend you a copy.
2. Expand the premium business and make the wealthy traveler feel important to the airline again. Concentrate Jetstar where it is most effective, capping the expansion of low cost carriers in Australia. Low cost operations are not conducive to longhaul routes.
3. Buy the right equipment for the Airline.
4. Lead by example, if you and your executives show restraint, maybe your employees will.
5. Be creative and open new routes.
6. Spend money on better quality inflight entertainment systems and overall product. Cut ridiculous expenditure, axe these C grade celebs on airshows.
7. Expand. There is a lot of wealth coming out of China, India and Russia. They probably would however prefer to drink Dom and eat caviar than fly Jetstar and buy a pillow.
8. Attempt to have confidence in Qantas. if you don't, how do expect the public and employees to have confidence in Qantas
9. Operate according to a triple bottom line of reporting (so addressing the economic and social impacts of its operations) where the company has to take into account the social impacts of off-shoring on both staff and the public in its strategies, instead of just focusing on profits for higher bonuses for management.
10. More transparency, the shareholders no longer know what direction the business is taking.

Just to name a few.

I guess if it gets to hard you could always sell everything and just become a travel agency. :ugh:

[abc1]

AJ and friends.....the personifiers of the relationship between overseer and convicts.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Not looking too healthy is it?

http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/imageChart.axd?BI=2&COMT=index&OVS=XJO&TF=D6&TIMA1=20&TIMA2=20&s=QAN

[Tailed]

Love your work Steve. You have an amazing abilty to keep it simple and get to the heart of the issue. How much longer can the QF Board ignore the truth!!! AJ and BB look second rate compared to JB. :D

[The Kelpie]

Almost a 30% drop in share value in the last 6 months!!!

Rumour is that Joyce and Buchanan are out and about looking for the smokin' hole that caused it.

Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees!!

Surely Clifford is not just sitting back and watching!!! ....actually maybe he is!

[The Kelpie]

Safety is our priority- Alan Joyce 25/2/11

'Heavy' plane a risk: probe
Andrew Heasley March 23, 2011
AN OVERLOADED Qantas Airbus A330 flying from Sydney to Hong Kong was a safety risk, air investigators have found.
A breakdown in the flow of paperwork controlling freight pallets led to the aircraft being overloaded, exceeding its maximum take-off weight by almost a tonne.
Pilots had configured its flight computers for take-off based on the wrong data about weight and centre of gravity, which ''had the potential to affect the safety of flight'', Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators found.
And a delay in notifying the error resulted in the A330 flying 10 more times before maintenance checks for any damage were made. The delay ''presented a risk to the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft'', investigators said.
ATSB also found 28 freight load control incidents at Qantas in the 2½ years to August, the most recent on July 8.
The investigation found Qantas had not reviewed its Sydney freight-loading centre for quality assurance in the 22 months before the March 6, 2009, incident.
Reviews were supposed to be carried out by senior Qantas management every six months. The last review was in May 2007, investigators found.
''The investigation could not discount that, had those quality assurance reviews been carried out, this occurrence might have been avoided,'' they said.
No damage was found to the A330, and Qantas has since made changes to the way it loads and checks freight on to aircraft, reports incidents and has revamped its staff training, ATSB said.
Qantas said yesterday: ''As acknowledged in the report, [we] proactively adopted a range of measures to address the issues behind the incident.''
■Up to 9000 Qantas workers are ready to strike if the airline fails to guarantee job security.
Transport Workers' Union national secretary Tony Sheldon said employees including refuellers, caterers, cleaners, baggage and transport staff would take industrial action if Qantas sent more jobs overseas and put the public at risk.



Surely if you deal with a problem once you have been sprung it is 'reactive' and not 'proactive' which implies some forward thinking.

Wonder whether CASA are satisfied with the procedures in place or whether it is good enough for then just to sit on a file in Aviation House?

[ernestkgann]

What interest would an Irishman have in keeping an Australian brand Australian? He's pursuing his own future. It's a little xenophobic but I wonder why we can't find more home grown talent to run our big airlines, big banks and big mines.

[QAN_Shareholder]

Kelpie,

Almost a 50% drop in share value in the last 6 months!!!


Some fairly dodgy figures you're quoting there. Qantas share price yesterday was $2.09 v $2.91 on October 25th which was the peak closing price in the last 6 months. Therefore a 28% decline.

If you compare against other international airlines, Qantas is 30% below it's 12 month peak. Cathay is 24% below, SIA is 19% below, Delta is 33% below. The common theme is oil.

[gruntyfen]

THE KING'S NEW CLOTHES
>From the film "Hans Christian Andersen" (1952)
(Frank Loesser - Based on the 1837 children's story
"The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen)


Danny Kaye (Film Soundtrack) - 1952

This is the story of the King's new clothes.
Now there was once a king who was absolutely insane about
new clothes and one day, two swindlers came to sell him what
they said was a magic suit of clothes. Now, they held up this
particular garment and they said, "Your Majesty, this is a magic suit."
Well, the truth of the matter is, there was no suit there at all.
But the swindlers were very smart, and they said,
"Your Majesty, to a wise man this is a beautiful raiment
but to a fool it is absolutely invisible."
Naturally, the King not wanting to appear a fool, said:

"Isn't it grand! Isn't it fine! Look at the cut, the style, the line!
The suit of clothes is altogether, but altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green
Somebody send for the Queen"

Well they sent for the Queen and they quickly explained to her
about the magic suit of clothes. And naturally,
the Queen not wanting to appear a fool, said:

"Well, isn't it oh! Isn't it rich! Look at the charm of every stitch!
The suit of clothes is altogether, but altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green
Summon the court to convene"

Well the court convened, and you never saw in your life
as many people as were at that court. All the ambassadors,
the dukes, the earls, the counts, it was just packed with people,
and they were all told about the magic suit of clothes.
And after they were told they
naturally didn't want to appear fools and they said:

"Isn't it ohhh! Isn't it ahhh! Isn't it absolutely wheee! (whistle sound)
The suit of clothes is altogether, but altogether, it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes a tailor ever made
Now quickly, put it altogether
With gloves of leather and hat and feather
It's altogether the thing to wear in Saturday's parade
Leading the royal brigade"

Now Saturday came and the streets were just
lined with thousands and thousands and thousands of people.
And they all were cheering as the artillery came by, the infantry marched by,
the cavalry galloped by. And everybody was cheering like mad,
except one little boy. You see, he hadn't heard about
the magic suit and didn't know what he was supposed to see.
Well, as the King came by the little boy looked and, horrified, said:

"Look at the King! Look at the the King! Look at the King, the King, the King!
The King is in the altogether, but altogether, the altogether
He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born
The King is in the altogether, but altogether, the altogether
It's altogether the very least the King has ever worn"

Summon the court physician! Call an intermission!
His majesty is wide open to ridicule and scorn.

The King is in the altogether, but all together, the altogether
He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born
And it's altogether too chilly a morn!



Any similarities?

[The Kelpie]

Thanks Shareholder for keeping me honest!!

A severe case of 'on train iPhone keyboard dyslexia' I'm afraid.

Changes made!!!

Kelpie

[Capt_SNAFU]

Was not the arguement made that once oil hits a certain price LCC model don't really work?

[Ken Borough]

Virgin Blue's price history is not so different from that of Qantas'

http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/imageChart.axd?BI=2&COMT=index&OVS=XJO&TF=D6&TIMA1=20&TIMA2=20&s=VBA

[Mr. Hat]

Unrealistic pricing for airfares countrywide.

For the millionth time this isn't: Europe/Asia/US.

[KRUSTY 34]

On the subject of avoidance of TAX, superanuation, and workplace obligations, were are the stood down J* cadets at?

It seems they're not the only ones to have worked illegally in OZ. Two Direct Entry F/O pilots that I know of (so there must be many more), employed under the NZ/Singapore A320/330 scam are currently finishing their A320 line training in Australia, whilst being paid under the NZ contract!

Do those conducting the training have the first clue that they may be operating illegally? Do they even care? Have Jetstar pilots effectively had their 'Nads removed after the Joe Eakins affair?

Why are they still flying? :suspect:

[TheOrangeStar]

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.


Wow, glad I gave the military a wide burth.... At least the instructors we have try to get us through to the end...

[The Kelpie]

Krusty

If you are in the union please can you make them aware of this as there is specific correspondence (albeit carefully worded) on foot that denies that this is happening.

Cheers

The kelpie

[RENURPP]

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.

And this is how the ex military guys continue to operate on civy street.

[Popgun]

Two Direct Entry F/O pilots that I know of (so there must be many more), employed under the NZ/Singapore A320/330 scam are currently finishing their A320 line training in Australia, whilst being paid under the NZ contract!


Please provide this information to the Immigration Department, your union and your local Member of Parliament.

Immigration Dob-in Line: 1800 009 623

Use this toll free number to advise the department, about a person working or living illegally in Australia or an employer not meeting their sponsorship obligations under the Temporary Business 457 visa program.

Hours of operation: Monday to Friday 8.30 am to 4.30 pm AEST (voicemail facility available out of these hours).

We need to do all we can to fight this circumvention of the Australian EBA.

PG

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Some new submissions have been posted regarding the enquiry inlcuding one from our fine Assocation.

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received (http://aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm)

[The Kelpie]

Next hearing 31st March!!

Schedule TBC

[rodchucker]

Can someone please advise of current ramifications of Jetstar actions.

Are low hour cadets now legally flying in Australia without CASA approval on Australian contracts?

If I am mistaken I apologise in advance, just trying to understand.

[breakfastburrito]

CASA is only involved with pilot licencing. Employment T&C/EBA/contracts are under the jurisdiction of Fair Work Australia. They are two separate issues.
The Senate committee can investigate anything it chooses. The net is being cast wider by the day...

[Mr. Hat]

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.

Military or Paramilitary tactics have no place in an Airline environment. What is needed is more practice so pilots can go beyond the standard ticking the CASA box.

People want to be good at their job yet never get to really experiment or practice. Its always all or nothing.

[TheOrangeStar]

Are low hour cadets now legally flying in Australia without CASA approval on Australian contracts?


Yes they are flying as co-pilots on A320s, B737 Wegetail, C-17, C-130, P3, EVEN THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLANE!!!!!

Would you all get off your high horses about the cadet program!!!

[What The]

If you seriously think a cadet from the Jetstar cadet program is anything like an Airforce Flying Officer with 200 hours then you are a fool! Chalk and cheese. One takes the best and brightest and the other takes a pulse and a wallet IMHO.

[TheOrangeStar]

Explain how they can be chalk and cheese?

Both pilots go through a selection process and are trained on structured courses which are designed to produce a specific product to do a specific job.

You guys just don't like the cadet program because it wasn't an option for you when you started, so you lost years in GA, whereas I get to where I want to be now.

If you want to bash low hour pilots flying heavy jets you MUST include the airforce...

If you want to bash the quality of the training Jetstar is giving us then give proof of how poor the training is..(something no one has done)

So which one is it PPRUNE???? Is it the time in our logbooks or the training you are upset about???

[KRUSTY 34]

Well there you go Orange Star. Your handle, age, and number of posts sort of say's it all.

RAAF pilots are not self funded, they are screened and picked from a very select criteria, and far from being exploited, they are on the whole consumate professionals who's training bears absulutely no comparison to what I'm guessing is the path you have taken. Sorry to bust your bubble but that's just the way it is.

I'm assuming they taught reading comprehension at the High school you recently graduated from. Have a read (closely) of the Cadet threads, especially those associated with the Jetstar scam, and you will see that the common theme is one of outrage against the exploitation of individuals who apparently do not know any better. If you feel this is a personal attack against Cadets, then you really haven't grasped the situation

If it weren't for the profound effect that these type of scams are having on the profession as a whole, then most professional pilots would probably not bother trying to educate the young and ilinformed as to the dangers ahead.

When it all turns to Cr@p, at least you can't say you weren't warned!

P.S. Thanks What the, I was typing while you were posting.

[Gligg]

Orange, I would be careful comparing air force training with the cadet program, in terms of producing competent low hour pilots. Quite different beasts they be...

[Capt Toss Dudley]

Hey Orange Star
Maybe your handle should be changed to "The Chocolate Star"
That's the impression you are giving.

[noip]

wot gligg said.

Been there, done that.

N

[Popgun]

Unfortunately it looks like the intel i received a couple of weeks ago has turned out to be true...

The Aussie B Scale has arrived at J*.

It is very disappointing that AIPA and the JPC was not able to do more to stop this...

:mad:

Popgun (Very Depressed)

[The Bunglerat]

Whilst I agree that OrangeStar may have overstepped the mark in comparing JQ cadets with the best & brightest of our military forces, I'm also getting a bit sick & tired of the cadet bashing. Cadets are not the problem. As the saying goes: play the ball, not the man. Focus on venting your energies at the devious lowlifes who orchestrate these programs for the sake of saving dollars & maximising their bonuses - instead of the young guys & girls who are just trying to get their foot in the door whatever way they can. Whether their decision to do so via the JQ cadet scheme is the smartest way to do it is, of course, an individual thing for each of them to contend with.

[SIUYA]

Hey...TheOrangeStar

Both pilots go through a selection process and are trained on structured courses which are designed to produce a specific product to do a specific job.

Yep, they sure do. Only problem with your hypothesis though 'TOS'ser is that the selection processes between your image of what's needed to become an airline pilot and those required to become a RAAF pilot are entirely different.

Maybe you qualified through the cash-beats-ability selection process?

RAAF guys are selected through the brains-and-ability process, then weeded out if their ability doesn't meet very high standards throughout their training.

You quote deployment of low-hours pilots in the RAAF as follows:

Yes they are flying as co-pilots on A320s, B737 Wegetail, C-17, C-130, P3, EVEN THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLANE!!!!!

Yep, they sure do. And they do it well, too!

How many instances of reported severe hard landings have we heard about from those 'supposed' low hour RAAF pilots vs. the reported (and actual) hard landings and fcuked-up go-arounds from 'the orange stars'?

Chalk and cheese between the two?

I dont think so.

[What The]

Chalk and Cheese.

The Airforce cadet is assessed at every turn in order to see if they have the ability to perform to the standard required. If not, they are chopped.

In my opinion, a Jetstar cadet is assessed on their ability to meet the minimum standard in order to extract maximum dollars from their back pocket, and a minimum standard to meet the requirements of the regulator and company.

Chalk and Cheese.

[KRUSTY 34]

Correct me if I'm wrong Popgun, but aren't individual contacts a thing of the past. At least for large employee groups. I'm assuming this "B" Scale takes the form of a watered down EBA. Doesn't an EBA have to be negotiated? Doesn't the pilot group that is/will be affected by it have to sign off on it via a vote? By voting no, wouldn't Jetstar be prevented from flying these guys (NZ contracted) in OZ untill a resolution?

As far as I can see AIPA, the JPC, and the AFAP had them (mangement) by the B@lls! Or are there nasty little deals going on behind the scenes?

Please, someone enlighten us! :{

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes they are flying as co-pilots on A320s, B737 Wegetail, C-17, C-130, P3, EVEN THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLANE!!!!!

Would you all get off your high horses about the cadet program!!!
What do you fly in the military?

[rodchucker]

This debate is showing what the real problems is and that is there is no consensus.

Can someone help us interested and largely supportive and ill informed public, understand what the issues are.

As one of the above, I am intensely interested in whether Jetstar are now manipulating the system to use low cost cadets (through no fault of the cadets) to lower by stealth the composite skills of those up the front.

I am intensely interested to know if the risk profile of the travelling public has changed without there being full disclosure of the events, in what appears to me to be a very deceptive manner, but I could be wrong yet again.

I always felt reassured by the Tech crew skills and were in awe of the demands placed on them, but now we seem to be saying sorry we dont need that level of skills any more.

The sole motivation on what I have seen to date is profit and a bonus driven culture and that just isn't good enough for this industry.

Lets not talk about 1 in 100 year events but stick to the events as they now present themselves.

Never before as an individual have I felt the need for more information.

[mcgrath50]

Rodchucker

Facts:

Cadets (in the J* scheme) are cheaper for the airline as they get a cut of the training/loan fees and/or can pay less
cadets have less experience than direct entry pilots
In most things in life the more you do something the better you are at it
Airmanship is needed in a Cessna 152 and a A380 just the same
You will almost certainly still get to the end of your life and not be killed in an accident caused by cadets
During your lifetime there almost certainly will be a fatal accident caused by cadets


Are you ok with us?

[TheOrangeStar]

None of you have gotten down off your high horses long enough to answer my question: What is your gripe with the cadet scheme???

Is it the fact that they are low hour pilots? - If so then you should be taking action on the air force. Guys graduate there with 300ish hours any they can fly widebodies!!! If you believe that the air force can do it because they are trained so well then what is Jetstar doing wrong regarding its training syllibus?


How many instances of reported severe hard landings have we heard about from those 'supposed' low hour RAAF pilots vs. the reported (and actual) hard landings and fcuked-up go-arounds from 'the orange stars'?

How bout this?

Media Release - Department of Defence (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=8187)

At least we could use the aircraft again... :D

SIYUA:

Only problem with your hypothesis though 'TOS'ser

I am pretty offended my being refered to as a tosser because I have a different oppinion to you. It doesnt matter what part of the word you cAPItalise that is still a pretty offensive insult mate. I thought that there were rules on PPRUNE? :confused:

[RENURPP]

How many instances of reported severe hard landings have we heard about from those 'supposed' low hour RAAF pilots vs. the reported (and actual) hard landings and fcuked-up go-arounds from 'the orange stars'?

Don't start this RAAF are the best and brightest non sense.
707 in the drink off east coast for starters, might be a while ago, but it was a first and hasn't happened in civil aviation since.
As for heavy landings, do you really think the RAAF are going to advertise their internal problems. Not likely. Look at the quality of ATC and the action that receives as an example.

The RAAF chose a specific personality out of THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY.
I put it to you ex RAAF guys blowing your own trumpet, which you do pretty well, that at least 50% of pilots haven't applied for the RAAF. Out of that 50+% I suspect you might find some that are streets ahead in quality.
The fact is they look for a specific type, they train them with an almost unlimited budget and they end up with a good standard of RAAF pilot. When they come back to civil aviation, as they inevitably do, they are not the stand outs their minds tell them they are.

[rmcdonal]

The gripe is in two parts:
1: Cadets do not have any experience and are being placed in scenarios where they need experience to be effective. The guys on here who disapprove of cadets seem to be the ones who have to hold their hands from the left seat. As an FO you are supposed to be fully competent for the job, not still learning how to fly.
1a: The Air Force /Defence Force train pilots to a very different syllabus than Jetstar, or ANY flying school in Australia. They do not re-train pilots if they don't 'get it' instead they simply scrub the pilot. What this leads to is the cream of the crop getting past first BFTS then Pearce and then operational conversation. At any of these points the pilot maybe scrubbed.
The big difference here is that if they say you will pass in 50hrs, then you will pass in 50 hrs or they boot you. They don't provide extra training (past a re-peat) they don't accept a few extra $ to help pay for any additional training, they simply scrub you.
2: Cadet schemes bypass seniority. They provide seats to very junior pilots that could have gone to GA pilots with many thousands of hours. And the excuse given for the need for cadets is that 'there is a shortage of pilots'. Any pilot whose excuse for not going and getting a GA job is 'I didn't want to fly the dirty plane' is not going to have the right attitude to the job when they get into the shinny one. Its sort of like being given a free car, you don't appreciate it because you didn't earn it.

I thought that there were rules on PPRUNE? Harden up princess, the real world isn't a nice place.

[HF3000]

What is your gripe with the cadet scheme???

The way Jetstar have structured it? Offshoring jobs, attempting to pay Australians outside of Australian work rules and conditions, and low hour pilots in the RHS of an RPT jet.

I didn't have a problem with individual cadets until I started reading your posts. Now I may have to reconsider. I don't have a problem with you accepting an opportunity that was available, but as for your attitude of defending the abhorrent process your employer is undertaking to devalue your chosen profession, all I can say is: you have a lot to learn, my friend.

[breakfastburrito]

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/ISARNDT/homerpopcorn.png

[Keg]

I had only read a couple of Orangestar's posts when I replied on a different thread. Having now looked a them all, I'm more convinced then ever that it's a wind up/ troll.

[Sunfish]

I watched some RAAF Helicopter pilots practising at Point Gellibrand these last Two weeks. Some of it was hair raising.

Sufficient to say that these "low time pilots" are not the same as Jetstar cadets, and any Jetstar cadet that wishes to equate themselves with RAAF pilots is simply mad.

[TheOrangeStar]

Regardless of what u think of me no one can tell me why cadets are so dangerous. If the Raaf are training pilots at 200 hours that can fly big jets then it must be the quality of the training. This is the training I am getting so I want to know why....

I also know that Captains in airlines have more hours and experience than raaf aircraft captains. So in theory less supervior expeirence.

I ask again why are we so unsafe!!!

[KRUSTY 34]

I thought you were a C17 F/O with 360 hours?

Oh sorry, (insert sarcasm here)

Damn! Fed the troll. Goodnight. :ok:

[Keg]

Yawn. A J* cadetship and a RAAF pilot traineeship are not the same thing. Standards, supervision, etc. A newly type qualified RAAF pilot is not the same things as a newly minted J* cadet F/O. Supervision, oversight, ongoing feedback and development, etc. The fact they both fly aeroplanes is about the only thing in common.

Not all cadets are unsafe. A cadet with an attitude that is demonstrated by the type of behaviour you have demonstrated on PPRUNE is unsafe because they think they know it all.

Having done a superior cadet course to the one being offered by OAA (but not as robust as the RAAF) I can tell you that a J* cadet F/O is simply not going to know when they're beyond their skill level.

[HF3000]

I hope you get a command soon. Real soon, quick, while you still know everything. :ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

I believe he is a management troll trying to deflect anger to the cadets rather than management.

Keep up the good work folks.

Remember, these management trolls are here for a good time, not a long time. This is our industry, and they are guests. I believe they have worn out their welcome.

[HF3000]

Divide and conquer... Encourage us to disrespect and hate each other. Very likely. Won't work though.

[neville_nobody]

If the Raaf are training pilots at 200 hours that can fly big jets then it must be the quality of the training. This is the training I am getting so I want to know why

'It is the fish that John West rejects'

Go read rmcdonal post he basically sums up the difference between Jetstar and the RAAF.

Additional to being prepared to fail anyone anytime the RAAF also has a very very thorough screening process to begin with so they are starting out with the best they can get. I don't think that Jetstar are dealing with the same calibre of student.

[runesta]

if the standard is so bad it makes you think why CASA hasn't done more? because they are incompetent? :rolleyes:

secondly why hasn't anyone questioned Rex's cadet program? aren't they RPT as well? talk about double-standards!! :=

[SW3]

Orange Star, high horses you say? Decades spent in the industry gaining thousands of hours to land a first jet job after spending tens of thousands of dollars on training. Experience gained, both aviation and life experiences. If we're on high horses then those of us that have worked for it deserve it. But it's not about deserving, it's about being fit for the job. As an FO you need command experience as well. If you need to ask why then there's a problem. Airforce chooses the cream of the crop and trains to scrutinizing standards. If you don't measure up you wash out. How do they succeed? The best training ever with a massive budget. Why doesn't this work in civvy street? Costs and less strict training and intake. Why are cadets more dangerous than a low hour military pilot? Because a military pilot flies piston, turbine then jet at various levels. Cadets we're talking pistons, simulators then a jet. Steps are being jumped. Again, what happens when the captain becomes incapacitated? 200hours and youre effectively the captain of a jet. Best of luck with that! Major hull loss, loss of life and an airline at an extreme worst case. There's a reason for a required number of hours to be gained for an ATPL for s very good reason. Experience! Yes we all wanted to get into jets from a young age, do the work, gain the required experience and enjoy the journey.

[4dogs]

Kelpie,

I sent you a PM about submissions to the Inquiry.....

Stay Alive,

[4dogs]

Poptart,

The Aussie B Scale has arrived at J*.

Can you please elucidate on this statement? What has actually happened?

Stay Alive,

[psycho joe]

I see it like this... If cadets have low levels of skill and experience, the weather is significantly deteroriated and they are attempting to deal with a failure then the chances of poor performance is many times higher to that of someone who has experience and a greater skill level. This is a serious safety concern.

Bollocks.

What do you base this 'safety concern' on?
Is this not a multi-crew cockpit?
Are there no established failure management procedures?
Is the level of procedural adherence dependant on the First Officers piston experience?
Are the crew not instrument rated?

And 'experience and greater skill level' compared to what?
Are you really suggesting that an extra 1000 or so hours in a light piston would have any influence on on an F/O's ability to take direction and follow SOP's?

Dominic, I love good old mob mentality as much as the next person:D but a few thousand hours in a sh!tbox round dial bugsmasher isn't worth a pinch of the proverbial on a high speed glass jet. And your increadibly well honed decision making skills that you developed in GA flying single pilot are almost better than nix on a highly procedural multicrew flight deck in which you are intitially a very junior partner.

The only issue that I have with cadetships is one of adequate T & C's.

[MrWooby]

I would like to know the failure statistics of cadet pilot courses.

On my RAAF pilots course, we were a test case course, minimal pilots at point cook were failed, cadets who were marginal at point cook and would have normally been scrubbed were sent on to Pearce 2FTS. On arrival at 2FTS, the CO said "you're either all very good, or the system has F****ED up". At the end of our course, the system had fu**ed up, all those who had been pushed through had failed, we were backed to the standard 50% fail rate.

Considering the RAAF take the best applicants for its courses and 50% still fail, you have to wonder about GA cadet courses where I would say the pass rate would have to be over 95%. The standard of a RAAF cadet pilot is far superior to a GA trained cadet.

GA training establishments specialising in cadet courses have minimal failure rates, virtually everyone gets through, and it isn't because the standard of trainee is higher. People get pushed through, test standards are lowered, multiple attempts at tests, were no test is flown to the required standard, but the examiner has seen over a few tests, that the student meets the standard.

One of the biggest problems with an airline cadet system is minimal hands on flying experience. Once arriving at the airline virtually all flying is on autopilot.
On an aircraft likke the Airbus automation is great but it also causes many problems. There a quite a few instances where many mode changes are required to salvage an approach that has gone slighlty wrong, whereas it is far simpler to just disengage the autopilot and handfly. Sadly, handflying skills are diminished by reliance on the autopilot. If an experienced RAAF pilot can have problems hand flying because of years of automation reliance, imagine the ability of the GA cadet who has limited handling experience.

[Oriana]

It's about having two guys up the front with a high capacity for high workload when the situation arises.

All things being equal, experience gives you that extra capacity to deal with unforseen, or changes in dynamics, or simply operating the aircraft.

It will take years for cadets to gain the level of experience before they have a high capacity for workload before reaching the point of overload - the Captain will have to absorb that overload. When the Captain also reaches that point of overload - all bets are off, and luck becomes a major factor.

Life has a a way of presenting bad situations at a time - not of our choosing.

These are the risks that run in the intervening years from when a cadet learns to operate a machine - and over time learns from others, from every flight and gets enough experience to 'pilot'.

PS You can never compare RAAF Cadets to civilian cadets - completely 2 different mindsets and skills, and indoctrination.

[ozaggie]

FWIW, the post of the thread goes to BreakfastBurrito :}

#678.

[rodchucker]

Oriana,

Thank you for the most succinct summary to the issues I raised which in my mind confirms that the actual risk profile has changed.

Since when does this industry rely on "luck" rather than proactive management of risk, this is nothing but complete BS where spin has reigned.

No wonder the Senators are worried.

Where are they regulators in all this and what assessment have they undertaken?

Where is all the media attention beyond some respectable few? There is scarcely any mention with almost exclusive focus on misrepresentation and scaremongering of mostly well managed events by tech crew.

I know this is not over yet BUT I fail to grasp how a self proclaimed safety conscious company can behave this way and get it away with it.

[Alistair]

It's about having two guys up the front with a high capacity for high workload when the situation arises.

All things being equal, experience gives you that extra capacity to deal with unforseen, or changes in dynamics, or simply operating the aircraft.

There it is.

Orangestar, no one is being critical of the cadets themselves. As others have tried to point out to you and as has been pointed out earlier in the thread before you joined it (and which you should read) the problem is with the used car salesmen pushing these over priced and over rated courses and the way various airlines are implementing them in a manner which makes a profit from the employee and loads them with the stress of a considerable financial debt that they carry with them in the flight deck. They are then used as an industrial tool to leverage a lower level of remuneration for all members of the flight deck in that company and in others. Look around you and see what your colleagues are earning. I can guarantee you it is not any where near what it was even 10 years ago and you will have a reduced earning capacity for the rest of your career. You will not be able to take your experience elsewhere for a better deal as even traditionally well paid airline jobs are disappearing under the weight of pay for your apprenticeship for the rest of your life type schemes. The unique seniority system that most airlines have also lock people in to their jobs preventing movement away from a company, even with these terms. Now that you have achieved your stated career aim by bypassing the formative stages of your flying career, where do you see your future?

Our workplace is not one where you can come day after day with a pre existing level of stress and distraction. It has been proven before with the loss of many lives. I personally have had low hour pilots/cadets brain malled (overloaded) to the point of disfunction when a combination of weather, ATC and aircraft manipulation have become too much. I have had a rather sober cadet admit that he was unable to land the aircraft in the conditions that we had just arrived in (he had a go as it was less than the limitations placed on him by the company, we had discussed it, he was confident in his ability to make the approach as he had been flying the aircraft for well over a year and I had no reason to take the approach from him) After I had taken over he was unable to assist with the missed approach and was only really back with me whilst completing the shutdown checks. Granted this can also happen with those of us with more experience than a cadet but the likelyhood is much reduced. By the way, this is not a statement about my ability. I am simply a line pilot with many years experience as a First Officer and a Captain (and shock horror, GA). As they say I have been around a bit and seen a few things. I have enjoyed my journey so far.

Have an open mind about this discussion, don't take it as a personal attack on you and the choices that you have made. No one is blaming you for making them. Have an understanding that this early in your career with one type rating under your belt and working in your first company you may not be able to make authoriative statements about the quality of the training you had to buy or the industrial landscape that you have been forced in to.

I wish you well for the remainder of your career.

[Capt Kremin]

Some good replies here. What people also need to realise is that the reservations about cadets being thrust into the RHS comes from experienced pilots who were all in that low experience bracket once themselves.

This includes ex-RAAF pilots who, despite the superb training, probably felt out of their depth initially on conversion to an operational type. I was one of those.

You cannot buy experience and it cannot be trained into a pilot. It is invaluable to the safe operation of an aircraft. Experienced pilots are generally safer pilots than inexperienced ones.

The sooner people start listening to experienced pilots who have no vested interest apart from the safe operation of the aircraft they fly, the sooner we will get a sensible approach to the use of cadets.

[The Kelpie]

.....and thats the issue in a nutshell.

Bravo Alistair.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[The Kelpie]

Some pretty strong and relevant quotes from the 4 Corners programme on QF32 due to be aired on Monday 28th March 2011.


From the passengers who looked on in horror as a human-sized hole appeared in one wing… "I'm thinking it's black debris that's coming out of the plane, if it hits the fuselage we're gone". Passenger Rosemary Hegarty

...to the cabin crew: "The rear of the engine was all smashed and damaged, and the wing was damaged and we could see we were losing fuel and then when my colleague said look, the kangaroo has gone, I knew that was an ... engine failure." Customer Service Manager Michael von Reth

... and the pilots who drew on every ounce of their experience and training to bring the plane under control.

"Matt Hicks is a very competent operator with 15 or so years in Qantas, having flown a 767, 747, A330 and A380 and he was working I would say close to his limit. And I wouldn't have liked to have seen someone with very low hours trying to do that job on that day." Second Officer Mark Johnson

The landing itself was nerve-wracking and fraught with difficulty. As pilot Matt Hicks recalls: "I actually had a swig of water cause I was getting a bit dry in the throat. (I) thought about my wife and kids for a while. Thought I better do a decent job here otherwise I'm not coming home."


Compare this to the comments of MR (i can't even bring myself to speak his name, never mind his correct title) at the Senate Inquiry:


Senator MILNE—You are absolutely confident that a pilot with 300 hours actual flying time could recover the aircraft and maintain the safety of the passengers in the event that a pilot in that A320 was incapacitated?

Capt. Rindfleish—I am absolutely confident.


Night and Day!!!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Popgun]

Poptart,

Quote:
The Aussie B Scale has arrived at J*.
Can you please elucidate on this statement? What has actually happened?

An internal email was sent to all Jetstar pilots yesterday welcoming the Cadets to the company:

I am pleased to announce that the first of our Cadet Pilots plan to commence flying within our airline’s Australian operations from April 2011.

I would like to welcome them and I look forward to you welcoming them as they move into our Australian business.

Jetstar has now become one of many airlines from around the globe that successfully recruit and train Pilots through regulatory-approved Cadet Pilot schemes.

This exciting development is parallel as we continue to create more Command opportunities within our Pilot Group with the arrival of new aircraft and new routes.

This initial group of four Cadets represents a significant milestone for Jetstar in establishing a new pipeline of high quality pilots to support our growth and excellent safety outcomes across our networks in Australia, New Zealand and pan Asia.

These Cadets have completed the Advanced Cadet Program through CTC Aviation Group plc.

To ensure these Cadets receive the most appropriate training and development opportunities alongside some of Jetstar’s most experienced Pilots, the Cadets will be engaged in Jetstar’s Australia business under an Australian contract of employment that meets Australia’s modern award terms and conditions, and all other statutory obligations including tax and superannuation.

Under Jetstar Group’s existing career opportunities for Pilots, Cadets will be employed on a local contract in the country where they are based.

Through a leave without pay scheme from our New Zealand business, the arrangement provides our Cadets with the flexibility to return to their original base, at their original position, in the future.

We launched the Cadet Pilot Program in June 2010 to deliver highly-skilled pilots specifically trained in Jetstar procedures.

This is a positive for our industry and a positive for industry flight training standards.

The Program’s establishment represents a significant fresh investment by Jetstar in the region’s aviation industry to further grow and develop the skills and capabilities of a highly-skilled workforce.

I haven't seen the contract but they have not been hired on to the Australian EBA.

Rumour has it that they have been given an Aussie contract that mirrors the 2010 Award...

[The Kelpie]

recruit and train Pilots through regulatory-approved Cadet Pilot schemes

So how are Jetstar getting round the CASA approval for the Cadets only to be based in SYD, MEL, OOL, BNE (presumably until they reach normal recruitment minimums)?? ...and are we sure that all the other conditions that CASA authorised are being adhered to (ie increased turnaround times etc.).

My understanding is that the Unions have not approved this contract and that all these 4 cadets are now fully fledged members of AIPA. If so, they should be toeing the union line and encouraged not to sign as by default they should be deemed (given they have already carried out operations solely in Australia) to be on the EBA in the absence of any other legally enforceable instrument at the time they commenced line training.

Unions this is your cue to act.

More to follow

The Kelpie


ps trained at Oxford and not CTC as stated in the memo!!!!

[mcgrath50]

Kelpie,

Far from me to question you BUT I don't believe there have been any advanced cadets out of Oxford yet.

[no one]

...under an Australian contract of employment that meets Australia’s modern award terms and conditions, and all other statutory obligations including tax and superannuation.

Under Jetstar Group’s existing career opportunities for Pilots, Cadets will be employed on a local contract in the country where they are based.

So while there is a stream of cadets in Australia getting their 500 hours to head over to NZ, managment must love it as they are getting (I assume) payed less than those that they would have been hired on the EBA.

[The Kelpie]

McGrath

Yes these are the guys. They were all trained using the piston sim at Oxford Aviation with a handmade cardboard ASI scale with higher speeds handwritten on and 200 knots of wind up the arse. Supposed to have been trained using a professional CRJ Sim but it hadn't arrived.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[mcgrath50]

:ouch: That rings true.

Good to see they are getting trained to the highest standard. The RAAF does the same, uses a CT-4B sim all the way up to F/A-18s saves $$

[framer]

They were all trained using the piston sim at Oxford Aviation with a handmade cardboard ASI scale with higher speeds handwritten on and 200 knots of wind up the arse.

Are you joking?
If that is true it is absolutely rediculous.
Someone should recreate that and photograph it and post it beside a picture of a real sim in order to give Jo-public an idea of how insane things have become. Just that one visual image depicting how Micky Mouse this is would sway 90% of the travelling public I reckon.
I think if I was asked to train on that I would have to turn and walk out as it would be too embarrassing to be associated with an airline that accepts that as training.
Disregard if it was a joke.
Framer

[The Kelpie]

I do not joke about such things!!

[eocvictim]

I'm assuming this sim issue has changed? From what I've seen they have a G1000 sim now. Seems odd to do as above but have a realistic G1000 sim...

[Taildragger67]

Yes they are flying as co-pilots on A320s, B737 Wegetail, C-17, C-130, P3, EVEN THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLANE!!!!!

Of those, the only one which is relevant to this argument, is the A320.

Jetstar is a RPT carrier, not military, carrying nearly 200 punters, under civil aviation regulations.

[DirectAnywhere]

Through a leave without pay scheme from our New Zealand business, the arrangement provides our Cadets with the flexibility to return to their original base, at their original position, in the future.

Under Jetstar Group’s existing career opportunities for Pilots, Cadets will be employed on a local contract in the country where they are based.

Soooo, let me guess, when they get their 500hrs it's back off to NZ on the original contract?

the Cadets will be engaged in Jetstar’s Australia business under an Australian contract of employment that meets Australia’s modern award terms and conditions, and all other statutory obligations including tax and superannuation.

There must have been some fairly frenetic work in Jetstar HR in the last week or so to get that lot sorted!

And, if you want a real fright, section B.1.2 here. (http://www.fwa.gov.au/documents/modern_awards/award/MA000046/default.htm)

140k for a 380 Captain, 92k for an F/O and 56k for a S/O. Ask the passengers on the QF32 how much those guys were worth.:yuk: And worse, they've finally made it so it's all legal.

[The Kelpie]

Ecovictim

Maybe they have a new one now, it is a while since I have been there, this was in September/October last year when the first 4 cadets were going through Oxford.

Still think Oxford are the professional outfit they claim to be?

[The Kelpie]

Yes they do the A320 in a full flight simulator in Hong Kong or in this case the UK, but all the multi crew stuff prior was at one stage being done in the sim with the retrofited Cardboard speed scale. Removed when not in use obviously!!

Really easy to verify, ask one of the four cadets!!

[DutchRoll]

Don't start this RAAF are the best and brightest non sense.
707 in the drink off east coast for starters, might be a while ago, but it was a first and hasn't happened in civil aviation since.
What a stupid, stupid argument.

The Captain of the RAAF B707 which crashed was a former instructor of mine. The other two pilots killed were colleagues of mine who both had substantial experience levels. One was a RAAF Flying Instructor. The other already had a command. And I've read the whole accident report.

That is the most spectucularly dumb comparison between an accident which had a very experienced crew on board and had a number of complex contributing causes, and what might happen with a very inexperienced crew.

How bout this?

Media Release - Department of Defence (http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defence.gov.au%2Fmedia%2FDepartmentalTp l.cfm%3FCurrentId%3D8187&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fdg-p-reporting-points%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-34.html)
Comparing flying an Airbus in the cruise to flying a Caribou in PNG at Efogi Airstrip is almost as spectacularly dumb as the previous argument. Yes, I flew Caribous in my RAAF days.

You guys really have form.

[Skynews]

I didn't read that as an argument, more a statement. He said don't start this "RAAF are best and brightest non sense." I agree.


There is no comparison between Jetstar and the RAaF training, RAAF training would win hands down. Now if you are comparing the candidates, that's a different issue.

Only omse people apply, and out of those people, RAAF are looking for a specific type. That doesn't necessarily transfer to the best and brightest.
Jetstar are no doubt looking for a specific type to enter into their new deal, and I have no doubt the best and isn't on their agenda either.

I cringe when I here Military guys blowing their own trumpets.

[Flava Saver]

Ok Ok....Can we take the cadet stuff to another thread? Yes, it's related to the "SENATE INQUIRY" thread, but it deserves its own maybe.

By the way, I just cant wait to operate with this cocky little Gen Y. :ugh:

Back to the SENATE INQUIRY, and we cant thank Xenophon enough. :D

[PPbash]

McGrath

Yes these are the guys. They were all trained using the piston sim at Oxford Aviation with a handmade cardboard ASI scale with higher speeds handwritten on and 200 knots of wind up the arse. Supposed to have been trained using a professional CRJ Sim but it hadn't arrived.

More to Follow

The Kelpie


Wrong. :=

You need check your info. I believe the first four were sent to UK for the MCC(73 or CRJ) and type rating. Your source at OAA is a joke anyway, you and him enjoy your lengthy careers flying piston singles.

PS. I don't think that doing a MCC in an FRASCA Is all that bad anyway. QF were doing it through there cadet programs for years. Multi Crew Co-operation courses are all about the crew working together to apply SOPs and build decision making skills. It's not a type rating. Are they worth it though? I don't know, plenty of people flying around without having completed one.. It would be interesting to hear from some people that have completed a course, and how it prepared them for there type rating. Not worth 15k though.

Anyhow, most of the boys that I talk to (jet drivers) 1. Agree that directly into a RHS is :mad: and;
2. Don't really care as they aren't taking our jobs. Selfish? Probably, I did the GA thing and if they (cadets) don't want to get paid crap, flying around in GA, then they should get paid accordingly for 6 years.

Why such the detective work to have a crack at Jetstar & OAA every second post? You sound like you were a cadet that didn't make it through oxfords wonderful (sarcasm) skills assessment.

Anyway all this makes for interesting reading when I'm bored. Let the programs destroy themselves, they have been warned enough I say.

[rodchucker]

Flava understand the issue about separating the issues.

Just maybe you should not be asked to share a cockpit with these guys and that is the issue that the Senate should focus on.

The attitude shown on this site by some would be grounds to question the appropriateness of some to that entitlement. Then again, perhaps it is the written word compared to the actual skills but that also raises questions about CRM if their words actually piss people off even before any issue has to be dealt with.

I am the father of a rather intelligent Gen Y (mothers genes) but there are occasions when I would like him to share your cockpit to give a severe reality check on life but not when there are 200 innocent people down the back while you sort him out.

This is not their fault but they are victims of their own opportunism and the corporate cultures that created this whole mess.

If we need politicians to sort it out then so be it.

[The Kelpie]

full of shiet


Thanks for that!

[VH-UFO]

Who would u rather have batting with 10 runs to win off 3 balls against a raging West Indian pace attack, Steve Waugh or Billy Davis, the U/13's Melville Cricket Club No 10 batsmen?

[havick]

definately the Melville Cricket Club without question..

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Forgive me if it has been mentioned already, but I see the next hearing is next Thursday 31st March, no details yet......

Keep up the flow of the good oil Kelpie :ok:

[Checklist Charlie]

Here's some more "Worlds Best Practice" that I submit we do not want here.

Perhaps a good example of the result of an ineffectual national regulator. Fortunately our dear CASA does not fit that category (just yet).

Fears grow over India's fake pilots - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/24/3172863.htm?section=justin)

Fears grow over India's fake pilots

Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:41pm AEDT
India's fake pilot scandal began unravelling when a female captain landed her packed airliner on the nose instead of the rear wheels as she touched down in the holiday hotspot of Goa.
Parminder Kaur Gulati, flying for the fastest-growing airline in the booming Indian sector, IndiGo, was investigated for the dangerous error in January and was found with falsified qualifications. She has since been fired and arrested.
The case set alarm bells ringing for passengers, anxious about the idea of a semi-trained fraud being responsible for their lives, and for airline bosses, who have been hiring crew at a furious pace in recent years.
It also cast a spotlight on a familiar problem in India, where corruption is widely seen as on the rise: most things, even qualifications for highly skilled jobs, can be bought at a price.
"It's as bad as doctors or surgeons who fake their certificates and put people's lives at risk," says Baijayant Panda, a member of parliament from the eastern state of Orissa.
"But it's not limited to aviation in India. In many fields, you have a lot of fakery going on," the politician, seen as part of a new breed of young Indian politicians, told a debate show on NDTV television last week.
Since the discovery of Gulati, at least five other pilots have been arrested working for low-cost flier SpiceJet, national flag carrier Air India and smaller regional airline MDLR.
India's directorate general of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which is responsible for pilot examinations and granting licences, has announced it will look into the credentials of 4,000 commercial airline pilots.
More arrests are expected.
Focus on flight school

Amid rising anxiety, attention has focused on a small school in the arid west of the country, the Rajasthan State Flying School, which has been running for the last 10 years.
Two of its alumni, working for SpiceJet, were arrested on Monday.
"A pilot needs to have completed a minimum 200 hours of flying to get a licence. Several of the pilots from there had only completed 50 to 60 hours," Umesh Mishra, from Rajasthan's anti-corruption bureau, told AFP.
Police built a case against the school and its graduates by checking the logbooks of the instructors responsible for certifying that trainees have completed supervised hours at the controls of a plane.
"We checked those records against the records kept by the air traffic control authorities in Rajasthan and found that some of these flights never took place," Mr Mishra said.
Police began looking into the school after being approached by someone who alleged that they had paid a million rupees to the chief instructor, who never granted a licence.
The DGCA, which the airlines blame for the licence debacle, has promised a probe into 40 schools around the country "to find out if there are any irregularities in their functioning".
"A special team will be constituted to complete the audit in three months and bring the truth out," DGCA chief EK Bharatbhushan promised on Tuesday.
Mr Panda, who holds flying licences in three countries - India, South Africa and the United States - believes the problem is systemic: suffocating red tape provides the opportunity for bribes.
"The DGCA has become a humongous bureaucracy and the red tape involved is phenomenal," he said. "Even genuine pilots, it takes them months and sometimes years to clear the process.
"This incentives people to go to touts who say 'why go through the genuine process? I'll fix it for you'."
It is a pattern repeated across the country, where bribes are frequently paid for driving licences, passports, ration cards for subsidised food, university degrees or even doctor's certificates.
Last year, the head of the Medical Council of India, which is responsible for certifying medical qualifications, was arrested for allegedly accepting a bribe of 20 million rupees to recognise a medical college.
Ketan Desai, along with two other doctors and a suspected tout, await trial.
TR Raghunandan, who set up IPaidABribe.com, an online forum for citizens to vent their frustration about corruption, says that bribes paid for education certificates are part of life in India.
The implication is widely understood by companies and recruitment agencies, who face a difficult task in verifying the qualifications and experience claimed by job candidates.
"Flying schools are meant to be monitored by the DGCA. What is the DGCA doing? They are themselves so corrupt," the retired civil servant told AFP.

[okey]

An unfortunate evolution in todays industry. Experience requirements were there for a reason. But this is being replaced by attitudes such as one of our posters here. If you don't have the answers you ask those with experience for them. They kindly volunteer them.When you don't agree with them or don't like the answers or are embarrassed that you had to ask them in the first place then your replies become more aggressive and personal.

You are going to be operating in a high stress, demanding environment with no experience to fall back on. You will be tired and fatigued, one of you probably has domestic issues in the back of your mind and the other probably has the company on him/her about something. If your in the LHS it's probably both.Whether you are 22 or 62 there's no room for those who want to prove they are different by arguing or constantly questioning routine decisions. Thats not CRM. Remember the "C" . Courtesy. If at the end of the day you feel the captain (or senior crew member) has gone out of his way to accomodate your lack of experience. Say "thanks". That doesn't mean carry his bag or shine his shoes but it shows an evolution toward a mature operator who is aware of his limitations. If you think you have nothing to learn perhaps this isn't quite the industry for you. Use lots of 'C" and you'll usually get it back.

Everyones got an opinion in this industry. Take or leave it at your peril. Here's one. Take a humble pill. Close your mouth occasionally and listen, watch and learn. Take onboard the good bits and discard the other. The ability to do this is the first in a long road of decision making skills that will be expected of you. This industry is small and takes no prisoners. It can't afford to. Don't be the guy who thinks they know it all. It's a small but vocal and annoying club. Think those shiny new bars make you an expert. Think again. Think the faded old four bars mean you'll know everything when you wear them one day? I'd bet all the guys who wear them on this forum would agree they don't.

The difference between okey 20 years ago and now. 20 years ago I didn't know enough to be embarrassed by how little I knew and the extra workload that put on my colleagues. Now I am.

Comparing a globally respected military arm's selection process to that of a pay for training cadet scheme? Ex GA many moons ago and I'll be the first to admit thats just plain wrong. I wouldn't have insulted my ex mil colleagues by suggesting it 20 years ago and I won't now. Very best of luck to those entering elevated positions in our industry now. Work hard at it and the old salts will be buying you drinks dowroute. Make that look silly through lack of preparation and not taking your responsibilities seriously and.....

[melbourneuniboy]

RE the sim. Not defending, just setting the record straight.

The carboard cut-out/CRJ is used for the Multi Crew Cooperation Course. I am 99% sure the CRJ is now in place. The cardboard cut out has been used for the QL Traineeship as well. The QL link guys have a cut out of a Dash-8 (not just the speed tape) placed in there, the QF guys get a 767 I believe. But yes there is a massive tailwind put in to simulate a higher speed. I think the CRJ has now replaced all this.

There is a G1000 sim, used mostly for familiarisation and playing around with the G1000 it doesn't have visuals.

The Tru-flight is your normal everyday, GA sim and used for IF training.

[The Kelpie]

....so not the professional institution we are all lead to believe then!!

How are the Instructing Issues progressing?

Is the King Air Instrument Training being carried out by the instructor with 10 hours on type or has the CFI caved in again and agreed to go back to the coalface??

What did CASA find during their second audit in 6 months??

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[strim]

200kt TW? So they just head in a straight line?

I've done some CIR renweals with QF cadets lately (the ones floating around the country with no clear idea of their future), trained at Oxford, and hold MECIR. Initial CIR done on 182, finished on King Air: Never seen Vmca, never done a RTO, never done full shut down and restart and admitted to only a handful of engine failures, mostly with a lot of assistance from the instructor.

Should CASA be taking a close look at Oxford?

[The Kelpie]

Strim

CASA are taking a closer look at Oxford is this information I have to hand.

There are some major concerns.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[The Kelpie]

Today approx 30 mins ago- 11AM at Moorabbin at the CASA building which Oxford bought out- and are now using for classes etc.. Bruce Buchanan and Anthony Petterford gave speeches.

All students/staff were told by Petterford to walk across the tarmac as a sign of solidarity and tower was notified so they didnt get worried about 300+ people engulfing the taxiways!

What an absolute wank! Some Students are reported to want no part so they left the place before everyone went over..

The parking situation there is a nightmare- Instructors are being told they will have to park at DFO- a few mins walk away because of no parking at Oxford nor the new CASA building they bought, and they are now looking at instituting parking charges for students- you gotta be kidding right?

Totally Professional. Who you trying to fool??

[KRUSTY 34]

More "front" than Ned Kelly these blokes. Just a few similarities as well. Though I especially like the Hanging part. :E

Can't wait for next week.

[The Kelpie]

Krusty

Any info on who are in front of the Senators next week?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[hotnhigh]

Probably organising the rebuttals this weekend from the corporate box at albert park.
You know with fuel prices, tsunamis, earthquakes and return on capital and all.
Tough times.

[newsensation]

someone should had out tissues, there wont be a dry eye in the place.....:{

[KRUSTY 34]

Gidday Kelpie.

Couldn't tell you as yet. I'll see what I can find out, might not be untill Monday now though.

[Spotl]

Interesting to see that in the ACTU submission(#50) that reference is made to endorsing affiliated unions of AIPA, VIPA, ALAEA and ASU. This must give this group a better listening voice and more industrial power when dealing with management. No doubt the TWU that also has members in the aviation industry is also affiliated with the ACTU, notwithstanding a sumission to the Senate Inquiry has not been made,

But, notable absentees from all these affiliated unions were the AFAP and FAAA. This was evident in the 1989 dispute where the AFAP was not supported by other unions.

[smilingknife]

Quote from Jokestar internal email -

"The Program’s establishment represents a significant fresh investment by Jetstar in the region’s aviation industry to further grow and develop the skills and capabilities of a highly-skilled workforce"

What investment?????

Are these clowns that deluded???

That's the point - there is no investment in the industry by these parasites. They are pushing all their training obligations onto the young, naive and vulnerable.

This whole scam is just another cheap, nasty and poorly executed attempt to shift costs onto the budding aviator.

[Mstr Caution]

......to further grow and develop the skills and capabilities of a highly-skilled workforce.


The Qantas group has a highly skilled workforce.........a lot of them sitting on the ar*e on asigned leave.

[ejectx3]

"The Program’s establishment represents a significant fresh investment by Jetstar in the ceo's retirement fund to further waste and ignore the skills and capabilities of a highly-skilled workforce"

[Mr. Hat]

fresh investment by Jetstar in the region’s aviation industry to further grow and develop the skills and capabilities of a highly-skilled workforce

Translated

"dumb down the role, lower conditions with illegal industrial practices and wear a hull loss occasionally cause it's cheaper in the long run. We will use worlds best practice to influence the media and government"

I laughed loudly this morning when I read Steve Creedy's article in The Australian titled "Western Jets have never been safer". Last week it was the old classic "Pilot Shortage Looms!".

Seriously was I the only person to notice this?

We get it Steve: We need as many Cadets as possible and the Qantas pilots are just a bunch of over paid has-beens..:ugh:

[Popgun]

I laughed loudly this morning when I read Steve Creedy's article in The Australian titled "Western Jets have never been safer". Last week it was the old classic "Pilot Shortage Looms!".

Seriously was I the only person to notice this?

Yes, Mr Hat, I noticed too...its pathetic...this guy has absolutely no credibility as an unbiased journo...

(An increasingly depressed) Popgun :(

PS. Go Ben Sandilands, The Kelpie and The Xeno.

PPS. I am told AIPA are trying to mount an offensive salvo against the Cadet 'B Scale'...here's hoping that is true...

[xjt]

[QUOTE]Seriously was I the only person to notice this?/QUOTE]

dude....your asking this question at the wrong place...given the participants generally on this forum ...it probably went over their heads,just like any for m of logic or common sense....Mr Hat your too smart for your own good mate...... :) i.e. BANG HEAD HERE....:ugh:

[SW3]

Very nicely said Okey.

[killa loop]

Yes I dont think you guys are the only ones noticing Steve Creedy's bias towards QF.

I wonder exactly what he gets? Chairmanship lounge?

[Servo]

Probably, sell his soul for it. That is the trouble with society today, all about me me me. Who cares about anyone else. Remember the days when journo's had integrity and would write factual pieces.

As a current training captain the workload is already pretty high with crew that have experience, let alone someone with 200 odd hours........... it will be VERY hard work, throw in poor weather, aircraft fault etc, BANG.

What beggers belief is that the US has seen the error of its ways and reversed the low time requirements but yet our politicians will allow the likes of JQ, VB to try it, all for the measly price of the chairmans lounge.

We NEED a complete 180 in thinking in society before it is too late.

[rodchucker]

Servo,

More than Chairmans lounge.

Reported this week in Oz that the Rat has been throwing IPADS at pollies...you go figure why other than shoring up the bases.

[waren9]

Very nicely said Okey.


+1 from me.

[Professional Amateur]

At Rodchucker,

Im pretty sure pollies accepting gifts would be a massive massive conflict of interest.

As a side note there is an option to comment at the bottom of most of Steve Creedys articles.....I tried and it never went up...go figure.

[Icarus2001]

Im pretty sure pollies accepting gifts would be a massive massive conflict of interest.

http://http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/australian-register-of-mps-interests-shows-gifts-of-gadgets-galore/story-fn59nqgy-1226027530419 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/australian-register-of-mps-interests-shows-gifts-of-gadgets-galore/story-fn59nqgy-1226027530419)

Does not seem to be a problem. :confused:

[Mr. Hat]

Interesting facts figures and an uncanny line at the start:


Always expect rough ride with airline shares (http://www.businessday.com.au/business/always-expect-rough-ride-with-airline-shares-20110325-1ca2t.html)

Malcolm-Maiden
March 26, 2011
Ads by Google


SPARE a thought for Virgin Blue chief executive John Borghetti and his counterpart at Qantas, Alan Joyce. They are running listed companies whose shares are the investment equivalent of plutonium: highly volatile and dangerous in the wrong hands.

Joyce at least has a leading position in his domestic market. That gives him some flexibility to respond to the shocks that roll across the airline industry with monotonous regularity, and he used it this week, by announcing increases of up to $10 on one-way domestic and trans-Tasman flights in response to higher fuel prices.

Virgin Blue has lower market share, fewer well-heeled business travellers and more leisure travellers who are sensitive to price rises. Borghetti is moving the airline up market where he will have greater pricing power, but he's not there yet, and the latest waves to roll over the industry have trashed his company's profit outlook. Virgin made $37 million in the December half, and had seemed set to do better in the June half. Now, it says it will book a full-year loss of between $30 million and $80 million.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Virgin is particularly vulnerable in this market, but the shopping list of reasons Borghetti gave for the profit downgrade really do underline that owning airline shares is an adults-only game. If you aren't a sophisticated investor capable of actively trading the share price volatility that is a hallmark of airline shares everywhere, you really shouldn't have them at all.

Virgin Blue said it was being hit by rising fuel prices as tension in Libya and the Middle East pushed up on the price of oil. It had also been hurt by the Christchurch earthquake, and the floods and cyclone Yasi in Queensland. The fuel price rise will cost Virgin Blue an extra $60 million in the June half. The Christchurch earthquake is expected to cost another $15 million, and cyclone Yasi and the Queensland floods will cost $50 million between them, mainly because they have turned tourists away.

Airline investors need to keep in mind, however, that for airlines, surprises are the norm.

At the beginning of this month for example the International Air Transport Association cut its estimate of global airline industry earnings from $US9.1 billion to $US8.6 billion, well below the $US16 billion earned by the industry worldwide in 2010. The new profit forecast represented a margin of only 1.4 per cent on revenue, and it was out of date less than two weeks later, after Japan's March 11 earthquake.

Japan's crisis isn't enough to knock the global industry into the red this year, and that means that 2011 will actually be relatively good: since the turn of the century, the industry has only been profitable for three years - 2010, and in 2006 and 2007, before the global crisis erupted. Industry losses topped $US10 billion after the September 11 terrorist attack on New York in 2001, and during the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. Over the decade, net losses globally were about $US56 billion.

The airline industry has in fact probably lost money since its inception, because it almost uniquely is exposed to global shocks, and is uniquely ill-equipped to respond to them.

Airlines operate in a market where price competition is intense, limiting their ability to offset revenue shocks with price rises.

And they are capital intensive, with most of their investment riding on their ability to keep their planes in the air. If they do not do so, the consequences can be devastating.

They are currency exposed, because their planes are US-dollar denominated and because tourist passenger numbers are sensitive to currency movements (the strength of the Australian dollar is the biggest weight on inbound tourism in this market right now, for example), and they are of course fuel intensive, and exposed to a commodity - oil - that is highly susceptible to political tension, as the latest oil price spike demonstrates. The tensions in the Middle East and north Africa were not predicted, and pushed the price of oil up from about $US86 a barrel to about $US105 a barrel in a month.

It's true that airlines can hedge some of these risks. But unexpected turmoil can overrun hedging strategies, as is happening now at Virgin Blue, which had hedged the fuel price to a maximum of just over $US101 a barrel.

If there is an exception to the rule that airlines are the business world's Whac-a-Moles, it's Qantas. Qantas routes overseas are under pressure and under review, but the group's discount airline, Jetstar, is a success, and Qantas's international routes buttress a dominant domestic market position.

In the same decade that the world's airlines lost a combined $US56 billion, Qantas earned $A5.2 billion. But even then its earnings and shares were volatile. Since 2005, its shares have been as high as $6.05 (early in 2007, when private equity was bidding for the company) and as low as $1.42 (in March 2009 at the depths of the global crisis).

Its earnings in the past six years were $764 million, $480 million, $720 million, $870 million, $100 million and $377 million.

And neither Virgin Blue nor Qantas have been great buy and hold investments. Since Virgin Blue floated at the end of 2003, the S&P/ASX 200 Index has appreciated by 47 per cent, and returned 99 per cent including dividends.

At their current price of 32¢, Virgin Blue shares are down 83 per cent, and down 79 per cent including dividends: Qantas shares are $2.16, down 32 per cent over the same period, and down 4 per cent less including dividends.

My conclusion?

If you aren't a market timer, sit back, enjoy your flights - but think very hard before you buy an airline's shares for the long term.

[rodchucker]

Accepted they were disclosed by the pollies but the real question is why were they offered, especially in this environment.

Note there was no similar offer to Committee Senators.

Remember, no such thing as a free lunch.

Nothing short of political lobbying probably for all manner of things so why would any politician accept anything they should be smarter than that?

[Icarus2001]

The gifts are offered. They are accepted.

There is a system in place to declare them. This was used.

All legal if distasteful.

The question is surely not for the MPs but for Joyce...

"What do you hope to gain from spending large sums of money on these gifts?"

[The Kelpie]

Dear All

For those of you who have joined me in submitting our concerns to Senator Xenophon and indeed the rest of the Committee - Thank You.

If, like me you asked for your correspondance to be kept confidiential to the Committee then I have a favour to ask. I fear that many of the submissions and emails sent may not be able to be used effectively given that the Senators, in respecting your confidentiality have limited time to personally research and validate some of the statements made and in this regard they do have a team of researchers to assist them.

The Senators will respect your confidentiality however in doing so are not able to seek the help of their team.

I would ask anyone who sent confidential correspondance to either Senator Xenophon or any other member of the committee to send a further email from the same email address authorising access to all correspondance and submissions made by you to any of the committee's technical advisors on the strict proviso that it is de-identified prior to doing so in order that any information as to your identity remains confidential between you and the Senators.

Guys, and girls this is important, we only have one more shot at this - lets make it count!!!

Thank you for your support

The Kelpie

[Capn Bloggs]

On the subject, the Ethiopian 737 prang at Beirut is interesting:

http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/Investigation%20Progress%20Report.pdf


Instruments meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, and the flight was on an instrument flight plan. The accident occurred at night in dark lighting conditions with reported isolated cumulonimbus clouds and thunderstorms in the area.

ET 409 was initially cleared by ATC on a LATEB 1 D SID from Runway 21. Just before take-off, ATC changed the clearance to an “immediate right turn direct Chekka” .
After take-off ATC instructed ET 409 to turn right on a heading of 315° and change to Control 119.3. ET 409 acknowledged the clearance and continued right turn. ATC instructed ET 409 to turn left heading 270°. ET-409 acknowledged.
The Flight continued left turn to heading 270° after acknowledgment but did not maintain that heading. The aircraft continued on southerly track making a sharp left turn until it disappeared from the radar screen and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea at 00:41:30 around 6 NM South West of BRHIA and all occupants were fatally injured.

The FO had 673 hrs total and was a "cadet":

According to records provided by ET, the First Officer graduated from Ethiopian Aviation Academy on 15 January 2009 and was transferred to the ET Flight Operations Division on 16 January 2009. His initial operation training consisted in part of 80 hours course in Jet Conversion, 60 hours of Basic Instrument Flying (Simulator) completed on 16 March 2009 and Adverse Weather Upset Recovery training done on 12 March 2009. He completed company training on B737-700/800 consisting of 120 hours of ground school, 60 hours of Simulator, 1 hour of base training and 64 hours of route training

Inexperienced captain on jets (had a few thousand bug-smasher, though) and, I suspect, "automation dependent" FO. Note they both did Upset training.

The actual crash sequence is on page 10.

Poor training, auto-dependency and low experience.

[Mr. Hat]

I'm amazed its even a debated item.

Goes to show the power, influence and persuasiveness of the stakeholders (KPI lounge aka Bonus shed).

Nobody in their right mind would put their hand up for heart surgery from a recent (18months) high school graduate with no industry experience would they?

How simple is this:


Solid training/education backed with significant industry experience for a job flying RPT.

fairdinkum approach to fatigue and back of the clock work.

On the job training/development for +5700kg pilots rather than bare minimum box ticking.

A law against IR bastardry and B scales.

[Sunfish]

The Senate inquiry will achieve nothing. You will need Three or or more smoking holes in the ground before the Government acts.

They will then throw the baby out with the bathwater. CASA will end up stronger and with a reinforced mandate. You cannot win.

[Centaurus]

Poor training, auto-dependency and low experience.

And of course we never hear about the close shaves that have occured due to the factors mentioned above. Surely ATSB must receive many reports from overseas or via manufacturer's incident/accident internal intelligence of what goes on in different countries.

Despite this it seems everything is hush-hush and Australian pilots never get to hear of these reports. Thank goodness for Pprune contributors who are far more effective in revealing vital flight safety information than government agencies like ATSB. Or that ineffective journal, Flight Safety Australia.

[blumoon]

No probs.... Heard tonight a VB copilot (well the guy talking on the radio) ask MLB Centre "So how do i turn on the PAL at Canberra??" :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Professional pilot...??.. Time to find a new profession :{

[4dogs]

Centaurus,

When we have a system that reinforces professionalism, is intolerant of management interference and is populated by experienced pilots who have the self-esteem and selflessness to report the cock-ups and near misses for the betterment of us all - then we will be on the right track.

When we as a peer group applaud open reporting and ostracise those who lack the courage to put their hand up for the errors that may be the clue that prevents the next accident - then we will start to manage the new and increasing risks.

Unfortunately, the sort of behaviour that is critical to future success is still held hostage to management behaviour that seems to be inadequately constrained by current IR rules and weak representation. There has to be a way that representative groups can regain some balance in the bargaining power needed to ensure that technical and safety issues are properly investigated and the identified risks adequately mitigated, as well as ensuring that procedural fairness is accorded to all.

And I most certainly do not mean that any rebalancing of power comes from precipitate industrial action or unsustainable demands for restrictive work practices unrelated to safety.

Stay Alive,

[Roller Merlin]

According to the senate website, the next hearing is planned for 31 March.:ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA, ATSB, AD's and other things

Centaurus - Just cast your mind back a little and look at Whyalla Air as an example of the regulator getting it wrong. Remember in this case, the argument did not go to crankshaft cracking/ metallurgical problems, but a fanciful new "deposit syndrome".

Whyalla occurred, there was an ATSB inquiry, there was a coroners inquiry [interesting reading - http://www.airsafety.com.au/whyalla/d724find.htm], ABC report - The World Today - Coroner overturns previous Whyalla airlines crash findings (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s909542.htm), there was a press release about the TIO-540 crankshafts which failed and the Senate enquiry [ http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s7228.pdf]:

Then no action by CASA to restore / compensate Whyalla for CASA's action to ground Whyalla Airlines for something it did not do.

My question is about how ATSB got it so wrong and the subsequent report [https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24343/aair200002157-A_001.pdf] and then the justification [http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27767/ar2007053.pdf] for methodology and a dismissal of the MZK accident, saying that the Coroner liked their report for Lockhart River.

[32megapixels]

According to ‘Australian Aviation’ magazine April 2011 p.43 under the article Where next for Qantas, written by Geoffrey Thomas, states that Qantas pilots, ‘some of whom earn close to $500 000!’

I would like to understand where this figure came from Geoffrey. What factual document have you seen that indicates this? I would be surprised if even the Chief Pilot or some very senior training Captains receive 2/3rd of this figure.

If this information is correct, provide it please. Otherwise a retraction written in the next issue of Australian Aviation magazine should be forthcoming.

To me, this has discredited this magazine, unless proven otherwise of course! Just remember, lots of people in the industry subscribe to this magazine! Proof please.....waiting!

No wonder jobs are going overseas Geoffrey!

[The Kelpie]

Anyone going to Canberra to watch on Thursday?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Would love to be there, but it won't fit in, does anyone know who will be appearing?

-and-

Does anyone know when the transcript is likely to be out for the March 18th hearing?

[The Kelpie]

Wirth a watch!!

And

Soon

;-)

Ps nothing definate until the schedule is published!!

[SOPS]

32Megs..sounds just like the stuff written in the year we cant discuss....we can all see where GT stands on the issues....

[Mr. Hat]

GT, Steve Creedy..what can I say.:ugh:

Oh! I know thank god for Sandilands!:D

[The Kelpie]

The last 2 lines from tonights 4 corners programme

MATT HICKS: I'm not looking for an explanation as to what happened to us. But for the future of this industry you need an openness or people will just get killed. I mean that's as simple as that and if they don't want to do it well you're in the wrong business.
KERRY O'BRIEN: A business where safety is everything.

I think that just about sums the problem up.

Hey Alan, are you and Bruce gonna lead by example this Thursday cause I know a few Senators who would like you to be open with them!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[airtags]

KOB:
$afety ....spelt with an $

shame the hard questions were not asked ..........(yet)

[killa loop]

Quote from 4 Corners

MARK JOHNSON: Matt Hicks is a, you know, a very competent operator with 15 or so years in Qantas having flown a 767, 747, A330 and A380 and he was working I would say close to his limit. And I would not have liked to have seen someone with very low hours trying to do that job on that day.

[The Kelpie]

Matt Hicks, highly experienced, very competent and confident in his own ability. His physiological reaction was:

MATT HICKS: I actually had a swig of water 'cause I was getting bit dry in the throat. Thought about my wife and kids for a while; thought I better do a decent job here otherwise I'm not coming home.


How would a low experienced cadet have reacted in the knowledge you cannot just re-boot the sim if you stuff it up??

[LeadSled]

The Senate inquiry will achieve nothing. You will need Three or or more smoking holes in the ground before the Government acts.

They will then throw the baby out with the bathwater. CASA will end up stronger and with a reinforced mandate. You cannot win. Folks,

I fear Sunfish is on the money.

As far as John Q. Public, the general media, courts, tribunals and politicians are concerned "CASA are the Government air safety experts", even though we in the industry know otherwise.

Only one major loss would do it.

While you get all worked up about minimum experience, there is no shortage of minimum experience in CASA, unless you use the Pan Am definition of "experience".

Tootle pip!!

http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=6333231) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6333231&noquote=1)

[Lookleft]

LS and sunfish are overlooking a very important difference in this enquiry compared to other aviation enquiries. This one is about mainline jet operations on which the pollies are regular travellers. They are very concerned about what they are finding so will not simply write a report and move on. They are not being hoodwinked by CASA or the industry. They want answers and they know that the likes of AJ and BB are giving them nothing but spin and bulldust. There are also a lot more frontline submissions that are making them sit up and take notice.