Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Mr. Hat]

The guys who have been sucked in up till now should be protected, because even they had no chance of seeing how all this has unfolded.

Nope, stiff **** I say. Or in other words: "Welcome to the adult world, high school is out, enjoy the ride!".

Did anyone protect me whilst in GA and got I offloaded by a company because they lost a contract? I still had the uni and flying loans against my name (still do) with no income and far from home. Dusted self off like 1000s of others and moved on.

Cadets are like people at the casino. They are looking for a shortcut. Do we compensate gamblers when they lose?

Sorry no pity from me: Too many dead GA colleagues and mates for this pilot to feel empathy for short-cutters that loose a few dollars. In my career a bad day is when someone you trained with didn't make it home and you get the charter to go and pick up their remains. So to those cadets that might lose a dollar or get screwed by the mighty J*: TOUGHEN UP PRINCESSES!

[no one]

Apart from the protecting the new guys bit...

I think Prince Niccolo M post was well written and had valid points

no one

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Stiff **** I say, tar them all with the same brush.

They were warned, they made their choice.

[onedottoolow]

Well said Mr Hat.

Anyway things seem to going a bit quiet with this thread, not much happening like it was previously.
Hope it's the lull before the storm.

[Pundit]

After 52 pages there are a number of observations.

1. By and large this has been a sensible thread.

2. Politicians are in it for themselves no one else. The good Senators will not deliver anything for aviation, for you and me, out of this show case.

3. AJ and BB and others have simply thumbed the Senate and the Senators have done nothing about it. So much for contempt of the Senate!

4. Until we have a major RPT accident in Australia followed by a Royal Commission nothing will change.

5. Kelpie, who ever you are, buy a boat or take up golf. You are obviously a good man, or woman, but you are beating a dead horse. This whole exercise is a waste of time and effort. Read 4 above again.

rgds

Pundit

[The Kelpie]

Pundit

Thanks for the advice, unfortunately you will know if your are a pilot it is an addiction that is not that easy to give up!!

Lets just wait for the Senate Report.

Things seem to have gone quiet because that is all the evidence gathered and the report is being written, we can not do anything more to affect that. Let's just be patient and see what is written. We may well be suprised!!

The Committee will not look too great if in the future we have a smokin' hole and a contributing factor was discussed by the committee and they elected to do nothing.

QF32 (together with the other recent QF / JQ incidents) was in my opinion a shot across the bow, and represent situations that could have had a totally diffrent and unfortunate outcome but for the skill and experience of the crew. Through the Committee we have had the opportunity for the Government to step back and look into our industry. I hope they see this as an opportunity to be 'pro-active' and put things right before the inevitable happens.

If nothing else the inquiry has allowed the Federal Government to see what is happenning to the industry and particularly what is happenning with the franchising within the Qantas Group and how this is promoting varying safety reporting procedures across group companies. Also the potential for poor safety cultures developing within group companys and a clear focus on fatigue.

Lets just be patient, wait and see.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[gruntyfen]

Senate inquiry puts new pressure on air safety secrecy (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/05/03/senate-inquiry-puts-new-pressure-on-air-safety-secrecy/)

May 3, 2011 – 3:57 pm, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)

There is some last minute uncertainty over whether the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety will table its report tomorrow afternoon, but one thing is clear, the committee will ask CASA why it didn’t mention its show cause action against Tiger Airways in March when it was giving testimony at its hearings.
At this stage there are two courses of action being considered by the committee members.
One course would be to report its findings as intended tomorrow afternoon, and deal with the Tiger and CASA issue in a further hearing leading to a supplementary report.
The other course would be to defer the final report until these issues have been dealt with through an additional hearing.
This story (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/safety-inquiry-to-lift-lid-on-tiger-airways-troubles-20110503-1e5zf.html) in The Age, which goes to prove it still has reporters working on what is not a good day for Fairfax journalists (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/03/fairfax-slashes-quality-journalism-with-hundreds-of-fewer-staff/), is correct.
However the crucial issue which had already raised the hackles of members of the committee, is the hard wired resistance of CASA, and the ATSB, to disclosing the nature of safety concerns to the travelling public, instead of the current policy of keeping it in the dark when safety risks are brought to their attention.
In its hearings the Senate inquiry uncovered a case of the ATSB not even talking to the pilots of a Jetstar flight that experienced a serious wind shear incident because it accepted Jetstar’s assurance it didn’t matter.
This from an airline that didn’t tell the ATSB it had illegally changed the standard operating procedures for a go-around incorporated in an approved flight manual for the A320 that nearly resulted in a crash at Melbourne Airport in 2007 until the true nature of that incident was exposed by media reports.
In the case of CASA the Senate committee members are considering requiring the safety regulator to explain exactly what Tiger Airways was doing that caused it to issue a show cause notice that could have lead to a suspension of its air operator certificate late in March.
The right of the public to know what the safety regulator is doing and why is very much a major issue in this inquiry.

[Up-into-the-air]

Not Good News CASA:

Why should the "safety" regulator snub it's nose to the Senate ??

Why should the "safety" regulator snub it's nose at the public ??

Why should the "safety" regulator snub it's nose at the traveler ??

Why should the "safety" regulator snub it's nose at the valid LAME ??

Why should the "safety" regulator snub it's nose at the valid AOC holder ??

Should the Senate ask the questions and make CASA answer on the spot, not go away from the hearing with some lame excuse to seek more information.

Maybe the Senate should re-visit some of the "smoking holes" with dubious explanations from the safety regulator [??] - CASA about Lochart River, Whyalla and others CASA got wrong.

[Cactusjack]

SNUB ---a non-profit organisation, also known as Stop Norwich Urbanisation, based near Norwich, United Kingdom, aimed at stopping the urban sprawl of Norwich.

CASA does that also ??

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA and SNUB:

Urban Dictionary: snub (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snub)chrome://searchshield/content/safe.gif

v. describes the action of ignoring, failing to notice, or pretending not to see someone. a person is usually snubbed when they are disliked or the...
http://www.pprune.org/ XNSR0IArs4c6QAAAARnQU1BAACxjwv8YQUAAAAgY0hSTQAAeiYAAICEAAD6A AAAgOgAAHUwAADqYAAAOpgAABdwnLpRPAAAABh0RVh0U29mdHdhcmUAUGFpb nQuTkVUIHYzLjA4ZXKc4QAAAGhJREFUOE9jaGho%2BM9AAiBVPchoUvWQpR6 kCYS7uvsJYphaYtWDzCRVD7nqwaHlnXtmUOGjV%2F7%2FP3PmDNEYHIOgUAN 5JKb1%2F6DBII%2BQAkB%2BGD4egSWtoRwj4KQ1rDI7CaUvyUUpvYpfAJJIe DVXZ2naAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dsnub)Urban Dictionary, May 3: career tragectory (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=)snub - Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qutXT16SP-oJ:www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dsnub+snub&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com.au) - Similar (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=TO4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=related:www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dsnub+snub&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=9ILATdKnIIuOuQP0ipm8BA&ved=0CEgQHzAE)

Just to help CactusJack

[framer]

Any news?????????

[Mstr Caution]

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Recently tabled reports (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/reports.htm)

At this stage, I can only find the cover letter of the Interim Report.
Which I think, will be all that we will see until June.

MC

[breakfastburrito]

Dear Mr President

Pursuant to Senate standing order 38(7), I present to you an interim report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee in relation to the committee’s inquiry into Pilot Training and Airline Safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010.

The committee requires additional time to seek further evidence and will present its final report on Wednesday, 15 June 2011.


Yours sincerely



Source:Interim Report: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/interim_report/report.pdf)

[mmciau]

From Senator Heffernan's letter, 'further evidence' will be interesting!!



Mike

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Do you guys still believe in Santa Claus ?.

[gobbledock]

Do you guys still believe in Santa Claus ?.

More chance of Santa's sled receiving an RCA than anybody at Fort Fumble actually being held accountable for anything...

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Barry Jackson from AIPA on the radio this morning - seems that the 4 cadets have been employed in Australia outside the EBA.

$57k per annum, no increase for 6 years, $80k in training costs to be repaid to the company.

How dumb can you be?

[Edition12]

How dumb can you be?

I think it'd be fairer to say naive rather than dumb. J*'s biggest asset in all this is the passion and lack of worldliness of cadet applicants. Makes it that little bit more disgusting imho.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

seems that the 4 cadets have been employed in Australia outside the EBA

And so the prophecy is realised.

Mainline EBA, then there was the turd sandwich EBA, now employment on terms less than the turd sandwich EBA, you guys are awesome !!!!.

I wonder if there will be enough parachute pilots working for free, you know because its private operations and you cant get paid, who would go for the turd sandwich MKIII EBA. Numptys.

[Xcel]

I just deleted my response... Seriously if they don't care... I don't care.

[max1]

More chance of Santa's sled receiving an RCA than anybody at Fort Fumble actually being held accountable for anything...

This is a favourite.
Santa has had CASA in, they've checked the paperwork, recency, load sheets, etc and are walking out to the sleigh for the check flight. Santa notices the examiner is carrying a shotgun and asks what for. The examiner says " Santa, I really shouldn't tell you this but you're going to lose an engine shortly after take-off"

Boom-boom!!

[Mr. Hat]

The Inquiry needs to be open permanently. The more the Senator sees the longer it goes the better. This is the tip of the iceberg.

[Keg]

Spoke to a CSM recently who had been 'told' by ops that his sign off time was 15 minutes after on chocks despite the fact the door didn't open for another 20 minutes and the last pax didn't disembark for another 30 minutes after that (issues with stairs, wheel chairs, etc). He queried it nicely a few times indicating that due to the 'min rest' slip his departure time the next morning needed to slide to the right and eventually called the manager who sorted it out. I encouraged him to write to Sen X and let him know that despite the fact that AJ and BB talk about there being no coercion regarding fatigue that the lower level certainly don't get the message and that fatigue is something that can be argued away on the basis of blox time rather than what time crew actually finish work. I also encouraged him to include the concerns he raised that he had no confidence in CASA dealing with the situation appropriately and that Sen X was the only person with the clout at the moment to deal with the information appropriately! :E

[Sarcs]

Handbrake,

Senator Heffernan issued an interim report on the 4th of May to ask for an extension for submitting the report till the 17th of June. The reason was to hear more evidence.

Cheers

Sarcs

[Sarcs]

By the way has anyone been monitoring this: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ic/cabincrew/hearings.htm

It has been on today but unfortunately it is audio only:
Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/)

cheers

Sarcs

[d.shaw15]

This enquiry is just going to continue to get delayed and stretched out until they find evidence that supports their theory and only then will any announcments be made. The longer it goes on the worse it looks for them, if the had sufficient evidence they would have already made an announcement of findings by now. They arent going to end it and just say well that was a waste of time and tax payers money we didn't find anything, apologises for the inconvenience airlines.

[Sarcs]

If anyone is currently monitoring that audio you will hear CASA getting ripped a new one:ok::D

[airtags]

Good advice Keg - but I was told that the international CC sign off times dont reclaculate for some reason but only for the pay i s the extra time recorded???

As for fatigue a CSM mate of mine says their union is not interested?????

The whole duty hour thing is a mess as so much is not taken into consideration (transport pick ups long drives to hotels transits etc etc etc )

Lets hope the Senate Inquiry gets something done

AT

The audio feed today is the House of Reps Inquiry into crew ratios

[CASAweary]

Well well folks, here we are again. As a reminder of what has been happening in regulatory purgatory and before we update you all, here is an important reminder -


Below is an extract of an article written by Paul Phelan, 22 October 2009, which pretty much covers this fact;
Industry identities this week were dismayed at a reported CASA decision to establish an in-house “Ethics and Conduct Committee,” apparently either bypassing or replacing the regulator’s Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC).
CASA will not comment on details of the new group, understood to have been instituted by order of CASA Director John McCormick,
We asked CASA today: “I am aware that the Director has ordered the formation of an ‘Ethics & Conduct Committee’ within CASA and that the committee’s membership includes Messrs:

Terry Farquharson, who has recently been appointed Acting Executive Manager of the Office of the Director of Aviation Safety;
Jonathan Aleck, currently Head of Legal Services; and
Gary Harbor, Executive Manager, Corporate Services.

CASA advised it “can’t offer anything.”
We had also asked for missing details which would have defined the committee’s total membership, terms of reference, reporting lines, responsibilities in terms of published CASA policy, and means of ensuring its decisions will be able to be made independently of the committee members’ employers.
AviationAdvertiser holds ample documentation that reveals that at least two of the committee members we’ve named are the subject of numerous grievances currently under the scrutiny of the ICC, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and possibly other agencies – as well as a small mountain of even more unresolved issues.
Complainants cover the entire spectrum of industry activity within CASA’s responsibility. However we’re not identifying any of these at the moment because of the need to confer with each of the many victims, some of whom fear further adverse reactions from the regulator or from individual officials. They cover aircraft maintenance & overhaul services, aircraft and parts manufacturers, airworthiness issues, flight operations, AOC and workshop approval holders, and individual license and approval holders.
Other victims of alleged CASA abuses whose businesses and lives have been damaged by over-zealous and/or inadequately overseen, trained and supervised officials, say they are watching one of these matters – the events surrounding Polar Aviation’s lawsuit with great interest. See:
In 1996 the Attorney-General’s Department provided CASA with a legal opinion that (in part) warned that in relation to various legal actions which may be brought against CASA – such as negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood or misfeasance in public office – the government indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where that officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. “The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high,” said the advice.
The Polar Aviation lawsuit, which was scheduled to be the subject of a directions hearing today, seeks unquantifiedd damages from three named CASA officials including Mr Farquharson, from three former officials, and also from CASA itself .industry figures believe the environment for generating further complaints is now increasing and that the risk exists, that members of the new committee may find themselves investigating complaints against themselves, many of which are already published documents. END.
Now, please go the the following link and read this submission from 5 years ago which was written by Joseph Tully, another victim of the CASA empire and of course Gary Harbor -



http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub10.pdf (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub10.pdf)



So, what do you notice from the link and your Google search of the name Joseph Tully ? That is correct, nothing has changed in the past 6 years or so at CASA. Senate enquiries are a waste of taxpayer money.
So there you have it, the latest offerings.

Now HR have already embarked on a witch hunt and are reeling in staffs laptops, paying for I.T investigations, have involved the AFP and possibly commenced P.I surveillance on some individuals they suspect of leaking information. Obviously the truth hurts, and the dirty secrets must be aired at all costs.
So Senator Xenaphon, your challenge is to open up this can of worms, clean out the ****e and push for an open and transparent inquiry at the very top. The question being 'are you up to the challenge' ?
To be continued

[Frank Burden]

There's a lot to chew on there John!

You certainly are a complex personality and make cranky Franky seem like a normal functioning human being. However, there is a certain logic to keeping the others on their toes.

Sorry, but I already know the ending which spoils the story for me somewhat. Bbut like a good novel it is always worth a second look.

Smart money says the post will be expunged within four hours of the well paid lawyers office opening up tomorrow.

I may be cranky but seldom wrong.

Cranky Franky:(

[Sunfish]

I just read Paul Phelans submission again.

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters - Submissions received (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sublist.htm)

It would appear, if his submission is factual, that there is a better chance of getting justice from the traffic operations police than CASA.

Reading that and attending a course on Maintenance Procedure Law (CAR's CASR's, CAAPs, etc., etc.) has cured me of the desire to either own, build or fly an aircraft, since it appears that anyone with a will can find something wrong with your activities which then becomes a criminal offence.


By way of example, pilots are required to record their flight time details in their log at the end of every flight and before their next flight. Is this in effect an instruction to record each sector separately? Is YMMB - YSWH -YBHI One flight or Two?

[Frank Arouet]

I am advised the next sitting, may be worth watching at Senate Estimates if only to see how CASA react when questions "taken on notice" may be seen for the tactic it is and a demonstration of why it won't work all the time. This Friday I think.

[Sarcs]

As expected Tiger 1st, CASA 2nd!

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural Affairs and Transport: Inquiry into Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/hearings/270511.htm)

cheers

Sarcs

[Roller Merlin]

Back to top
Final Senate Enquiry Hearing tomorrow, Fri 27 May starting 0900 EST.

Here is the link for the live feed
Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/eventdetails.aspx?eventid=2064380)

[The Kelpie]

Is anyone intending to post on YouTube as previous?

The Kelpie would appreciate it if someone could as I am going to miss it due to other commitments.

Cheers in advance

The kelpie

[breakfastburrito]

I will do my best to capture the stream Kelpie, a quick show of hands for either for audio only or video+audio (parliament internet video stream is pretty scratchy).

[The Kelpie]

BB.

Many thanks. Video would be amazin'. But audio just as good.

Cheers again

The Kelpie

[Spotl]

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be shown on FOXTEL (Apac Channel) as the Christmas Island Tragedy seems to have preference. It maybe shown later.

[gruntyfen]

Follow CASA on 'Twitter' (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100448)
25 May 2011
You can now follow CASA on Twitter. Get regular updates on what's happening in aviation safety regulation. Follow CASA: @CASABriefing (http://twitter.com/#%21/CASABriefing)




Perhaps CASA can 'tweet' updates.

[The Kelpie]

Thanks L and F for the offer. Copying the stream is beyond my level of technical savvy too. But am always willing to learn!!

Cheers

The Kelpie

[bobhoover]

Maybe it is just Tigers' managers soothing British accents, but it is refreshing to hear the responses to the Senators questions being given with calm, measured, non-aggressive, and apparently honest and open answers, additionally without ego or apparent alterior motives.

[The Kelpie]

I agree bob.

One thing that troubles me is that Berry does not seem to be consistent with the other two on the subject of employment of cadets.

Maybe he had dinner with his mate Petteford last night who sees that the writing may be on the wall for his cadet schemes (a term I use loosely).

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Mr. Hat]

One of the paytv channels broadcasts this live. Somewhere on my internet searches I found a link that allows you to watch it in much better quality than what is offered through the Government website. Trying to find it again...

[maybegunnadoo]

That was some of ther best TV I've watched in AGES! Wow watching the board of CASA sweat in their socks....Heffernans an evil little budgie, waited for MrX to soften them up and then jumped in with his Doc Martens. Talk about good cop/bad cop. Must see viewing all:ok:

[Mr. Hat]

Looks like the Truckie Senator wasn't happy with Heffernan embarrassing CASA on the topic of borrowed AOC's!

[aussiepilot]

Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/)

[Mr. Hat]

Another link :wwiTV - Australian TV - Watch Internet TV channels from Australia (http://wwitv.com/television/13.htm)

[wheels_down]

anyone know if they make the feed available now its over? or even just the transcripts which I would imagine would be quite long.

[Frank Arouet]

And the skull should check who is behind him when he goes into a clinch to beat up on his own employees. One poor bugga is going to get it in the neck by the sounds of things.

[gruntyfen]

Frank, Mr Hat and those that watched. Anychance of expanding on what we missed today. Sounds like CASA went away with tails between their legs, and intending to kick the dog when back home? The transcripts could be a couple of weeks away.

[Mr. Hat]

I did not see much of it at all. The bit I saw was Sen Heffernan asking the question of CASA regarding the sharing of AOC's. Then something to do with someone who works for CASA working also for a charter company or something of the like. There was STRONG objection from one of the other Senators regarding the relevance of this. Heffernan stood his ground and they went into a private meeting.

It seems that the pilot community is still providing regular exposes of the industry to the various Senators even if attention to the Inquiry has gone off the boil.

[wheels_down]

What was the go with Tiger and the whole "show cause" thing?

[Frank Arouet]

I'll wait for Hansard before I make any content comment, but I would wager the skull is now seen as the corporate thug he is. Heffernan seems to have his measure.

The conflict of interest matter will be worth watching. I think the skull was put on notice before he could take it on notice. New tactics also worth watching.

[Mr. Hat]

Australian airlines getting warnings of safety 'show causes' | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/05/27/senate-inquiry-causes-a-show-because/)

[gruntyfen]

thanks Frank and Mr Hat. From your comments and Ben Sandilands article it appears to have been a bit lively for a Friday morning.

[PoppaJo]

wheels_down. They didn't go into fine details but staff numbers were a little low in the safety dept not to mention some certain, and one in particular, A320, which had a considerable amounts of defects (which I believe after some serious work around easter its back in service)

I only caught a little of it but was Buchanan there?

Very interesting that Tiger isn't the only one who had been issued the show-cause, presuming Virgin the other as they rules out QF? More specifically around the time of that nose-wheel incident?

[Mr. Hat]

A great link from the QF thread:

OPERATION ORANGE 2011 | Protecting the Flying Public & Restoring the Piloting Profession (http://www.operationorange2011.org/)

[breakfastburrito]

27 May 2011

*NEW* video files direct downloads, (unfortunately) in 4 parts due to website size limits:
Part 1 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/xc34s755esoc3c3/senate_inquiry-27_may_2011-COMPLETE-p1.mpg), Part 2 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/tljl4syh35jz35c/senate_inquiry-27_may_2011-COMPLETE-p2.mpg), Part 3 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/sg502zk00y4f9z8/senate_inquiry-27_may_2011-COMPLETE-p3.mpg), Part 4 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/xbo1efu1yeu5q1x/senate_inquiry-27_may_2011-COMPLETE-p4.mpg)

Audio only single file download [48Mb] (http://www.mediafire.com/file/yzbl63tid2kpz5f/senate_inquiry_27_may_2011.mp3)

Youtube Senate inquiry into Pilot training 27 May 2011 playlist. (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL10F51484E2ADC33C)(should automagically play all11 parts).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11

(Update - Part 8 fixed, was previously identical to part 1)
(Update Parts 9,10 & 11 added)
(Update direct download video files added)

[The Kelpie]

Thanks BB, much appreciate you do this again.

I did catch about 10 mins between meetings yesterday so will have a good listen this morning!!

Cheers

The Kelpie

[wheels_down]

BB that is great, much appreciated.

Just part 8 seems to be part 1 repeated.

[breakfastburrito]

wheels down, thanks, will be fixed in 10 min.

edit Part 8 now fixed, please let me know of any other errors.

[otto the grot]

McCormick said....

"He was satisfied that the media leak about the Tiger show cause had not come from within CASA"

Well i doubt Tiger leaked it so where else could it have been leaked from John?

This guy bullsh!ts like a seasoned airline exec :rolleyes:

[jeppesenboeing]

Hi again BB

I dont suppose you have the continuation from Part 8. It seems to end mid discussion.

Cheers again

[breakfastburrito]

standby...

[breakfastburrito]

Parts 9,10 & 11 now added to original post, playlist is also updated. I am working on a single video file for download. I will take a while to process & upload, expect it in another 3 hours.

[The Kelpie]

Hey Senator Heffernan

Here is a straight answer to a straight question, cause you ain't gonna get one from the two CASA guys.

"John Francis McCormick signed off Instrument 405/09"

"Peter Boyd signed off instrument 14/11 in January this year

http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSWR/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casa405.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSWR/_assets/main/lib100060/casa014.pdf

It surprises me that CASA did not recall the two instruments as the two guys doing the signing were actually in the room with the Senators!!!

Oh and Senator O'Brien wants to know when, and on how many occasions CASA's show cause notices have been overturned by the court process (inc AAT) and not just the fudged figures derived from those being overturned by the Federal Court. To put it simply JMcC he wants to know how often CASA get it right!!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[breakfastburrito]

Direct downloads of video files (in 4 parts) now availble in post#1094 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-55.html#post6477804) in this thread. Please be patient if the downloads don't start straight away or gives an error, retry, it should work after a couple of tries (not perfect, but it is free hosting).

[The Kelpie]

Can anybody provide a hypothesis of why TB, Director of Flight Operations with Tiger Airways would impress his own personal views on Cadet programs on the Senators when his employer clearly does not have any intentions of employing low hour pilots / cadets?

I thought he was there to represent the views of Tiger Airways and not to re-inforce the views of his buddy from British Midland, Petteford who has bet his entire business model on the Aussies following the European Model.

If he had wanted to express his own views then he should have appeared as an individual rather than in a manner that suggested that his were the view of his employer, Tiger Airways one of the significant industry players.

Oh and him saying that 200 hours is all it takes the military to train its pilots - not a fair comparison. The military only take the absolute cream of pilot applicants to the military flight decks and their training is extensive - far beyond civil aviation training. Most pilot applicants to the military end up in Air Traffic Control or some other support role!!

On the subject of his testimony, his body language and constant stuttering suggested to me that he was clearly uncomfortable with something, (lack of knowledge of the relatively fundamental subject matter - particularly for a Chief Pilot). Perhaps it was the fact that he was giving a solicited view on cadet programs obtained from outside influence rather than toeing the 'Company Line'.

I did think that the testimony of CR and AD was pretty balanced and genuine. Reading between the lines I truely consider that they believe that the whole show cause and the ensuing publicity thing was a stitch up to benefit one of Tiger's competitors.

Back to the other point, if TB's views on low hour pilots are shared by CR and AD and Tiger genuinely believe that hours experience is not as important as training and the aptitude of the candidate then I throw down the challenge to them and all other airlines to abolish recruitment minimums as they are seemingly irrelevant, as is the way in Europe!! Of course they won't, they just want to pick and choose which parts they like and which parts they don't!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[gobbledock]

Some interesting dialog from the latest round of Safe Skies For All. Heffernan's cardigan was quite nice also.

Just Culture: Perhaps Senator Xenaphon could ask CASA why Just Culture does not exist within it's own workforce ?

Senator Heffernan: It would appear that you are asking the right questions in my opinion. The only way to get to the bottom of CASA's inabilities is to not only ask the right questions but to ask for answers to questions that you already have evidence to back. Whoever is supplying advice, evidence or intel to Senator Heff know's how to play the game and Heff know's how to play the game also. Good work.

The Three Wise Men: JMac looked as though he was going to birth a football, Aleck was articulate, knowledgable and able to maintain a measure of credibility while Farquahrson pretty much did what he does best and 'robbed the room of oxygen and impersonated a Cardboard Cutout'. Perhaps the inquiry is actualy an unofficial interview for the next tenure of Director of Aviation Safety ?

We look forward to finding out the identity of the naughty employee who is also an external company director and has been mixing the two together. Uh oh.

Kelpie,
It surprises me that CASA did not recall the two instruments as the two guys doing the signing were actually in the room with the Senators!!!
Kelpie, admittedly Mr Skull would sign off on a good stack of instruments on a regular basis, plus with the level of work he maintains I am not surprised with the memory lapse, I will grant him that, But what about Mr Boyd ? Another 'Johnny Nobody' who has lurked around the halls of Fort Fumble and risen from a bottom dweller into a role he simply is not able to effectively undertake. In other words he is well outside his depth and if only Senator Heff could line up a dozen questions or so for Mr Boyd we would see him fold like a cheap deck of cards !

[The Kelpie]

Gobbledock

CASA delegates should not be signing off any document they do not fully understand the implications and have an in depth knowledge of. The appointment as a delegate in not just about being a figurehead, it is to control the scope and issue of instruments that are made.

With regards to PB

That's my perception of why he did not hold his hand up and say "me sir" when Heff asked the question and why the skull just wanted to take the questions on notice.

They knew they were about to get rumbled publically!!!

What worries me is the extent that Senator Sterle objected to the Chair asking questions of CASA that were not on the running sheet and obviously had not been briefed to the rest of the committee beforehand. Obviously Heff backed down in the private meeting given the abrupt end to the hearing but it will be interesting to see the answers to the questions on notice if they have been asked.

More to follow

The Kelpie

[gobbledock]

What worries me is the extent that Senator Sterle objected to the Chair asking questions of CASA that were not on the running sheet and obviously had not been briefed to the rest of the committee beforehand

Agreed !
Then again, the Senators 'stoush' as well as the quick 'closure' of the isssue, the actual outburst Sterle displayed, Heff's arrogance plus the need to convene to a private room actually mimicked very well how CASA operates !!

[John Citizen]

'Baby' pilot at controls of doomed Air France Airbus | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/baby-pilot-at-controls-of-doomed-air-france-airbus/story-e6frg95x-1226064924740)


'Baby' pilot at controls of doomed Air France Airbus


HE was one of Air France's "company babies": a dashing 32-year-old junior pilot - and a keen amateur yachtsman - who had been qualified to fly the airline's ultra-sophisticated Airbus A330 jet for barely a year.

Yet despite his inexperience, Pierre-Cedric Bonin found himself responsible for the lives of 228 passengers and crew members on June 1, 2009, when the cockpit of his $190 million aircraft lit up with terrifying and contradictory alarm signals en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.

While Bonin held on to the plane's “side-stick” controller and looked at his instruments in disbelief, his co-pilot, David Robert, 37, began troubleshooting. The captain, Marc Dubois, 58, was napping outside the cockpit.

According to a newly-released report by French investigators - which finally answers some of the questions surrounding the mystery of Flight 447 - a fatal sequence of events had already been triggered when the plane's external speed sensors suddenly gave inconsistent readings, possibly because of ice.

This is thought to have caused the autopilot to disengage, which in turn brought warning of an “aerodynamic stall”.

That is when Bonin - who remained at the controls while Robert shouted with increasing desperation for the captain - did something that aviation experts have described as inexplicable: he pointed the nose of the Airbus upwards, causing it to slow down dramatically. He kept doing this for at least one minute until the plane had climbed 3,000ft to 38,000ft.

This one rudimentary mistake, according to the initial findings of France's aviation safety authority, might have been responsible for the aircraft no longer having enough air flow over its wings to remain aloft, although no blame has yet been officially assigned.

Regardless of fault, the aviation authority says data from Flight 447's “black box” recorders show it suffered an irrecoverable stall over the Atlantic, meaning the plane fell out of the sky after a sickening 40-degree roll.

Bonin's wife, Isabelle, was among those who died in the main cabin. Their two children were at home with their grandfather.

The question being asked in the industry is why, given that there was a 50,000ft thunderstorm near the plane's flight path, the youngest of the three pilots, with the least flying time, was at the controls.

“It seems as though they were just clueless,” says Mike Doerr, a former Airbus A320 captain who charters private jets in California. “The response to the invalid speed data doesn't make any sense unless they also had a Mach warning (that the plane was going faster than its mechanical limits).”

So far, there has been no such evidence. At night and in bad weather, however, there is also the possibility the pilots had become disoriented, or did not know which instruments to believe and therefore which warnings to prioritise.

“I don't have any more indications,”

“ Bonin is heard saying on the cockpit voice recorder, his voice still calm.

In a statement, Air France said its pilots “demonstrated a totally professional attitude and were committed to carrying out their task to the very end”.

Doerr said he doubted that American pilots, who typically come from military backgrounds, would have been overwhelmed. “The European airlines select people with virtually no flight time at all and train them pretty much from the ground up,” he said.

“They are 'company babies' who rise up through the organisation. Whereas if you get your experience in the navy or air force, there's an emphasis on trial by fire.”

Online criticism has been even blunter. “It seems reasonable to conclude that the instruments failed then the pilots screwed up,” wrote Henry Blodget, an influential former Wall Street analyst, on his US website Business Insider. “First thing you learn in flight school is when there is any question about having enough airspeed, you push the nose down.”

Others agreed. “An inexcusable, arrogant waste of life,” wrote one commentator, while another offered: “At 37,000ft, it shouldn't be terribly tough to recover from a stall. Push the nose down, gain some speed, then level the damn thing out and try to figure out what the hell just happened.”

Although Flight 447 plunged towards the Atlantic at almost 11,000ft per minute over 3 and a half minutes, some experts say that because the plane was relatively level and falling at a consistent speed, the doomed passengers might not have been aware they were experiencing anything worse than bad turbulence.

Others argue the rate of descent was so extreme that some on board would have lost consciousness before the impact, which scattered bodies and debris over 80 kilometres before they sank to the seabed far below.

“It's actually very comforting for me, knowing that they didn't suffer,” said Patricia Coakley, from Whitby, North Yorkshire, whose husband Arthur, an engineer, was killed while returning from working on a Brazilian oil rig.

“I don't feel anything either way in terms of who's to blame,” she said. “I'd rather have my husband here - but that's not going to happen.”

Prosecutors will find plenty of interest in this weekend's report, which documents Bonin's repeated attempts to push the nose of the aircraft up even though it had slowed so much that the computer regarded the speed as “invalid”.

In the final chaotic moments, both Bonin and his co-pilot attempted to simultaneously operate their side-sticks, before the 32-year-old seemed to give up. “Go ahead, you have the controls,” were his last words, possibly directed to the captain, who had woken up and rushed into the cockpit, but was too late to do anything.

The Sunday Times

[mikewil]

Beat me to it JC.

Are you listening senators???

A tried and tested method which has been used in Europe for years which has potentially cost the lives of 228 people due to human error as a result of inexperience.

The tried and tested method in Australia where pilots make their mistakes and scare themselves s**tless in Cessna 210s for their first few years has lead to a safety record in which this country has never seen a major jet crash!

[Mr. Hat]

“The European airlines select people with virtually no flight time at all and train them pretty much from the ground up,”

another feather in the cap..

[ernestkgann]

And the reason they have cadet programs in the first place, they don't have a significant GA community, unlike the US and Australia. I don't understand the argument that says people with no experience can be trained to a better standard than people with experience. Hours of decision making, weather interpretation, R/T etc have to be a better base than nothing. We see it all the time in flight training. Experienced pilots generally always do better. Training experienced pilots should also be far more cost efficient because it should take less overall work to reach the same standard.
Simply put, its a system we don't need unless there is another agenda at work. I believe that agenda is driven by people like Petteford looking to make a buck and Buchanan looking to displace training costs onto candidates.
The senators should ask a follow up to the question of cadet pilot schemes; who bears the cost? If the company is paying there is some validity to the claim that they can then control standards.

[havick]

What does it mean exactly when they ask 'would you like to take these questions on notice", and "in camera"?

I especially like the part when Senator X asked CASA as to exactly what enquiry was made into the leak of the Show Cause re; Tiger. CASA's reply was they were satisfied, but essentially did not carry out any formal enquiry as to the leaked information.

[B772]

Was a show cause notice issued to Virgin in 2009 ?

[PoppaJo]

I thought Virgin were just told to get their act together after some serious maintenance issues in 09?

I remember that nosewheel erosion which was close to a disaster.

[Frank Arouet]

And the reason they have cadet programs in the first place, they don't have a significant GA community, unlike the US and Australia

I would question this statement in the light of CASA's determination to kill GA in Australia. Most done by idiots foisting ASIC's, landing fees, gadgetry, mandated "safety" devices, dual medical interpretations, user pays fees, taxes, creative regulation, cronyism, bastardisation, cliques, local airport ownership transfers to monopoly's, political indifference, incompetence, criminal activity in the public and private sector, and just plain dumb stupid industrial apathy.

Not to mention a failure of that industry to co-operate and a willingness of bloody minded bureaucrats to exploit the elitist crap that goes on daily between big aeroplanes and little aeroplanes and their drivers. (as in toutists and urgers, not "experts" or space cadet manipulators of controls and knowledgeable of current aviation law).

If anybody wants to take bets on the eventual, (and repetitive historical), outcomes of this latest round in The Senate, PM me for the odds.:*

[Low and Fast]

The system that exists.

Dir Sir I have a total time 1987hrs, multi-engine Cmd 1134hrs, Pic 1650,
I also have quite a few years of GA experience, some Rpt experience in regional turbo prop operations. SORRY YOU DO NOT MEET OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS But please continue to update your resume for future positions.

Dir Sir I have just completed my commercial pilot licence, total time 160hrs, not much Cmd time but are looking at doing my instrument rating soon, I really want to fly a big jet one day. My Dad is ready to sign the Cheque, how much is it going to cost for training?

Yes Yes Yes $$$$ you have our minimum requirements and been successful during our interview process, your start date is ? ..............contract is in the mail.

This is what is happening! then the publicity, there is a pilot shortage, we need to start a cadet scheme. Or SCAM ?

There is no shortage of qualified and suitable applicants in Australia, I personally no of many pilots that can't get a look in or are stuck on hold files because priority is going to the highest bidder.

PAY FOR A JOB SCHEME

Disgusting and Non Australian.

[Mr. Hat]

[YOUTUBE]YouTube - ‪Air Crash Investigations: Flight 574: Lost‬‏

[OhForSure]

Low and Fast:

I can't say I disagree with much of what you are saying. There does now seem to be an element of 'pay for job schemes'. Gone are the days where QF was the only operator that had a renowned and respected cadet scheme... now everyone wants in on the action.

Having said that, with regards to:

There is no shortage of qualified and suitable applicants in Australia, I personally no of many pilots that can't get a look in or are stuck on hold files

I was speaking to 3 different training/checking captains from 2 different airlines recently, all of whom, to my surprise, said that of all of the new pilots to come through their respective companies in the last 18 months (cadet scheme vs GA), by far the ones with the most difficulty have been those from GA. By no means were they implying that all GA operators were poor, far from it... They simply said they've had less problems getting cadet/trainee pilots up to standard for the line than they have GA pilots. I must admit I was a bit surprised. :confused:

Not my words, theirs. And they were surprised too.

[mcgrath50]

Gone are the days where QF was the only operator that had a renowned and respected cadet scheme... now everyone wants in on the action.

Well the others are certainly renowned, but respected? ;)

[PLovett]

havick,

What does it mean exactly when they ask 'would you like to take these questions on notice", and "in camera"?

"on notice" means you don't have to answer them straight away but can provide answers at a later date................."in camera" means that you can provide answers without the media/public being present.

The first is often used if the questions have not been anticipated and the person required to answer does not have the information to hand. The second is often used where the answers may be revealing commercial information or information that could be of benefit to the persons's/company's opponents.

[havick]

PLovett.

Thanks, I thought that was the case.

[Mstr Caution]

Mr Hat,

And to think that Qantas was actually looking thru the Adam Air books, with the potential of a stake in the airline!

[glekichi]

I was speaking to 3 different training/checking captains from 2 different airlines recently, all of whom ... by far the ones with the most difficulty have been those from GA

Even if the experience held by a GA pilot somehow makes a cadet easier to deal with for the trainers, the captains I know that have to fly with them after the line check certainly have a very different opinion. Situational awareness, airmanship, etc. - fairly important stuff, and not something that can be taught over the period of a cadet's training.

I wonder if the REX check pilots would be happy to train the the cadets on kingairs out of essendon and cut them loose on their own? If 200 hours or so isn't good enough to send them out on their own in a twin turboprop, then they sure as hell shouldn't be in any airliner except as perhaps an SO on a longhaul jet.

[apache]

call me a conspiracy theorist, if you will.... but is there any possibility that MAYBE the recruiting departments have DELIBERATELY employed GA drivers whom they KNOW will struggle... and hence skew the statistics in the debate "cadets vs GA pilots" in the individual companies favour?

[Mr. Hat]

People straight of pistons will always find it harder.

Nothing wrong with pistons, to turbine multicrew, to jet multicrew.

[Keg]

It depends on the definition of 'struggle'?!?!? I'm not surprised that a cadet straight after graduation is better flying the numbers than someone who has been in GA for the last few years. However, once they're both proficient at flying I'd back the former GA driver to have better decision making over the first couple of years. After that it may be a bit more even.

[Low and Fast]

Mr. Hat

I totally disagree that "People straight of pistons will always find it harder"
From my personal experience years of flying a piston, then thrown into a turboprop I loved it, the easiest job I've ever had, ever easier learning & adapting to a multicrew environment then single pilot ifr ops.

The hardest was learning the new company SOP's but after lots of hard work & 50 plus hours of flying I was starting to get my head around it.

My opinion easier. But for a person with the right attitude and skills developed during their time in GA it is very possible for one to go from piston to Jet, I know of many great captains that have taken this road.

Cheers

[Mr. Hat]

harder to go straight to a jet without stopping off on a multi crew turbo prop..:ugh:

[Kharon]

This poor crippled enquiry needs a fat lady to end it. (Haven't we got one?? somewhere??).

If Heff can't get a better brief than the last poor offering then it's time to shoot the dogs and walk off the place.

CASA 10 - The mob 0. Smoke and mirrors down to a fine art.

Just another waste of money, one in a long list of hopes dashed by political ineptitude and lack of plain old fashioned brains and guts. At least the cadets might get a fair shake now. :ugh:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Selah

[Sunfish]

Kharon:

This poor crippled enquiry needs a fat lady to end it. (Haven't we got one?? somewhere??).


http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2010/07/19/51fbdd3f9082a1ebdb7c2b5064dc88f8_resized.jpg

[Sarcs]

Hansard is out for last week's hearing:ugh:.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf

cheers

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA Senate Hearing Transcript - 27th May 2011:

This can be accessed at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf

Makes interesting reading, with the connection of the entire submissions from, in particular - 2008 Senate hearing, which I have been reading and digesting. Senator Heffernan uses the term "Malfeasance" on 27th May 2011, which has a very specific legal meaning:

From WikiPedia:

Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful) act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_cause) removal of an elected official by statute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute) or recall election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
An exact definition of malfeasance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance) in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source) compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts) where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter_%28law%29) cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Supreme_Court_of_Appeals) summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States).
“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_court) in other jurisdictions as a wrongful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful) act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law); as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ” —Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance), inattention, or malice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice), does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power), they are guilty of malfeasance."
Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29). Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent) or knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.


The question is CASA:



Guilty of gross misfeasance??
Using public office in such a way that people are damaged??
Attempting to damage Company's or individuals who may disagree with "findings";
Other issues that we don't yet know about.

It is worth re-visiting the 2008 inquiry into CASA and the Polar Aviation submission.

This is at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub47.pdf

The matter was listed, as reported by AR Connelly on 21st April 2010:

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Limitation Act 1935 (WA) - proposed action by applicant company & its director claiming breach of Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), misfeasance in public office, & negligence - constitutional law - s39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia - ‚matter‛ (I)

It is still before the Federal Court on 26th May 2010, with further hearings to come.

[Frank Arouet]

The question is CASA:



Guilty of gross misfeasance??
Using public office in such a way that people are damaged??
Attempting to damage Company's or individuals who may disagree with "findings";
Other issues that we don't yet know about.



Misfeance: n. law. the improper performance of an act that is lawful in itself. Compare malfeasance, nonfeasance.

Malfeance: n. law.The doing of a wrongful or illegal act, esp by a public official.

Nonfeance: n. law. A failure to act when under an obligation to do so.

I take it your use of the word "misfeasance" is an indication of the legal / probability/ ability to be able to prove such a thing?

[myshoutcaptain]

Air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training (http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training-20110603-1fl24.html)

Air France crash investigation sparks calls for better pilot training
Alan Levin
June 3, 2011

In memoriam ... relatives of those killed attended a mass in Rio De Janeiro on June 1, the second anniversary of the tragedy. Photo: Reuters
AS AIR FRANCE flight 447 plunged in the darkness two years ago, its pilots had ample opportunities to save the jet. Instead, as has happened repeatedly on airliners around the world, they exacerbated the problem, according to preliminary information released by French investigators.

The disaster, which killed 228 people on their way from Brazil to France on June 1, 2009, is the latest example of the biggest killer in aviation: a plane going out of control.

The latest information in the case, released by investigators, is spurring renewed calls for better pilot training and other measures.

Advertisement: Story continues below
''If this was a technical problem [with the jet], we'd be saying we need to fix this,'' said John Cox, a former airline pilot and safety consultant. ''There have been those of us in the industry that have been arguing for this for decades.''

Pilots need better training so they are not as startled and confused during emergencies, and better tools to warn them when their planes are about to go out of control, the experts say.

The French government's preliminary report describes what happened:

The jet's 11 kilometre plunge into the Atlantic began suddenly when its instruments went haywire.

Ice had blocked speed sensors.

The pilots could not tell how fast they were going.

Warnings and alerts sounded almost simultaneously.

In response, the pilots made a series of mistakes, according to the French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses, the agency that investigates aviation accidents. Instead of flying level while they diagnosed the problem, one of the pilots climbed steeply, causing a loss of speed. The aggressive nose-up pitch of the plane and the slower speed caused air to stop flowing smoothly over the wings, triggering a rapid descent.

They had entered an aerodynamic stall, meaning the wings could no longer keep the plane aloft. Once a plane is stalled, the correct response is to lower the nose and increase speed.

For the 3½ minutes before they crashed into the ocean, the pilots did the opposite, holding the Airbus A330's joystick back to lift the nose.

Although the response was improper, it would be wrong to simply blame the pilots without looking at how well they were prepared for the emergency and whether the information they received could have confused them, said Michael Barr, an instructor at the University of Southern California's Aviation Safety and Security Program.

''They're sitting there happy, the autopilot is on,'' Mr Barr said. ''Next thing you know, lights are flashing, warning horns are on. There were probably 10 warnings or messages coming to the crew at the same time.''

Similar miscalculations and miscues have been common:

In the Colgan Air crash on February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people, the captain overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had slowed too much and pulled the nose upward. If he had pushed it down, the National Transportation Safety Board said, he might have saved the plane.

On August 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela, killing all 160 aboard, after it stalled at 11,000 metres. The Venezuelan government blamed the pilots for failing to recognise that they were in a stall during a 3½ minute plunge.

Similar accidents killed 1848 people in the 10 years ending in 2009, according to Boeing.

Mr Cox and others said stall training has been lacking for decades. Newer flight simulators are better at teaching pilots how planes respond in stalls, they said.

USA Today



Read more: Air France crash investigation sparks calls for better pilot training (http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training-20110603-1fl24.html#ixzz1OGRKBm4d)

[gobbledock]

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Limitation Act 1935 (WA) - proposed action by applicant company & its director claiming breach of Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), misfeasance in public office, & negligence - constitutional law - s39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia - ‚matter‛ (I)
Yes, and a promotion to Assistant Director is the reward for such behaviour !!

And Malfeasance applies to everybody and every organisation accept Government.....

[Frank Arouet]

Bet's anyone;

The Director of Civil Aviation will probably serve out his term. I doubt he will be "terminated" prior. Too much money, but either way he will be well rewarded for his ineptitude, ignorance and arrogance. Good riddence!

The Deputy Director will do something likewise, but he is more prone to political "ejection" as a scapegoat because of his recent legal loss. Good riddence!

The Associate Director will then "take over".

And that people is when you should be afraid, very afraid, because this puts The Office of Legal Counsel firmly in charge of regulatory matters and the Human Resources crew in ongoing charge of employing other mutants unable to gain or hold productive employment in the public sector.

Add to this the plethora of past mutants given "advisory" roles while they work in parallel Quango's and The Attorney Generals Department.

And just for good measure, add an apathetic and pathetic do-nothing Minister of Transport.

Swap one Corporate Psychopath for another.:uhoh:

[gobbledock]

Frank, superb post and absolutely accurate.

* The Director will hang around for a little longer, especially while The Board are in place, better for The Director to cop the heat than The Minister ( thats why The Board are there).
* The Deputy Director ?? Oh dear, who know's on that score. But he too is likely to stay in place as he will wear the lynching if any of the new regs and implementation processes turn to custard.
* The Associate Director -Bingo. You nailed it Frank, he is your 'Director in waiting'. Aviation and witchcraft voodoo mix so well don't you think ??
* HR ?? You mean the people responsible in the majority of organisations for killing off equity, fairness and people's rights ? They too grow from strength to strength in their eyes. More like gutless toads hiding under senior managements skirts.
* Advisory roles !! Oh yes, you always need an advisor/consultant/lapdog/former mate/lobbyist to come back on mega dollars to do nothing more than become even more rich at the taxpayers expense. It is an old rort that dates back thousands of years, this will never change.

As for the fantasy of a royal commission, keep dreaming folks. You have as much chance of that as you do of proving that Simon Overland has been a naughty boy......I would suggest that all of what is taking place will be swept under a giant section of carpet, and in around 5 - 7 years time the whole cycle will start again.
Senator Xenaphon has simply wet our appetite and teased us, all for nought.

P.S Frank, what are the odds you are accepting mate ? I will throw in $500.00 at let's say 90:1 that nobody will get so much as a slap on the wrist.

[Frank Arouet]

We'd all be rich if someone would take that on and I doubt it will take 5-7 years for the cycle to repeat itself.:(

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA Senate Hearing:

Maybe we should do some more soul searching Frank. It was cold today and I looked at the 1995 hearings summary. I had only just begun an involvement in the industry in 1994

Maybe the Senate should look at the findings and ask CASA as to the actual progress - 2011 sounds just the same.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/reports/1995/1995_PP480.pdf

Part of the summary is as follows:

This report is a first report of what has been the most comprehensive inquiry conducted by the committee in the 37th Parliament.
The next report will cover unfinished matters including flying training, sports aviation and ultra lights, Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the impact of government charges on air safety.
The inquiry has been characterised by personality conflict, unsubstantiated allegations, a venom and viciousness not experienced by committee members in previous inquiries.
The catalyst for the inquiry was the report from the Bureau of Air Safety investigation on the Monarch Airlines crash in June 1993. Since then the Civil
Aviation Authority, its successor the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and air safety have been the subject of constant media attention.
The period of the inquiry saw significant changes to air safety regulation in Australia. Foremost was the decision to establish a new authority, the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority. The committee examined its enabling legislation and made several recommendations to improve the quality of the legislation
which were accepted by the government.
The report reveals a regulator at war with itself and under constant attack from vested interests within the general aviation and commuter industry.
Ensuring safe air travel must be the first priority of all participants in the industry as well as the regulator. This will require a major change of attitude
and culture by many in the industry.
Conduct of the inquiry and preparation of this report would not have been possible without the consistent support of my committee colleagues Stewart McArthur, Deputy Chair, Gavan O'Connor and John Sharp.
Other committee members participated from time to time despite their workloads.
I thank each of them. I thank also all those who made submissions, who attended public hearings and responded to our requests for additional information.
The committee made heavy demands on CAA and CASA often at short notice. We appreciate their efforts and the time they gave to committee requests.
The Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics assisted the committee again. We thank them for the advance copy of their study on general aviation.
Similarly the Department of the Parliamentary Library provided valuable assistance to the committee.
I especially thank Denis James for his support in the analysis of statistical and economic/financial data relevant to aviation.
The committee expresses special appreciation and thanks to our advisers Trevor Thomas and Robert McBride, committee secretary Malcolm Aldons and
committee officer June Murphy of their hard work and support throughout the inquiry.
Much of this report deals with the Civil Aviation Authority. However the committee stresses that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should not be
judged by the performance of its predecessor.
The committee's recommendations are constructive and are intended to make the Civil Aviation Safety Authority a more effective regulator.
The committee expects industry, trade unions and others to be similarly supportive of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The safety of the traveling public demands no less.

PETER MORRIS
Chairman
1 December 1995

[Frank Arouet]

the committee stresses that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should not be judged by the performance of its predecessor.

Perhaps now would be a good time to judge CASA and give a report card as to how it has improved since. My guess things have got worse by a factor of 100.

The inquiry has been characterised by personality conflict, unsubstantiated allegations, a venom and viciousness not experienced by committee members in previous inquiries

But they will defend their actions to the last cent in the taxpayers purse.

[gobbledock]

Up-into-the-air, Inciteful report albeit a somehwat repititious and monotenous theme we would all agree ?
Inquiries after Monarch, inquiries after Lockhart, inquiries after reports of ludicrous right seat pilot training, yet all for nothing.....The next inquiry will no doubt be after one of Australia's 'larger' operators spear one into a mountain or a hill (tick tock tick tock), but thats ok - it will create plenty of work for government whips, politicians, retired judges, bored senators and the list goes on. This inquiry will be relegated to the forgotten pages of Pprune in no time, and so the cycle goes.
Of particular humour were the below comments:
The inquiry has been characterised by personality conflict, unsubstantiated allegations, a venom and viciousness not experienced by committee members in previous inquiries.
It would appear that successive managers at CASA and Government spin doctors accept this as the norm, especially when you travel back in history.
The report reveals a regulator at war with itself and under constant attack from vested interests within the general aviation and commuter industry.
Why knock me over with a feather, never ?? It's what they do best !

The committee's recommendations are constructive and are intended to make the Civil Aviation Safety Authority a more effective regulator
Ha ha ha, now that is funny. Another waste of taxpayer funds, but hey, that's what they do best !

[Nothing but blue sky]

Can we still look forward to the senate's recommendations from the inquiry tomorrow??

[Kharon]

I would be tempted write a dog race for Frank (AKA Voltaire), it could be fun, but; where's the inspiration.

Part 66, part 91, Polarair, the 'Ethics' committee, Qantas, Jetstar, spin, bull-dust, half arsed self serving pollies, and a confused, frightened, crippled industry. Arggh ! where's the fun?.

It's all a bit like the young fellah's brought up on bad beer, they drink it because they know no better.

I say SHAME on CASA, SHAME on the '(in) vested interests' and SHAME on the shareholders, stakeholders and all the folks who can see no further than their own rice bowl.

The whole thing just makes me despair (a little bit) for this country and the future for the next generation of the mad buggers who can't get a real job and choose to fly aircraft as a way of life.


Selah.

[Low and Fast]

Recommendation by the senate committee extended till 22nd June 2011

New information can still be sent in for their consideration

[Sarcs]

Confirm L&F's post, go to item 9. Placing of business in the Dynamic red:hmm::

Dynamic Red - Wednesday, 15 June 2011 (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/DynamicRed/Index.html)

Wonder if they have obtained more evidence?:rolleyes:

cheers

[Up-into-the-air]

It is worth while reading some of the very erudite submissions from the industry to the 2011 enquiry. The theme through these is one of an out of control regulator. Another submission about how Lockhart River was handled by Shane Urquart is very revealing. Keep the good work going

All the submissions can be read at:

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://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm)

Anonymous submissions can be made as well - This is your opportunity, as it shows the depth to which the regulator [CASA] is not properly regulating - remember the new regs are much more punitive than we have ever seen before.

Safety, proper reporting of problems and fining people do not work, but result in matters that should be reported being at best "buried" without the problem being resolved.

The matter of there not being appropriate rigor in the system looms large.

[004wercras]

Been there, done that!!:ugh: Just waiting on the report out next Wednesday, so I hear?!:=

[Up-into-the-air]

My understanding is that Senator Heffernan, Xen and Nash would like to see more information.

They appear to recognise that CASA are at best misleading them in their answers.

This was certainly evident by Sen Heffs refusal on 27th May to put questions on notice, but rather insisting on CASA giving answers on the spot.

[004wercras]

Uita,
I agree with your sentiments in regards to the good Senators, especially Senator X who I think (when you read all the Inquiry Hansards) has been gunning for CASA the whole time!:D
Not sure if they are looking at new information though. I believe they're probably collating all the info they currently have and then deciding how best to present and recommend to the Senate.:ugh:

cheers

[004wercras]

By the way if you look at the Senate Estimates committee on the 26th May about page 74 onwards you'll get a good example of Senator Bill and Senator X tag teaming CASA and the ATSB!

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s65.pdf

Shows that they are on to them.

[Frank Arouet]

That will remain to be seen.

I would consider several matters, some, in my opinion, criminal that need further investigation. One of note was a late matter with regard to a conflict of interest that would appear to clearly pass any basic test for public examination. Another is a small matter of The Director of Aviation signing "instruments" that put Australian parachuting in a situation of unknowingly being involved in other illegal matters for a considerable time. This alone could, and probably will, be used as a test case against CASA for insurance claims which will impact on the Australian taxpayer.

I also believe there are a series of accustaions made here on PPRune that to date have not been addressed, and never will if CASA get their way.

[flyingfox]

Well regardless of the timing, if you have information which you believe should be considered, send it on to the Senators or request to speak to them 'off the record' in the first instance. Now is the time to reveal all!!

[004wercras]

So Frank are you saying that the good Senators are bogged down with the detail, or do they simply find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place!

Personally I feel Senator X is on the money (in regards to CASA), he also finds himself in a perfect situation as he doesn't have a political agenda to follow. He just needs to believe in reform of CASA (i.e. get rid of them and start again!).

As can be seen by the number of Inquiries he has instigated and been involved in, he is a go getter with a lot of moral fibre (some of which we may not agree with). So lets wind him up and let him go!

[Frank Arouet]

I was referring to post #1144 when stating "that remains to be seen". A case of post timing by the looks of it.

But no, I believe the good Senators are on the money and there is late material which I have seen, and I understand, has been passed on to them that they may be interested in investigating. I'm unssure whether they will take on the "CASAweary" claims unless he presents them himself. They should be read if only to give CASA the opportunity to deny the accusations.

The rug needs pulling out from under CASA and like you suggest start again.

It should take less than 23 years to complete and promulgate everything seeing as they have done this much work to date.;)

[gobbledock]

Frank,
I admire the passion and commitment. But CASA is too large a beast to be slayed by Heff and Xen. They are on an admirable crusade, but it is too big a job for even these two to pull off. I think most people would like to see CASA brought to account for decades of manfeasance but it is just a fantasy to expect a couple of senators to achieve the unimaginable. Forget the Skull for a moment, peer under the veneer and look at the long termers who have integrated themselves into every breathing decision that takes place within CASA. People with 7, 10, 20 years of experience in working the system. You don't stay in the game that long without knowing how to play everyone for a fool - the airlines, the government, the good senators. None are a match for a well rehearsed and well versed CASA. They are the ever annoying haemerroid, and although the senators may think they are the ointment, they sadly are not.

Next board appointment prediction - Simon Overland.

[Frank Arouet]

Talking of the CASA Board, other than get free lunch and pretend to report to the minister, what else do they do? Nobody hears about them.

The first thing that strikes me with Overland is he may be seen to be damaged goods, but given consideration, he probably passes every test. Right now he would make a better Prime minister.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

CASA have been put under the microscope by this inquiry and have been found wanting. I can not imagine anyone being foolish enough to allow them to go free, but if they do, CASA's failings will be thrown into stark relief when they inevitably manifest themselves into an accident-and they know it.

I would not give up on the inquiry just yet, it is not every day that a group of Senators has potentially hundreds of lives in his or her hands. I think the good Senators are aware of the consequences of getting this one wrong.


"The price of greatness is responsibility" -Winston Churchill

[Frank Arouet]

If the CASA board give oversight to the Minister, perhaps we are lax in not attacking them first. If the Director and his crony's are an acceptable state of play within CASA, we should wonder if the Minister is getting the right information from the board to act on, and the senators are perhaps not being inquisitorial enough, when attacking the body of the serpent instead of the head.

I'm not giving the Minister a way out here, simply stating that all his vast ignorance may not be attributal to his genetic and psychological makeup.

And take no comfort from the shadow minister.:rolleyes:

"The price expected of responsibility is an adherence to accountability".

[gobbledock]

Talking of the CASA Board, other than get free lunch and pretend to report to the minister, what else do they do?
They are not meant to do much at all. They are an extra layer of protection between CASA and the Minister. Minister's must be protected at all costs.

If the CASA board give oversight to the Minister, perhaps we are lax in not attacking them first. If the Director and his crony's are an acceptable state of play within CASA, we should wonder if the Minister is getting the right information from the board to act on, and the senators are perhaps not being inquisitorial enough, when attacking the body of the serpent instead of the head.
I'm not giving the Minister a way out here, simply stating that all his vast ignorance may not be attributal to his genetic and psychological makeup.
And take no comfort from the shadow minister.:rolleyes:
Good luck Frank. Politicians are untouchable. Look at past history in just the past few years - Defense Force billion dolar screw ups, ceiling bats/BER another billion dollar screw up, hundreds of millions being spent (some estimate it will be closer to a billion dollars) just to reward one foreign minister and buy him a seat on the UN panel and the list goes on......A totally protected and shielded species who can spend OUR taxpayer money at will to buy themselves out of or into trouble with an absolutely 100% no recourse or accountability clause attached.
But anyway, if the Senators are gunning for a top level political scalp good luck to them. After all, the whole exercise, regardless of the outcome is merely play money to them anyway, after all the taxpayer is funding all of this. Just add the bill to the rest of the worthless debt they are loading us up with for eternity ! Oh yes I forgot, seeing that we are becoming further indebted and our quality of life is being eroded by the day due to our government lets just throw another half a billion dollars of money we don't have to aid Indonesia while we cant even afford our own fu#king basic school ,hospital and road system.

It should take less than 23 years to complete and promulgate everything seeing as they have done this much work to date.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Hmmm, you shouldn't use words like 'promulgate' Frank. Sounds like the type of wank jargin the Board spew forth.

[framer]

Promulgate always reminds me of the airforce, was one of their favourite words I reckon, everything had to be promulgated....I like it, Frank, you can keep using it, I'll give you top cover, Gobbledock....20 press-ups.

[Sunfish]

Gobbles, it is axiomatic in the public service and ministerial staff that what a Minister does not know is actually more important than what he does know.

If he doesn't now about it, he can't be held responsible for it, and if he should be, but isn't, then all that is required is for a suitable public servant to be selected to confess to knowing about it but failing to tell the Minister.

Said Public servant is then reprimanded, dismissed, and immediately goes to work as a Ministerial appointee on the Board of a Qango.

Very simply really...


This is why a smart Minister always qualifies every statement he ever makes with the phrases "I'm advised that..." everything you ever saw on "Yes Minister" was true. It would take a very "courageous" Minister to do anything at all without the fig-leaf of "advice".

[gobbledock]

Gobbledock....20 press-ups.
I humbly accept this punishment and will go and do it now.

Gobbles, it is axiomatic in the public service and ministerial staff that what a Minister does not know is actually more important than what he does know.
Naughty Sunfish, The Board will now incorporate that word AXIOMATIC into the next annual CASA report, along with underpinning/overarching/world's best practise and of course - robust. And get paid an extra $500 000 each I imagine.

[Frank Arouet]

I remember a poster with the handle" AXIOM. Great bloke. Too late to protest, he got banned but was vindicated by historical fact. Wonder where he is now?:)

[bobhoover]

results of enquiry to be posted this afternoon apparently. Most probably post press club shannanigans

[Xcel]

Tabled everything except the transport report thus far

Might not make it in time... Could be pushed to tomorrow

Business of the senate underway at item 1.
Transport is number 8 and with no report tabled think it will be pushed even with the finishing time of 20:00

[Xcel]

Officially moved to tomorrow now... Finished today to item 7 so should be first off the blocks...

[The Green Goblin]

Any news folks?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

I believe it was "tabled" at 13:51, and now we wait.

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 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/index.htm)

[Ex Douglas Driver]

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/report/report.pdf

Recommendation 1
2.278 The committee is of the view that an ATPL should also be required for first officers in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) jet aircraft such as Boeing 737, A320 and other aircraft of similar or greater capacity, and that consideration be given to implementing this as a standard.

[mcgrath50]

Only read the recommendations so far, but if all of them can be implemented correctly and quickly (yeah right) then this inquiry has done a tremendous amount of good!

[BombsGone]

So where does recommendation 1 leave the Jetstar cadets? Besides out of pocket. I'm sure there will be reattacks to government on that recommendation alone.

[lineupandwait]

So where does recommendation 1 leave the Jetstar cadets? Besides out of pocket. I'm sure there will be reattacks to government on that recommendation alone.

Umm, go get a job somewhere else like everyone else did after they got their CPL.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

2.278 The committee is of the view that an ATPL should also be required for first officers in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) jet aircraft such as Boeing 737, A320 and other aircraft of similar or greater capacity, and that consideration be given to implementing this as a standard.


How do you like those apples .


Share prices about to drop through 1.8, ATPL a requirement soon enough and PIA has not even been taken out of its wrapping, do they seriously think they stand a chance at bullying reasonable expectations through media mis-information.

[High_To_Low]

The committee is of the view...does that mean it is only a recommendation and employers can either choose to follow suit or dismiss it or does this now become mandated?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

The committee is of the view...does that mean it is only a recommendation and employers can either choose to follow suit or dismiss it or does this now become mandated?

I expect that this recommendation would adressed to CASA who would then need to respond with when and why or why not they intend to follow the recommendation and put it in the regs.

Until then, it's binding on no-one however AFAP/AIPA should be paying for advertising billboards at the entrance to Moorabbin, Bankstown, Jandakot etc and displaying this recommendation for anyone driving in to sign up for a cadetship to see.

UTR

[airtags]

Up to Regulator to formalise but it will be a brave CASA/ATSB not to take the findings seriously.

Certainly has major implications for Joyce's migration of QF to offshore and puts the heat onto AOC holders (nice dump handball to Strambi by Joyce during ash cloud mention at the press club).

CC came out OK re FRMS - report could have gone further but it covered off the key offences.

AT

Can we expect Bruce and his little mate with an accent to pop up today..... ;)

[Mud Skipper]

So it looks like they are going for 1500 hrs (ATPL) to get a window seat on a jet. Some sanity remains, let's see if it's adopted!
:D:D

Gosh I must be a slooower reader than I thought with all the above posts jumping in:O

[dudduddud]

So what's going to happen with the jet cadet programmes? Will the operators take notice of these recommendations?

Obviously they can continue to operate for now but what about the people who are coming through the system? Surely they won't be running these zero-to-hero programmes right up until the night before regulation kicks in.

What sort of impact is this likely to have on the lower end of the job market?

[Capt_SNAFU]

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1*

2.278* The committee is of the view that an ATPL should also be required for
first officers in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) jet aircraft such as
Boeing 737, A320 and other aircraft of similar or greater capacity, and that
consideration be given to implementing this as a standard.*

Recommendation 2*

2.279* The committee recommends that for non-jet operations which employ
low-experience first officers, operators be required to provide enhanced
supervision and mentoring schemes to offset such lack of experience.*

Recommendation 3*

2.280* The committee recommends that Air Operators Certificate (AOC)
holders be required to develop and implement 'green on green' policy positions
relating to the use of low experience pilots in RPT operations, to maximise,
wherever possible, the collective experience level of flight crew.*

Recommendation 4*

2.281* The committee recommends that Civil Aviation Safety Regulation
(CASR) Part 61 ensure that all prospective regular public transport (RPT) pilots
be required to complete substantial course-based training in multi-crew
operations and resource management (non-technical skills) and human factors
training prior to, or in reasonable proximity to, initial endorsement training; the
committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of CASR Part 61.*

Recommendation 5*

2.282* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently
being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as
opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience.*

Recommendation 6*

2.283* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) be required to undertake a risk assessment of current simulator training
to assess whether the extent, aims and scope of such training is being utilised to
achieve optimum safety outcomes rather than minimum compliance objectives.*

Recommendation 7*

2.288* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA)
expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of Civil Aviation
Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 141 'Flight Training Operators' and Part 142
'Training and Checking Operators'.*

Recommendation 8*

2.296* The committee recommends that the Government require the
Productivity Commission or another suitable body to undertake a review of the
current and future supply of pilots in Australia, with particular reference to the
general aviation and cadet training pathways, and HECS HELP and VET FEE-
HELP arrangements.*

Recommendation 9*

2.299* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Australian
aviation operators review the final findings of France's Bureau of Investigation
and Analysis into Air France 447, including consideration of how it may apply in
the Australian context. Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the
approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter.*

Recommendation 10*

3.146* The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and
Transport provide a report to Parliament every six months outlining the
progress of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) regulatory reforms and
specifying reform priorities, consultative processes and implementation targets
for the following 12-month period.*

Recommendation 11*

3.147* The committee recommends that the Government undertake a review of
the funding to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ensure that there is
sufficient specific funding to support an expedited regulatory reform process.*

Recommendation 12*

3.149* The committee recommends that, as an ongoing measure, the
Government provide the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) with specific
funding to enable it to offer salaries that are competitive with industry; in
addition, or as an alternative, the Government should consider implementing
formal mechanisms for the sharing of expertise between industry and CASA.*

Recommendation 13*

3.158* The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation
Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 not be passed.*

Recommendation 14*

3.163* The committee recommends that the current prescriptive approach needs
to be supplemented with a general obligation to report whenever the 'responsible
person' believes that there is an urgent safety risk that must be addressed.*

Recommendation 15*

3.164* The committee recommends that the Australian Transport and Safety
Bureau (ATSB) review its approach to the investigation and publication of
human factors with a view to achieving a more robust and useful learning tool
for the industry.*

Recommendation 16*

3.165* The committee recommends that the Australian Transport and Safety
Bureau (ATSB) review existing processes for the categorisation of aviation events
to ensure that miscategorisation is minimised and opportunities for system
improvement are not lost.*

Recommendation 17*

3.166* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA), in concern with Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB),
consider developing and publishing guidance on model reporting to minimise
understatement of the actual or potential significance of aviation events.*

Recommendation 18*

3.169* The committee recommends that Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
require operators to observe the highest standards of incident reporting from
their personnel and provide appropriate training as part of the safety promotion
function of their SMS.*

Recommendation 19*

The committee recommends that, in order to enhance 'just culture' and open
reporting of incidents, aviation operators should ensure that their relevant
managers are adequately trained in procedural fairness.*

Recommendation 20*

4.89* The committee recommends that, following the release of the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) fatigue guidelines, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) should expedite necessary changes and/or additions to the
regulations governing flght and cabin crew fatigue risk management as a priority*

Recommendation 21*

4.90* The committee recommends that, in the event that the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) fatigue guidelines do not extend to cabin crew
duty limits and fatigue risk management more broadly, the Government should
amend the Civil Aviation Act 1998 to include cabin crew fatigue risk management
under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) regulatory oversight.*

Recommendation 22*

4.92* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) specify the type of training and amount of training required for cabin
crew, including mandatory English language standards.*

[Xcel]

Well recommendation #1 and #22 if brought in would basically firetruck Jetstar locally...

We all know the next step is to move the entire company overseas (read Nz or sg) and operate into Australia to bypass such ludicrous rules - how dare we try to improve the safety of our industry at the detriment of his bonus...

Sounds like some good stuff - and a 12 month timeframe would be awesome. Just worried that with the recommendation of expediting andincreasing the budget to allow for the changes (if accepted and acted upon) would just line the beaurocrats pockets in the ivory tower rather than filter down to an actual safety and beneificial industry outcome.

I think pprune and the last few years of aviation have turned me into a giant cynical bastard... But then again the proof is in the pudding...

[mr flappy]

So the cadets can all get their experience flying dash 8s?

[The Green Goblin]

Q300s and Q400s would be high cap wouldn't they?

[SkyFlyHigh]

What a stupid recommendation. Generally people have much more than 1500hrs before they have the requirements of an ATPL - especially if they have lots of semi-relevant turbine copilot time. i.e. the real requirement for some pilots is now 2500hrs TT (or alternatively 1500hrs in less relevant single pilot ops).

And all this based on a round table discussion of opinions - no emperical data whatsoever was presented for this position. It's like the sharemarket - lets just follow the USA.

I doubt that CASA will wholly follow through such a simplistic and poorly thought through recommendation.

[strim]

Sincere thanks to Mr. Xenophon.

QF Group and CASA: F&*king lift your game.

[gruntyfen]

1.10
During the course of the inquiry, the committee received a report from a witness, who had provided evidence to the committee on an in camera basis, that the person had been subject to a penalty or disadvantage on account of the evidence that person provided to the committee.

[Mr. Hat]

Put the Champagne away lads.

Suggest reading the document in its entirety. Some cringe worthy stuff in there courtesy of the greasy slimy pole.

Don't forget the Chairmans Lounge, the Grange and the iPads. Yesterdays infomercial session at the National Press Club is a great example of the true power of big business in this putridly corrupt country we have here. How did you like the round of applause or the strong heavy handed questions on offer? Whoa it was infomercial 101. I thought the Malaysian choir where going to come out for a minute there. I mean the guy just announced that he's sending jobs and tax dollars overseas and he got a round of applause! Wheres GT the big fella?

Gillard and Albanese I'm sure like the chairmans lounge and a good drop of RED when it suits them. Senator Xenophon and co have a fight on their hands.

Worse comes to worse just set your watch on the first Qantasia to become part of a hill.

Qantasia - The spirit of Malaysia

[PPRuNeUser0161]

It should happen but don't be suprised if nothing happens for say 5 years. Then there will need to be another enquiry as this one is out of date. I'll believe it when I see it!

SN

[mikewil]

It seems clear that the intention is to stop low hour cadets from ending up in the cockpits on high capacity jets like A320s while not posing any restriction on REX. It seems REX have done a good job at fooling the senators with their "major pilot shortage" 3 years ago.

Perhaps the threshold will be MTOW > 15000KG or passenger capacity > 50PAX.

The law will clearly have to specify numerical values...anyone have an educated opinion on where the cut off values may be?

[Howabout]

Well, I am no expert, but it seems to me that any effort to ignore recommendation 1, subsequent to an incident/accident, will be pretty hard to explain away.

Mr. Hat, I share your cynicism, but not to your extent. This is now on the public record. In addition, recommendation 9, IMHO, is a blinder if you read between the lines.

Sunfish, over to you!

[mcgrath50]

I read the recommendation as a restriction for High Capacity RPT, so QLink, Virgin, QF and JQ will be affected Rex, skywest(?) etc. won't be.

[QJB]

2.118 AIPA expressed the view that, in fact, cadet schemes could be acting as a disincentive to prospective pilots due to the associated costs.115 Mr Bruce Buchanan, the Chief Executive Officer of Jetstar, however, asserted that cadet schemes offered another route for entry into the pilot profession. Mr Buchanan stated:
No good training system exists such as that which universities provide for doctors and lawyers. For a young person trying to become a pilot, there is a huge cost barrier to get into this field. We are trying to create mechanisms where people can get into this field, where they can afford to get into it no matter what their socioeconomic background is and where they can get to really good salaries very quickly.

This must be a joke...

[Chadzat]

The recommendation 1 is the key to so much in our profession. Its interesting that we all have different interpretations!!

I read it as each crew member that operates a jet aircraft operated RPT service will need an ATPL. The key words being 'high capacity' and 'similar'.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Number 5, multi engine experience may make some rather positive changes, for example, if one needed 500 multi command to hold an ATPL, that would be a nice shot in the arm for rural general aviation.

It would also roger REX and Qlinks's grand plan.

What has happened today is not some senate wish list, like a teenage girl wanting a pony, it is more of a direction that will be followed, plus or minus some theatrics in session.

I believe the orange cancer just got three fat ministerial fingers in the bum, no lube, the finer details will present themselves shortly, I am certain CASA will take the instructions to the most restrictive interpretation possible.

[Mr. Hat]

Howabout, believe it or not I put a big old filter on for most of my posts so I don't give tailwheel and co a nightmare or heartattack!

Have you followed the police corruption thing in Victoria? This country is absolutely full to the brim with it, top to bottom my friend. You and I are on the receiving end of it day in day out. You just don't notice it anymore as its become part of life.

Its all about big business and QF is as big as it gets. This has an effect on them and they ain't going to take it lying down.

Xenophon is one of the few that stands for something. He's got one of those rare body parts called a spine and other features such as intelligence and integrity. He works whats right not whats popular - he's seriously out of place here. Unfortunately for his causes he doesn't engage in popularity contests and he doesn't keep on the right side of the power brokers. You know, the type that orchestrate questions at the National Press Club.

I'd better stop I'm starting to warm up.

Qantasia - The Spirit of Malaysia

[Sarcs]

The trouble is Mr. Hat Senator X is also only one week away from losing some of his influence in the Parliament!:ugh:

I'm not sure the 'tree hugging' Senators coming in are going to have the same sympathy for the workers on the rockface of the aviation sector.

[Mr. Hat]

Yep I know. Does anybody know what role he will have moving forward?

[gobbledock]

Most of the ‘recommendations’ will fade away into the sunset as they will be forgotten, stonewalled, twisted, ignored, laughed at or if implemented we will have to wait another 22 years. I have listed some of the recommendations below. The bolding and italics are mine.

Recommendation 4*
2.281* The committee recommends that Civil Aviation Safety Regulation
(CASR) Part 61 ensure that all prospective regular public transport (RPT) pilots be required to complete substantial course-based training in multi-crew operations and resource management (non-technical skills) and human factors training prior to, or in reasonable proximity to, initial endorsement training; the committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of CASR Part 61.*
Answer:
‘Expedite’ is not a term that CASA is either capable or willing to accept. The only ‘expediting’ you will find with this mob is in the areas of lynching minor operators, jacking up executive salaries or booking business travel to the next ICAO junket.

Recommendation 5*
2.282* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience.*
Answer:
This recommendation if acknowledged by CASA and the government requires a definitive time frame be attached. If the regulator exceeds the agreed review time frame then they must answer to the Senate, not directly to the Minister who is incapable of tying his own shoe laces let alone ‘keep CASA honest’. It is time that accountability is brought against the lazy incapable regulator.

Recommendation 6*
2.283* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) be required to undertake a risk assessment of current simulator training to assess whether the extent, aims and scope of such training is being utilized to achieve optimum safety outcomes rather than minimum compliance objectives.*
Answer:
Slight problem here. The majority of their decisions are weighted against ‘taking the easy path’ or ‘how do we make a decision or recommendation while avoiding being accountable’. Also, the Senators should have asked CASA to produce detailed, concise and thorough copies of risk assessments conducted on previous decision making processes. Why? They would likely find that they virtually do not exist. CASA decisions are based more upon bureaucratic reasoning, avoiding accountability and ‘how do we undertake the risk assessment without blowing this month’s budget’.

Recommendation 7*
2.288* The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 141 'Flight Training Operators' and Part 142 'Training and Checking Operators'.*
Answer:
Review my comments for Recommendation 4, the same applies.

Recommendation 10*
3.146* The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport provide a report to Parliament every six months outlining the progress of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) regulatory reforms and specifying reform priorities, consultative processes and implementation targets
for the following 12-month period.*
Answer:
Ring Ring. Did somebody call in the consultants and spin doctors?? I smell $$$$.
This will be a nice earner for some additional mates and bureaucrats compiling fancy charts and wank statements. Anyway, a throrough detailed analysis and dissection should take place every 6 months to review not only what is yet to be completed but also a detailed analysis of what has been completed. Included should be actual financial records (unadulterated), timeframes, targets and detailed reports. In other words, 22 years+ of regulatory reform is an embarrassment, a sham, an uncontrolled process and massive hole in the taxpayer’s wallet. OUR taxpayer money should be spent and/or used as if it belonged to a conservatively run business. No more carte blanche pissing away taxpayer money without, you guessed it, accountability.
I imagine this is where the Board and the rats that have hidden within the CASA castle for the past decade or two will be most annoyed at the possible prospect of their uselessness being exposed. Time will tell, don’t hold your breath folks.

Recommendation 11*
3.147* The committee recommends that the Government undertake a review of the funding to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ensure that there is sufficient specific funding to support an expedited regulatory reform process.*
Answer:
The term ‘funding review’ in this instance is too vague. In CASA dialect it means ‘we might get another huge pot of taxpayer funds to spend on mates, consultants, a few more layers of executive management, more ollie jollies to overseas destinations and the opportunity to schmooze with equally inept international regulators and more importantly more bureaucrats’. It is time to ‘remove the snouts from the trough’.

Recommendation 12*
3.149* The committee recommends that, as an ongoing measure, the
Government provide the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) with specific funding to enable it to offer salaries that are competitive with industry; in addition, or as an alternative, the Government should consider implementing formal mechanisms for the sharing of expertise between industry and CASA.*
Answer:
The red headed clown's government is broke. I would like to see the reality of how this will work. Besides, the only ‘competitive salaries’ offered will be within the executive management group. Perhaps an industry committee or panel (which excludes bureaucrats and other leeches) should be set up to help determine what a ‘competitive salary’ is, and that it is commensurate with the specific role? It would remove some power from CASA HR of which I understand run the entire organization.

Recommendation 19*
The committee recommends that, in order to enhance 'just culture' and open reporting of incidents, aviation operators should ensure that their relevant managers are adequately trained in procedural fairness.*
Answer:
Yes, ‘just culture’ rears its head. Unfortunately it is hypocritical to recommend practices such as just culture, reporting without fear of retribution and procedural fairness when the regulator is famous for applying none of these items themselves. Perhaps if the cloak of protection – ‘the eternal bucket of money called taxpayer funds which pays for the most expensive lawyers’ was taken away from CASA and its employees and accountability for personal actions was introduced then you might amazingly see just culture and procedural fairness take hold within CASA ?

[Mr. Hat]

AF447 lessons apply to Australian carriers: Senate inquiry | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/23/casa-gets-periodic-accountability-and-low-hour-pilots-shot-down-in-senate-report/)

Sandilands chimes in nicely. A few spot on articles today. Good reading.

Glad I'm not the only person that thought the questions raised yesterday were part of a Joyce infomercial.

[desmotronic]

Shock horror gonna have to have an airline transport licence to fly an airline transport jet ... bullseye senators. Not much to ask really. :ok::}

[gobbledock]

Thanks for the update Mr Hat. It seems the theme 'accountability' is in the spotlight, and rightly so...
I just read the link, and I do like the final paragraph in which no comment has yet been received from QF, JQ or Albanese. I imagine the Minister is still struggling to understand the concept of the term 'pilot training' and what that means. Probably has never heard of 'France' or 'Airbus' either !!

[Mr. Hat]

Probably not but has had more than his fair share of French red wine in the Chairmans Lounge.

[gobbledock]

Probably not but has had more than his fair share of French red wine in the Chairmans Lounge.
Did he find his way to the Lounge without any assitance ?

[BombsGone]

Mr Albanese's spokesman said the government ''will take advice from aviation experts before responding''.

And so it begins. Apparently the people who presented to the inquiry weren't experts. I'm guessing he means airline executives. I'd bet that AJ has already had words to the minister along the lines of,

Airlines dismiss training warning (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airlines-dismiss-training-warning-20110623-1ghr6.html)

All the arguments are already in the report and were rejected by the committee. Any other outcome will be a difference of opinion flavored by industry pressure.

[Sunfish]

No change without Three smoking holes in the ground.

Hopefully no one I know will be on board.

[rep]

This BB character drives me up the wall with all his bull****.

No jet training course could turn out students with 1500 hours' experience, meaning pilots would have to come through the traditional general aviation path, which ''delivers a lower outcome of performance standard
It's worked in the past, why does it have to change now you dip****? Lower outcome of performance WTF? The experience you get in the bush is second to none you MORON!

Second, it would decimate regional aviation, as that's where the main carriers would recruit pilots from, and third, aspiring pilots would have to go overseas for training and jobs
Yes, and then regional aviation would get new pilots from GA. :ugh:

HENCE THE CIRCLE OF LIFE CONTINUES!

Aspiring pilots having to go overseas for training/jobs? WTF!!!!!! Whats wrong with GA Mr. BB?

This guy is just sooooo stupid and unware!

[BombsGone]

Guys, I think BBs opinion is flavoured by Jetstars experience during the last recruiting surge. They had to scrape the bottom of the barrel as their terms and conditions were not competitive enough to attract enough quality candidates. The problem wasn't the background of the candidates.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

ATPL-Air Transport Pilot Licence

mmmmm. I reckon you should have one to sit in the front of ANY transport category aircraft engaged in commercial air transport, turbo props included.
Period.

Lets face it its not that hard, you pass the subjects so you have the mental capacity and then you get the hours and 1500 hours is still bugger all!

SN

[Mr. Hat]

Bruce Loosecannon has just insulted the vast majority of the pilots that work for his company. I sincerely hope one of them catch up with him in a nice dark alley.. you know for a chat.

[Private Patjarr]

Me Hat are you speaking about his statements in the press regarding his statistically flawed statement regarding the correlation of experience va simulator scores (some months ago) or has there been something else?

[Mr. Hat]

meaning pilots would have to come through the traditional general aviation path, which ''delivers a lower outcome of performance standard

The only low standard here is his leadership.

[Jetsbest]

I think he may be referrring the comment at the bottom of http://http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...623-1ghr6.html article from the SMH; a Senate inquiry which consulted many experts over many months has released findings but BB knows better. :hmm:

[Jetsbest]

:O:ok::):}

[The Green Goblin]

aspiring pilots would have to go overseas for training and jobs, he said.

Isn't that what Qantas and Jetstar are trying to do anyway? Force Pilots overseas on lower T&Cs so they can reduce costs and get a bigger bonus?

[stewser89]

So does this mean that cadetships are dead in the water (excluding Qantas long running cadetship).

Or will CASA ignore the Senate recommendations and simply issue exemptions to Jetstar.

Even easier for them just promise to write them when the CASR are issued.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

While this is a fantastic development in the enhancement of our industry for all of us (Engineers, Pilots, Cabin Crew, ATC and more), pissing and moaning on PPRUNE that this will be lost in a blur of Grange, Ipads and Chairmans club memberships is NOT the effective way forward.

This is only a small victory in a much larger battle.

It is up to all of us to continue the momentum of this potential revolution in air safety in this country.

Place your efforts into writing to your local federal AND state members, the Ministers and Shadow Ministers for transport/aviation/infrastructure/whatever, the leaders of all major federal political entities; and express to them, as Aviation Professionals and experts, the importance of the expeditious and effective implementation of these simple, yet profound enhancements to the Australian aviation industry.

Albanese has said he will consult with experts before his response. That is us. We are the operational staff who will work with the consequences of the eventual outcomes. It will be our lives and livelihoods on the line.

[Frank Arouet]

Or will CASA ignore the Senate recommendations and simply issue exemptions.

No, they will abide by the recommendations and issue "exemptions" anyway.

They will read the recommendations "to the letter" and act accordingly.

Get ready for the spelling, comma and aphostrophe police.

Albanese has said he will consult with experts before his response

This person is a pathological Labor identity who believes the Prime Minister is NOT a LIAR. Anybody who puts any faith in his words is a FOOL.

[Mr. Hat]

Place your efforts into writing to your local federal AND state members, the Ministers and Shadow Ministers for transport/aviation/infrastructure/whatever, the leaders of all major federal political entities; and express to them, as Aviation Professionals and experts, the importance of the expeditious and effective implementation of these simple, yet profound enhancements to the Australian aviation industry.

Done months ago.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

True Frank. I don't hold out much hope that 'Comrade Albanese' will come through.

Thats is why I'm suggesting the job isn't over. While it is a job well done by all so far, these recommendations simply mark the beginning. We all have much to do, and a responsibility to do it.

[SteaminDivet]

Laughed out loud when I read this. Not only does BB contradict himself AGAIN but AGAIN show's a full lack of understanding of his ship.
Vote 1 CEO of the moment.



Airlines dismiss training warning (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airlines-dismiss-training-warning-20110623-1ghr6.html) :D

I especially love the comment that more experienced pilots are lesser standard than cadets. Coming from someone who just recently stated to the pilots he was in awe of their talent.. (even if it is at a lower standard than than more inexperienced 18-25 year old pilots) No offence Cadeties!:ok:

[Mr. Hat]

My Italics and Bolds

Inconvenient Truths:

AF447 geek pilots dangerous pilots cited by Senate report | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/24/geek-pilots-dangerous-delusions-and-the-senate-inquiry/)

June 24, 2011 – 3:49 pm, by Ben Sandilands

In lay language, the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety has made a set of recommendations that would put Australia on the same page as American lawmakers in resisting the dangerous things desperate airlines have been doing to cut corners.

It has shot down the preference of Jetstar for example for ‘geek pilots’ (my term for young, inexperienced and indebted recruits) who under current rules can be hired as Airbus A320 first officers with as little as 250 hours of actual hands on or ‘real’ flying.

That’s not enough hours to be safe flying a Cessna 172 in all conditions in the outback, never mind a 180 seat jet during a less than text book perfect flight dealing with a systems problem, an incapacitated captain or a rough weather approach to an Australian city.

It’s tolerance by CASA, and the airlines, and successive Ministers, has eroded the safety standards most Australians would believe to be world leading.

The inquiry, instigated by independent senator Nick Xenophon, and chaired by Bill Heffernan, has recommended a minimum of 1500 hours ‘real’ flight experience, as well as qualification to the highest standard of airline pilot licence, as the hiring prerequisite.

The members resisted a chorus of entrenched interests, not just in the airlines, CASA, the flying schools and Boeing, but even in the pilot unions, all of which argued against the 1500 hours rule, and came down on the side of excellence rather than the current legal minimums preferred by some carriers.

They have also recommended that the Australian authorities and airlines study the findings of the current inquiry into the Air France flight AF447 Airbus A330 disaster, in which pilot inexperience and poor training for dealing with emergencies in a highly automated cockpit has been implicated in a failure to recover from a high altitude stall and subsequent crash into the mid Atlantic in June 2009, killing all 228 people on board.

From the submissions and lengthy hearings conducted by the committee it is apparent that there is a serious contest going on in many airlines, not just in Australia, between the accountancy based desire for pilots to use autopilots as much as possible, and the reality that when automated systems fail or other emergencies strike, pilot experience and training are crucial to avoiding an Air France type of disaster.

Qantas would have lost an Airbus A330-300 near Learmonth in Western Australia in 2008, and an Airbus A380 near Singapore last November, had not experienced pilots effectively disregarded or selectively engaged their computerized flight control systems to deal with sudden emergencies, as they did in two recent 747 emergencies at Bangkok and in a forced landing in Manila.

Jetstar CEO Bruce Buchanan, has previously publicly insisted that inexperienced pilots were preferable to experienced recruits. He has been comprehensively rebuffed for such dangerous fantasies by the Senate inquiry. The disdain some low cost and legacy airline managements often have for pilot training standards pose a serious threat to flight safety world wide.

The Jetstar situation has to been carefully articulated by the Senate inquiry, and demands rectification.

The Senate committee has through its recommendations spoken out against cheapness and convenience in piloting, which is too often just seen as a labor supply issue by carrier managements.

The next test is whether or not the Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, turns these recommendations into urgently needed reforms.

This report first appeared in the Crikey Daily Mail subscriber bulletin

Pruners the moment of truth is upon us. "Experts" are needed apparently. You see, Uncle Joyce and Loosecannon have been whispering in Albanese's ear for months now. This Xenophon bloke is off the scene soon.

Experts would be people that don't have vested financial interests unlike Petteford, The Universities, Managers with KPI's, Flying Schools. Someone I might consider an expert is a line pilot that sits in the Left hand seat of a jet and has done so over a number of decades.

No Chairmans Club membership for you Sandilands!

[DirectAnywhere]

I'm tempted to start an appeal fund so Ben can enjoy all the benefits of the chairman's lounge (Grange, an iPad, whatever) paid for by the pilots of Australia.;)

Thanks again Mr Sandilands.

[fishers.ghost]

Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/report/report.pdf)
148 pages of light reading if you care to download it

[DirectAnywhere]

The other interesting thing to come out of today is the way the Senate recommendations feed in to the ATSB investigation regarding the near miss between Virgin and Cathay a couple of years ago.

Jets in near miss because of untrained air traffic officer | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/24/atsb-details-more-dangerous-incompetency-by-airservices-australia)

Lack of experience, poor training, minimum standards (sorry I mean "World's Best Practice") and accountants running the place. Swap Airservices Australia for a carrier employing low hour cadet pilots and the latent organisational risks are identical.

[Ngineer]

(sorry I mean "World's Best Practice")


YouTube - ‪Cheap labour‬‏

This is truly "Worlds best practice"....

[Kharon]

Very few verifiable details about the life of Mother Shipton are known. Even the time frame of her life and death can at best be approximated (often given as 1488-1561 based on historical references). Although many resources online and in book form claim to know authoritative facts about the intricacies of Mother Shipton's life, the origin of many of these "facts" are dubious in nature and have been called into question by historians.

Indeed many historians, even in Great Britain, are not convinced that Mother Shipton is any more than a legendary, mythical figure. Skeptics continue to rapidly and conclusively dismiss Mother Shipton as a "fraud" in the present day (and have done so in the past as well), but it is wise to be discerning regarding the logic, agenda and depth of some of those analyses and whether they take into account varying interpretations of the historical record.


http://www.shiptonprophecy.com/images/EarlyMotherShipton.jpg


It is important to steer clear of an "all or nothing" approach when analyzing the older resources on Mother Shipton. Many sources clearly contain unreliable, indeed even intentionally fraudulent information, particularly since they were created during the dubious days of notorious "witch hunts".

But there are also jewels of verifiable truth to be found in these very same sources. Just because a portion of an account is clearly embellished does not make the entire source a fraud. Too many people examining these sources completely throw the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring important clues.


My BOLD - Selah.

[Chocks Away]

Muppets!
All about "Affordable Safety" i.e. how much can they lower the bar and shift savings into their pockets (it's definately not going to the shareholders! Look at the downward trend since Irish-shonk took over!). Affordable Safety... all very well until one on their relatives is involved in an incident/accident/death, requiring the said Royal Commission.
The Aircrew Licenses and minimum experiences are there for a reason and many are set in blood from lessons learnt from the first day the Wright Brothers took flight. It's time these muppets did abit of History reading and also had a look around at all the accidents/incidents occurring right now in India/Asia/China/Sth America where such rubbish is in action. (rant over):ok:

[Mr. Hat]

From The Australian

Pilots take controls of cockpit issue: access | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilots-take-controls-of-cockpit-issue-access/story-e6frg95x-1225771686637)

Steve Creedy, Aviation writer From: The Australian September 11, 2009 12:03AM

QANTAS pilots have caused a furore in federal parliament by successfully lobbying to get legislation restricting access to aircraft cockpits disallowed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good read here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds100909.pdf

Albanese got his pants pulled down on that one. He's now going to return the favour to AIPA and the Senators. Heffernan and Xenophon again going with a common sense approach.

[Mr. Hat]

He's a menace to Safety. He wouldn't know the first thing about flying yet he's sprouting off like he knows ALL about it. He's as much a pilot as he is a male Armani catwalk model.

[rodchucker]

Not true Mr Hat.

He knows a lot about P class under a blanket.

Has to qualify him for something....let me think.

Sorry you meant the tech side did you.

[ozbiggles]

Interesting that the minister doesn't want security self regulated
but its just fine for fatigue management......

[fishers.ghost]

JETSTAR has rejected a call by a senate committee to significantly increase the minimum number of hours of flight experience pilots need before they can become a first officer in bigger passenger jets such as the Airbus A320.

The committee stopped short of supporting calls for all regular public transport high-capacity jet pilots to be required to have flown 1500 hours in an aircraft.
But they recommended that they be required to hold an air transport pilots licence (ATPL) stipulating at least 1500 hours of flight time, which can include simulator time but requires at least 750 hours in a recognised aircraft type.
The probe was sparked in part by pilot concerns about a Jetstar cadet scheme which meant pilots with as little as 250 hours flying experience could work as first officers on Airbus A320 jets.
It followed a similar argument and a move to increase required flying hours to 1500 for regular public transport pilots in the US after the crash of a commuter plane was attributed to pilot inexperience.
Currently, first officers on jets like the 737 and Airbus A320 can hold a commercial pilots licence (CPL) requiring at least 150 hours flight time at in a commercial training course or 200 hours in general aviation.
Jetstar said yesterday it continued to support training based on pilot skill and competency rather than requirements for an arbitrary number of hours as safest from of training.
The committee recognised that the current minimum hours requirements are in accordance with international standards and are not considered by CASA to represent a threat to safety standards, it said. The committee did not come to the conclusion that the current minimum hours requirements equated to an unacceptably higher risk to Australian aviation.
But independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who lobbied for the inquiry, described the findings as a "huge wake-up call" for the aviation industry.
The South Australian Senator said the report confirmed the fears of pilots and cabin crew that aviation standards had been slipping.
It also raised concerns about the fear that pilots and cabin crew have in raising safety issues with management, he said.
"The findings of this inquiry are a huge wake-up call to the aviation industry,' Senator Xenophon said.
"The dozens of pilots and crew members I've spoken to in recent months have said they're worried about the apparent race to the bottom when it comes to safety."
The committee concluded that having co-pilots with experience closer to minimum requirements represented a reduction in safety compared to past practices where co-pilots would have flight experience significantly above entry level.
The inquiry also looked at the culture of incident reporting in the wake of incidents on Jetstar and Tiger Airways and the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Its 22 recommendations cover a range of issues from pilot experience to regulator oversight of training and HECS fees for student pilots.
They include a call for a Productivity Commission review of the current and future supply of pilots, six-monthly reports to parliament on the pace of CASA regulatory reforms and review of funding to the regulator aimed at speeding up the reform process.
It also calls for improvements to way the aviation events are reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as well as the implementation of a "just culture" to encourage open reporting of incidents and to ensure airline managers are trained in procedural fairness.
Other recommendations include changes to regulations to require risk management of cabin crew fatigue and requirements that flight attendants meet minimum English standards.
Senator Xenophon called on transport Minister Anthony Albanese to act urgently on the recommendations.
"There are very real issues here to do with aviation safety and this Inquiry has been useful to uncover many of these and to recommend crucial reforms," Senator Xenophon said.
The Australian and International Pilots Association said it was broadly supportive of the report but Qantas echoed Jestar's argument about competency and skill-based training.
"All Qantas Group airlines uphold the highest safety and pilot training standards and comply with strict regulatory requirements set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,'' a spokesman said.
"We cooperated fully with the Committee during its inquiry, providing a large volume of information through submissions and evidence, and we welcome the publication of its report. The government will now consider the report's recommendations and we will provide whatever assistance or is required as it does so."
The airline said it already had extensive fatigue-management processes and English standards for cabin crew.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it was studying the report.
A spokesman for Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said the government noted the Senate Committee’s report and would take advice from aviation experts before responding in due course.

''Safety is the number one priority,'' he said. "That’s why last year we delivered an unprecedented 30 per cent increase to the budget of the nation’s independent aviation safety watchdog – the Civil Aviation Safety Authority "

[Jetsbest]

Does BB really believe that he would have been a better manager the day after he finished his 'high quality' MBA than he is now? No?
So why would he argue that a pilot straight out of training would be better than one with equivalent training/experience and some additional time in the business?:rolleyes:

[Sarcs]

Here's an idea! Albanese is on Q&A on Monday night so why don't we all collectively mass e-mail the Q&A site with questions for the good (read inept) Minister!

Questions like: Q.Given the strong anecdotal evidence given by expert and professional members of the aviation industry in this Inquiry, how long will it be before we see the 22 recommendations from the Senate Committee acted on by the government?
Web address:
Contact Us | Q&A | ABC TV (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm)

Then after the Q&A we follow up by bombarding his parliament house e-mail with a follow up to his response:
E-mail : [email protected]

Maybe we might jolt the fool into actually doing something, just an idea!

Also make sure you cc to the Shadow Minister (Warren Truss I think) and the good Senators Bill H & X (although Bill H has only one week to run).

Finally make sure you give the link to this thread.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Sarcs
Top idea!
SN

[mr flappy]

Or no minimum experience or age for a drivers licence, as long as the candidate can bluff their way through the test they get a full licence and are therefore as good as any other driver. (because we all know a car full of 16 year old boys is as safe as any, ask any insurance company about driver experience)

[The Green Goblin]

Jetsbest; I'm sure he wasn't but that's not really the right comparison. The right comparison would be whether an MBA is better training to be CEO or 2 years managing a corner store in the Bungle Bungles.

After which you run the local grocer at Kununurra, then woolies in darwin, followed by the state, then the national chain.

It's called small steps.

[Jetsbest]

BB is on the record implying that putting a 'properly trained' cadet straight into the right seat of 'high-capacity' rpt is better than other, worthless, experience. My point is that a prior-experienced pilot can and should also be trained properly into any airline, in which case the prior experience (even running a store in the Bungle Bungles to continue your corporate analogy) has to be worth more than none!
The Senate Inquiry spent months getting the views of stakeholders and summarising the input into important recommendations intended to improve standards in the aviation industry.

BB evidently believes he knows better, and that his opinion should be more important than everyone else who have FAR more long term experience (there's that word again) observing the aviation industry. I call that arrogant! :*

[Frank Arouet]

I refer to recommendation 11 and 12;

11) The committee recommends that the Government undertake a review of the funding to CASA to ensure there is specific funding to support an expidited regulatory review process.

*They have been given voluminous amounts of cash which they persist in wasting on vindictive actions such as the Ovens affair. See link below. The committee should have put a time limit on the process, not give CASA funds to draw it out further*

CASA (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/06/casa%e2%80%99s-battle-with-diabetes/)

12) The committee recommends that, as an ongoing measure, the Government provide the CASA with specific funding to enable it to offer salaries that are competitive with industry.

*Most all the misfits in CASA now, are there because they couldn't get or hold down a job in industry. This gives more power to Human Resources to "purchase" compliant friends for mentoring in such a way as nothing changes*

[Xcel]

Frank - I can't remeber which recommendation it was - but in the actual full report it does draw attention to utilizing and allowing cross industry experience on a shared capacity - if this is given more attention it could fix the problem you've pointed to... We all know some foi's etc that fit your point but plenty which would love to continue flying AND try and help the industry through consultation and oversight of their work ESPECIALLY in reform processess such has been for the last 2 decades. Imagine that - a well thought out consultative, and engaged industry working in conjunction with the regulator through shared experience programs to enable safety in the industry...

Maybe I'm dreaming again. We are all cynical I guess due to watching history continue to repeat itself and the blind leading the blind approach of following corporate and beaurocraticnprocess so outdated and detremential to us all - the drive to the bottom may continue. But credit where credit is due this inquiry has been a long time coming and hats off to the senators for listening and trying to help us... Now we just action on the recomendations!!

Q&a Monday night - anyone going to sit int he audience? Got my questions ready...

[Gligg]

Wow, I may be able to return to Australia after all! It has been frustrating, being deemed 'too experienced' (or to rephrase : not naive enough to accept 'advanced' cadet conditions) to become an FO in one's home country - fingers crossed these recommendations evolve into action. There are plenty of us working throughout Asia, Africa and beyond, just waiting for something worth returning to...

[Mr. Hat]

Gligg, it wont happen my friend. Albanese will block it.

[004wercras]

Albanese is on Q&A on Monday night so why don't we all collectively mass e-mail the Q&A site with questions for the good (read inept) Minister!


Or better still we could get someone like the AIPA President (someone with a reasonable amount of credibility) to send a video question on behalf of all aussie pilots and cabin crew! It would be better insurance for actually getting a question asked.

Maybe get a number of recognizable people to send video questions!

[Mr. Hat]

How about the Captain or any of the crew of QF 32. (Time to stand up lads)

Chuck that in yer pipe Albania. Good luck trying to find some support against those guys. They are heros in the Australian publics eye.

Untouchable.

[Sarcs]

Mr. Hat great idea can we make that happen? Maybe we could include a poll from all interested pprune members!

[BlackPrince77]

you happy bugsmasher pilots?

[Track5milefinal]

you happy bugsmasher pilots?

Aaaaaand here come the whinging cadets! :yuk::yuk:

[*Lancer*]

Something like that has much more potential to shorten their career than an exploding Trent!

[assasin8]

So Bruce Buchanan believes that adopting the Senate Recommendations will send pilot jobs overseas...

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airlines-dismiss-training-warning-20110623-1ghr6.html (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/airlines-dismiss-training-warning-20110623-1ghr6.html)

"Jetstar chief executive Bruce Buchanan said the recommendation of a 1500- hour minimum hadn't been clearly thought through. Adopting the 1500-hour minimum, which captains must have, would have three unintended consequences that were bad for aviation, he said.
No jet training course could turn out students with 1500 hours' experience, meaning pilots would have to come through the traditional general aviation path, which ''delivers a lower outcome of performance standard'', he said.
Second, it would decimate regional aviation, as that's where the main carriers would recruit pilots from, and third, aspiring pilots would have to go overseas for training and jobs, he said."



Obviously Bruce wasn’t present at the Qantasia meeting... For this is exactly what the current Qantas Management is doing with pilot jobs... Sending them overseas!

Someone should tell BB that they’re already doing this... “Whoops!” :ugh:

[Xcel]

Any questions to q&a ??

[reacher]

I submitted a pretty blunt question but was unable to watch the program.

Here's a list of the submitted questions. Draw your own conclusions.....

Q&A (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/latest-questions.htm)

[Redpanda]

Not one aviation question????

[Sarcs]

Oh well it was only a long shot!:rolleyes:

I looked at the list of questions prior to the start of the show and there was at least 5 questions focussed on the Senate Inquiry Report in the recent 200 asked and approved.:ugh:

Must be time to bombard the ministers e-mail, till it goes viral!:ok:

[airtags]

Quite a number of aviation related tweets I hear went to #qanda last night but none made it to air ......

....maybe a qanda episode without mindnumbing rhetoric about climate change and boat people (just once) would leave time for other issues!!!!

yep - definately time to pressure the Minister for Mascot and his tribal council of (small m) minders - but don't be too direct as the pathway back to Q is very short these days. Might be better to arm the Opposition and slip a few breadcrumb trails to the smarter journos?

Speaking of the Minister's minders - I'm very reliably informed that a copy of the Senate Inquiry went to QF BEFORE it was tabled. Typically these kind of reports understandably go to Ministers etc., prior to publication - but in addition to the reliable tip off - a CC has sent me a copy of standing order to Q CC redefining the FRMS policy and procedure.

According to the CC it was written and approved the day prior to the release of the Senate Inquiry Report and there allegedly was no consultation with their Unions, OHS Committees or even the crew themselves. Having a read it seems a very hasty document with more than a few critical flaws. - Also would have thought that it would have been appropriate to notify the Regulator (the order is after all part of the ever changing, QF multiple choice, which version is that in, Operator's Manual....)

Given FRMS is the one very weak knee in Joyce's offshore adventure agenda it does seem more than a convenient coincidence.

AT :E

#nomoredullclimatechangestuffonqandaplease

PS: From another source, I hear there's more than a bit of lobbying going on re: a hefty grant app from Q & its associates re biofuels. Q has already put in a bucketload of cash but not a word from Joyce on how much and the projected ROI. For that matter - even which business unit funded it

[tail wheel]

Report (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/report/report.pdf):

Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee

Pilot training and airline safety; and
Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010

[The Kelpie]

Following the report being published bothboth Joyce and Buchanan, trough their respective organizations have rejected the view of the committee that employing pilots with less hours is less safe than the present arrangements. Given the authoritative evidence given by them and their peers, together with industry experts, this is a pretty arrogant approach at best.

This is certainly not the attitude of two airline CEO's that claim to put safety as a number one priority!!

Such a company would accept the fact that others, after careful consideration believe safety is being compromised and take appropriate action instead of the arrogance they have shown.

They have shown their true colours to the committee that improving safety has nothing to do with it, it is all about the cash.

Qf32 FO, MH in his final statement for 4 corners summed it up nicely when he said that to work in this industry you have to have an certain kind of openness otherwise people will just get killed, it's as simple as that. For those who don't want to do it, you are in the wrong industry!!

Alan / Bruce you are certainly not open to other views and it seems yours is the only view you are willing to consider. Time to get out of aviation I think and find an industry more fitting of your arrogance -if there is one of course!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[mcgrath50]

QF cadets for some time now have been told to go into industry for 2 years (lets pretend the cadet scheme actually follows the stated timeline) to gain experience, before becoming a Second Officer.

Now AJ and BB are saying it is safer to go straight to the right hand seat for the Jetstar Cadets. Should the QF guys start asking the question, why are we doing 2 years in industry and then becoming a Second Officer if it's only going to make us worse pilots?

[Sarcs]

Captain Richard de Crespigny enters the argument:

QF32 captain enters debate on significance of A380 accident | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/28/qf32-captain-responds-to-discussion-on-pilot-experience/)

Seems Ben isn't going to let the issue slide under the covers!:D

[PLovett]

Sarcs, until Ben gets out of blogging and into the mainstream media nothing will happen except that the airlines will get their way. Please understand that Ben is talking to the converted and until the great unwashed begin to understand that flight safety in Australia is on a downward spiral, nothing will happen. :uhoh:

Compare the 2 programs that have covered QF32. "60 Minutes" did a real puff piece, all of 20 minutes - miracles by brave Aussie crew in massive crippled aircraft- seen by large number of people who have had their opinion that Australia is the safest place in the world to go flying totally reinforced. "4 Corners" did something more insightful, actually like 40 minutes, looking deeper into the reasons for the failure and how the crew coped. However, there was one almost throw away line that related to pilot training (by the FO from memory), the rest of it was to be read between the lines. End result, pretty much the same message as "60 Minutes" but seen by a far more limited but more informed audience. :hmm:

There will be no change in Australia until there is homicide on an industrial level. The issue is not on the public radar and therefore not on the political radar. It is not a party political issue as both major parties are as guilty as each other in allowing the fetid mess to develop. With tongue firmly in cheek, we need a reality program that actually looks at airline pilots and their work, not the "passengers behaving badly" rubbish. Perhaps a "Master Pilot" series where the viewing public can vote off pilots who make too many errors in their flights. :} Seriously, you have to get the public interested or its futile. :ugh:

[spirax]

One might consider that the ABC does not appreciate the issue, otherwise they would not have "filtered" questions on the topic???

Pehaps some sort of an approach to the ABC is required???

[gruntyfen]

I bet there is some serious lobbying of the government to ensure the recommendations are not implemented on the basis of increased costs making Australian airlines less competitive against overseas. No option but to move more jobs to offshore bases!

[gobbledock]

Alan / Bruce you are certainly not open to other views

Not true. Rumour is they are very open to any suggestion or view that may lead to an increase in their personal remuneration. Silly spirax.

[Chocks Away]

Very good speech and timely! (http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/455695-finally-someone-talking-sense.html)

[Frank Arouet]

"Your ABC" is the public image, but it was accurately used in question time recently when answering Albanese, "YOUR" ABC mate.

Liberals here have no guts. When old Joh lost QLD, Labor waged a kill on sight programme. It's too bad any incoming conservatives are too lily livered to put some of the Labor despots in jail.

[Going Nowhere]

Jetstar defends & explains pilot training policy | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/29/letter-from-jetstar-group-ceo-bruce-buchanan/)

[rodchucker]

And the emphasis is on NZ pilots ...until what they tried to do is shown for what it was, SHAMEFUL.

When are these guys going to be shown the door....not soon enough.

[Chadzat]

This minimum requirement would mean cadet pilots would come through the traditional aviation path rather than a structured and specific jet training program. It is important to note that if these changes are adopted Australia will not be getting the best of both worlds – pilots with both hours and an expertly designed jet training program – we will only be getting hours.

Uhhhh, :ugh:
So apparently all of you Jetstar pilots that have been through GA and then have done an A320 endorsement are not any good.

It is hard to see how regional aviation is capable of training pilots for all of our future requirements and cope with the level of turnover and talent drain they will suffer as pilots seek career advancement in jet operators.

Insulting much? I know of a few 'regional operators' that are many times more preferable employers than 1 star.

I fail to see how our significant investment in setting up our own expertly cadet programs with some of the world’s best training providers

By 'our'- he means cadets significant investment. Jetstar wouldn't have paid a cent.


This 'reply' needs to be forwarded to Mr X so he can see how urgent these reforms are. The CEO's are clearly ignorant.

[mikewil]

What he says about competency based training is absolutely correct...so why not introduce a competency based A320 jet training program to all the 1500 hour recruits so we have both experience AND competency. The dip**** is getting away with claiming that you either have one or the other.

And what he says about recruiting from regional/general aviation is absurd. If suddenly all avenues to a jet job are closed as all airlines employ only cadets...this is when you will see regional/outback australia suffer. The reason 99% of pilots are in outback general aviation is because they are working towards a jet or turboprop job, take away that carrot and what reason would anyone have to go and seek a job flying a beaten up cessna 210 in the bush?

If every airline operated a cadetship like onestar, the situation we would have is that GA operators would need to pay their pilots as much as miners. Why else would someone choose to live in the middle of nowhere using arguably unsafe equipment??

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Rumour has it, that these changes will happen a lot more quickly than many here are thinking, much of the change can occur by CASA being directed to make certain changes.

For example, changing the act is considerably more difficult than changing an AOCM ( or any MOS for that matter ). Act requires parliament sign off where lower level documents do not, these documents still draw their " head of power" from the legislation, but are easier and more quickly able to be tweeked.

A great deal of the regulation function does not need to be signed off by government, CASA needs to be instructed to make certain changes.

[Xcel]

Bahahahahah Mr Buchanon is top class...

I fail to see how our significant investment in setting up our own expertly cadet programs with some of the world’s best training providers, our commitment to providing brand new career opportunities for Australians and New Zealanders who want to be pilots,

worlds best trainers who gained there experience and licence from where??

Brand new career opportunities for whom?

Who want to be what??

That can't be right
-surely your trainers must have 250 hrs but years of competency based training programs to ensure they aren't tainted by experience.
- surely if it's only Australians and new zealanders jetstar want to hire, and the group feels this way, they shouldn't have any dramas providing the clause aipa and soon afap would want on their eba's...
- surely they can't be pilots if "they are glorified bus drivers" only requiring "simple hand eye coordination" to complete a basic task.

The senate enquiry came to it's conclusions. It provided it's recommendations. It has heard you and your "experts" and found YOUR WRONG - EXPERIENCE does count.

If competency based training is so superior then I guess I should go join a competency based CEO program and take your job. Can't do any worse than yourself - the remuneration would be quite nice too.

[The Green Goblin]

If Jetstar thinks cadets are the bees knees, put your money where your mouth is and pay for the training in it's entirety.

Oh but we can't do that :ugh:

Take away the financial incentive and it won't look so good anymore.

[Nacelle]

"world's best trained cadet pilots" world's lowest paid terms and conditions!
What's the incentive to these extraordinary young new pilots (cadets)? If you really had the best training, surely you'd only accept the best job, or at the very least the same EBA the rest of the company are enjoying(barely surviving on).

[Capt Kremin]

Mr Buchanan, and in my opinion most of the protagonists in this debate, are missing the point as to why experienced and well trained pilots are needed as First Officers in modern jets.

A two person airline crew, like as the majority of the Jetstar and QF flights that are flying right now requires both pilots to act as a filter for the potential human errors of ATC, loaders, engineers, other pilots but most critically... each other.

Having four bars on my shoulders does not indemnify me from gross human error. As a QF captain I am spoiled by the quality of the first officers I fly with. I respect their opinions because that respect has been earned by virtue of the many thousands of hours flying under all conditions that they have accumulated.

So when one of them expresses concern over some aspect of my operation, I listen very carefully and if need be, I correct myself.

If I was flying with a 250 hour ex-cadet, I am reasonably certain I could detect most of their errors and correct them or take over if necessary. The brainspace I have now acquired after decades of flying gives me that advantage.

I cannot reasonably expect a 250 hour ex-cadet to supply the same service to me. And that is the problem.

These pilots have not acquired the psuedo-sixth sense that experience imbues in a pilot. The ability to project ahead and foresee possible problems. The ability to critically analyse the performance of the person they are flying with and be on guard for errors. They have also not earned my respect for their opinions on anything to do with flying.

We all should recognise all the implications of that last sentence.

History is littered with accidents caused by the failure of a suborninate pilot to correct the error of more experienced one.

The statistics will never reveal the accidents averted when suborninate pilots, experienced and sure of their ground, corrected the error of the more senior pilot, and the flight landed safely.

A first officer on a modern jet is the safety pilot of the entire airline operation.

They are the last slice of swiss cheese. When the holes on all the other slices have lined up, including the one where the captain is having a sub-par day, then the absolute final bulwark against an accident is the person wearing three stripes.

Therefore they cannot be learners

If you do not understand that Mr Buchanan, then for the sake of the safety record of the Qantas Group, resign your post and let someone into your job who does.

[Roller Merlin]

Kaptain Kremin you are spot on.

An FO needs a few years of real-world experience in an aviation environment to create a learned authentic mental model of the real world, with all it's traps. The RPT system is not the place to learn this from scratch.

[Mr. Hat]

Great post.

How many accidents do you hear about when the FO didn't speak up? Plenty.

I guess they are the auditors of the flight. Not in command but making sure the commander has got it right. As you say the ultimate filter.

When the **** hits the fan the FO can make or break the operation.

This argument is ultimately one for the neuroscientists of the world. They will explain in simple terms how experience effects one's ability to process information. I saw a documentary once on it, fascinating stuff.

[breakfastburrito]

Kremin, most eloquent. Could I sum up your post as posing the question:


"A Captain can take over from a cadet, but can a cadet take over from a Captain?"

[Alistair]

Kremin, most eloquent. Could I sum up your post as posing the question:


"A Captain can take over from a cadet, but can a cadet take over from a Captain?"

And you get this type of thing... Incident: Ryanair B738 at Eindhoven on Jun 4th 2010, rejected takeoff during rotation (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=42c733bc/0000&opt=0)

Anyone notice a change in attitude (not on the PFD, either) in the flightdeck when flying with some of the new breed of cadet? Usually around the 1,000 to 1,500 hour mark.

[Mstr Caution]

During the senate inquiry j* stated that cadets would commence line operations with the airlines most experienced captains on Australian east coast operations.

This indicates the following:

1. J* do not have the willingness to pair the new cadets with any line captain.
2. The cadets shouldn't be checked to line if the training process is still occurring.
3. Why pair the cadet with the most experienced of captains when their own argument exists that operational experience doesn't count.
4. If it's worlds best practice cadet pilot training. Then a cadet checked to line should be capable of flying any of the airlines operation with any captain.

MC

[Kelly Slater]

Reading through the report,it becomes apparent that AIPA and to a lesser extent, VIPA were both speaking out against the pseudo cadet schemes, telling it for what it is. Can't say the same for the AFAP.

[1a sound asleep]

Heaven forbid the Captain gets seriously ill and it's down to 400 feet at MEL with 20 xwind gusting all over the place and then they lose power. Hows a FO still in nappies going to cope?

[rodchucker]

By current standards of Rat/JStar execs he will perform brilliantly because an an endorsed being they HAVE to endorse them.

It will be the bosses fault for not predicting the phark up and becoming disabled.

Sad but true.

[Mr. Hat]

Kelly, stands out like dogs balls doesn't it?

[breakfastburrito]

The finding that flight experience has a protective effect against the risk of crash involvement is consistent with previous studies. In a case-control study conducted among commuter air carrier and air taxi pilots, Li and Baker (25) found that the risk of crash involvement decreases in a nonlinear fashion as total flight time increases. The safety benefit of total flight time is most pronounced in the early, experience building stage. When total flight time reaches a certain threshold, the marginal benefit diminishes. This nonlinear relation between flight experience and safety performance has been documented in studies involving different pilot groups and using different research designs (25, 28–30).


Age, Flight Experience, and Risk of Crash Involvement in a Cohort of Professional Pilots (http://www.mediafire.com/file/65mc35uha5644dy/Am.%20J.%20Epidemiol.-2003-Li-874-80.pdf), American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 157, No. 10, 2003

When data for dual-pilot operations are considered, the
captain was the pilot flying (PF) in 74 percent of those occurrences. (This is not a measure of risk because exposure data are required.);

Flight Safety Digest November p13, 1998-February 1999 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/d437l4o4xmf2696/fsd_nov-feb99.pdf)



(Do you think we are stupid Bruce? Honestly, what you are arguing defies all logic, empirical evidence, and the literature. Most people who have learnt any new skill realise that skill improves with practice. People are not fooled, especially the good Senator's of the committee, they can see right through you.)

[breakfastburrito]

And another
DISORIENTATION
Potential solutions advanced by the NTSB's senior human performance investigator Dr William Bramble include an education for pilots about the physiological and psychological causes of disorientation, including the fact that distractions from instrument flying are frequently a precursor to disorientation. He points out that distractions during a turn at night or in instrument meteorological conditions were common to all the disorientation cases in the accidents mentioned. Additionally, training co-pilots to intervene if required is a vital component, says Bramble. In all four of the main accidents under study the captain was the pilot flying, and timely co-pilot intervention could have prevented the accident.

Global airline accident analysis for 2008
By David Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/19/321124/global-airline-accident-analysis-for-2008.html)

[Taildragger67]

That's all well & good Burrito, but your highlighted bit above only goes to show that the fault lay with the more-experienced pilot (the captain).

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that if they'd had 200-hour cadets in both seats, then clearly, the aircraft would not have got into trouble in the first place!

:ok:

[Di_Vosh]

it becomes apparent that AIPA and to a lesser extent, VIPA were both speaking out against the pseudo cadet schemes, telling it for what it is. Can't say the same for the AFAP.

ROFL!

The AFAP actually did something instead.

DIVOSH!

[Mstr Caution]

Perhaps Bruce would care to elaborate why Qantas mainline policy does not permit a low time cadet as an FO in mainline, whereas the policy is acceptable at Jetstar.