View Full Version : Merged: Senate Inquiry

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

6th Oct 2010, 23:14

The industry meetings and work undertaken by many individuals and organisations, including the unions and Senator Xenophon, have been successful in winning a Senate Inquiry.

Don't waste this rare opportunity to have a say in the legislative process of the Australian Aviation Industry.

Put (constructive) pen to paper and submit your thoughts by 28 October in accordance with the instructions below. Submissions may be made in-confidence by attaching a covering letter outlining the reason/s for requested anonymity.

IMHO, failure to make a submission to this critical inquiry is bordering on professional negligence...and it certainly means an individual has no grounds for further whining on PPRuNe.

Lets all participate and keep the momentum going!



Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety

I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.

(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;
(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;
(h) reporting of incidents to aviation authorities by pilots, crew and operators and the handling of those reports by the authorities, including the following incidents:
(i) the Jetstar incident at Melbourne airport on 21 June 2007, and
(ii) the Tiger Airways incident, en route from Mackay to Melbourne, on 18 May 2009;
(i) how reporting processes can be strengthened to improve safety and related training, including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010; and
(j) any other related matters.

The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is 28 October 2010.

The committee invites you or your organisation to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the bill.

The committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. Submissions can be lodged via the Senate online submission system at https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions, by email to '[email protected]' or by post to:

Committee Secretary
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Please note that submissions become committee documents and are only made public after a formal decision by the committee. Persons making submissions must not release them without the committee's prior approval. Submissions are covered by parliamentary privilege but the unauthorised release of them is not.

Please ensure that any submissions or attachments you wish to remain confidential are clearly marked as such. A covering letter, clearly outlining the specific reasons for requesting confidentiality, should also be attached to the submission. Please contact the Secretariat if you require further advice on any issues with regard to confidentiality.

In the event that the committee determines to hold public hearings for the inquiry, the committee's website will be updated to provide advice on dates and locations.

For further information about the inquiry see Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety or phone 02 6277 3511.

Yours sincerely,

Jeanette Radcliffe
Committee Secretary

Mr. Hat
7th Oct 2010, 00:29
Suggest encouraging your union to advise/encourage all its members to be involved. Put it on the notice board at work call/email/sms/mms your friends.

An important moment in our industry. Here is the chance we all wanted.

Frank Burden
7th Oct 2010, 10:10
There are some facts in life that are irrefutable. I wonder if Alice is talking about Australia and the Queen is talking about our region.

`Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 2

We are becoming a small fish in a much bigger sea and regardless of how big the 'tanty' we shall certainly see major changes. Interesting!:)

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

8th Oct 2010, 06:27
Well here is your chance everyone, the terms of reference is broad enough, and the current Senate is not hostile to having a real go with Government now a minority government you will never get a better chance.

Back it up with letters to your favourite Senator asking them to make sure that this enquiry is not forgotten like the last one was.

Go for it one and all!

9th Oct 2010, 10:34
Taken from this article....
Xenophon wins inquiry on safety and training | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/xenophon-wins-inquiry-on-safety-and-training/story-e6frg95x-1225935605218)

Senator Xenophon said he had received a strong response to publicity flagging his intention to call an inquiry, with more than 60 emails from pilots worried that training standards were under threat.

Surely we can do better than 60! The hiring of cadets is a blatant attempt to save a few $ at the cost of experience, which in this country we have an abundance of. I know that, and you know that. Surely it can't be too hard to convince pollies of this as well.

Mr Baxter
11th Oct 2010, 19:12
Hi there,

Here is some information for people in Australia wishing to make a point when writing to the Australian Senate with regard to the impending inquiry.

Below is the current NZ CAA pilot minimum requirements with respect to Part 121, 125 and 135 and can be viewed in their entirety on the NZ CAA website under 'rules'. It is interesting to note that the Jetstar cadets will be flying domestic operations within NZ with experience far below these requirements. I understand that they will be operating under the Australian AOC, however I believe that this loophole will be viewed with much suspicion by NZ CAA. Jetstar NZ has already been instructed to utilise NZ CAA alternate minima requirements, rather than their Australian AOC alternate minima requirements that were significantly below those required by the NZ CAA.

Parts 121, 125 and 135 refer to the size of the aircraft and/or the number of passengers able to be on board (info avail on NZ CAA).

121.509 Second-in-command experience

Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that any person designated as second-in-command of an air operation—

(1) is suitably trained and qualified on the aeroplane type; and
(2) is capable, in the event of the pilot-in-command being incapacitated—
(i) of operating the aeroplane safely under the prevailing and anticipated forecast weather conditions; and
(ii) of deputising for the pilot-in-command; and
(iii) of landing the aeroplane at the intended destination or a suitable alternate.

121.511 Pilot experience
The certificate holder shall ensure that each person acting as a pilot, other than as pilot-in-command, of an aeroplane, prior to commencing the training specified in Subpart I or Subpart M—
(1) has acquired at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of flight time in air operations; and
(2) has acquired at least 25 hours of night flight experience; and
(3) holds a current instrument rating.

121.513 Pilot operating limitations
(a) Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that, subject to paragraph (b), the pilot-in-command conducts each take-off and each landing.
(b) A second-in-command of an aeroplane performing an air operation may conduct the take-off and landing if—
(1) the pilot-in-command meets the appropriate requirements of 121.583, 121.585, or 121.587; or
(2) the second-in-command has completed the requirements of 121.571 and then accumulated at least 100 hours of flight time, or 75 operating cycles, in air operations, in the aeroplane type being flown; or

(3) the certificate holder has nominated the aerodrome as a general-category aerodrome in its exposition, and the appropriate take-off or landing report provided to the flight crew indicates that—
(i) the prevailing ceiling or visibility is better than the ceiling and visibility minima for that aerodrome when considered as an alternate; and
(ii) the runway to be used is clear of water, snow, slush, rubber accumulation, or similar conditions, that could adversely affect aeroplane performance; and
(iii) the crosswind component for the runway to be used is less than 50% of the demonstrated flight manual limit; and
(iv) windshear has not been reported in the vicinity of the aerodrome.

125.509 Pilot-in-command IFR experience requirements
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall not use a person as pilot-in-command of an aeroplane in an air operation performed under IFR unless that person has at least—
(1) 1200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(2) 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours can be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 50 hours of night flight time.

135.509 Experience requirements for IFR pilots
A holder of an air operator certificate must not designate a person as pilot-in-command of an aircraft performing an air operation under IFR under the authority of the certificate, unless the person—
(1) has at least 750 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 150 hours of cross-country flight time which must include at least 50 hours cross-country flight time conducted under an IFR flight plan; and
(2) 50 hours of actual or simulated instrument time of which 25 hours may be in a flight simulator approved for this purpose; and
(3) for night operations, 25 hours of night flight time.

12th Oct 2010, 15:02
Mr Baxter,

Jetstar and everyone else has to abide by the most stringent rules - see s7(c) and s28BD of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 6.

There is no room for the accountants running Jetstar or any other AOC to gain any competitive advantage through State differences. I am sure CASA would be auditing each Australian AOC for compliance with all foreign requirements as part of their audits of International AOCs....

except, of course, the one issued to fly more than 12 miles off the coast that begin and end in Australian territory within entering any other State's territory :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Stay alive,

13th Oct 2010, 00:58
I agree Fonz...60 is a disgrace!

The biggest threat to our industry in a generation demands action from EVERYONE!

Have your say guys...and encourage your mates to have their say as well. The time for lethargy, complacency and plain old laziness has passed.

If you've got the time to read this board, you've got the time to make a submission to the Inquiry.


13th Oct 2010, 23:05
.......................................and include examples where the 'manage it in house' approach has totally blindsided the regulatory process.

Risk ........Risk......... Risk....... are key themes and we ALL have to make sure that the pollies and the public see the likes of the JQ Execs advocating this nonsense to be nothing more than the Lady McBeths of aviation.

(gives the phrase "bloody Bruce" a whole new meaning eh!)

Get your submissions and letters in - we can do much better than 60!


Fruet Mich
14th Oct 2010, 18:37
Mr Buchanan is responsible for the biggest resurgence in union membership. I would have to say that would probably have to be the only positive thing this knob has actually done for this industry.

He might not think his ideas will affect the industry right now, and it most probably won't, but it will definately in the future.

The only reason he is continually trying to cut costs in salaries and terms and conditions is because all other costs are going up and pilots are an easy target. The real reason that ge keeps going on about remaining competitive in the world is that the low cost model DOESN'T work! Even Ryan Air are saying they need to put their prices up to survive and they get paid by the airports to fly into them!

The senate enquiry will be great to expose this guy once and for all. He has no idea what the industry is like, he has no idea expats are being paid much more in these "Asian" countries that he needs to remain competitive with. This guy would have to be the biggest single twit that aviation in this country has ever seen! I bet you a pilot had shagged his missis and he's pissed at pilots!

Mr. Hat
15th Oct 2010, 00:20
I have a prediction to make.

Most pilots are going to sit idle and not submit anything to the Inquiry. In the meantime, Big Business will hire the very best people to present compelling submissions. This will seal the deal forever and the last opportunity to reverse the downward spiral will be nothing but a distant memory.

Ask your union what they are doing. Have they encouraged members to put pen to paper? I've heard nothing from mine. Not a good sign people.

Jetstar backs Senate safety inquiry into pilot training | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/jetstar-backs-senate-safety-inquiry-into-pilot-training/story-e6frg95x-1225938811685)

Steve Creedy From: The Australian October 15, 2010 12:00AM

JETSTAR chief Bruce Buchanan welcomes a Senate inquiry into pilot training and incident reporting as a chance to get facts on the table.

Mr Buchanan said this week that the Qantas Group would be putting a submission to the inquiry that would cover Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink.

It would also be happy to send representatives to the inquiry if required.

"It's good to get the facts out," Mr Buchanan said. "What we need to separate here is what's the union political agenda and what's the real issues on the table. And there are real issues and it's good to get them out on the table and debate and discuss them."

The Senate committee inquiry was championed by independent senator Nick Xenophon and will look at several issues hotly debated by pilots.

These include the consequences for safety from reductions in pilot flight hour requirements, as well as whether Australia should adopt recent US requirements that a pilot operating regular public transport (RPT) services has at least 1500 flight hours.

It will also look at how regulators are dealing with advancing technology, pilot recruitment, and whether pay-for-training schemes affect safety and incident reporting in Australia.

Mr Buchanan said some of the issues reported during the debate on training had lacked substance and were misleading.

He had no problem with changes if something was not right, but the debate so far had not pointed to "anything of substance that we can see at the moment".

He found that many of the matters being wound into the debate, such as a 2007 Jetstar incident and commentary about pilots reporting directly to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, were bizarre. "That's what got us into hot water -- we copied word-for-word what the pilots reported to us and gave it to the ATSB," Mr Buchanan said.

"It was only internal checking that actually registered an anomaly. The concept of a pilot having free access to the ATSB was what occurred in this instance."

Mr Buchanan rejected inferences that it was somehow in the interest of airlines to bypass safety. He said the Qantas Group had always been a passionate believer that safety was the first priority.

Unions also have been expressing fears that Jetstar is using its pan-Asian network to slash wages and conditions.

Mr Buchanan called for debate about the broader prospects for Australian aviation and what that meant in terms of a strong local base.

"We're in a business where we've got declining market share in international traffic and declining relevancy," he said. "That should be the bigger concern for the unions and the employees.

"We as a nation, if we're not careful, will cease to be competitive with the rest of the world."

He said competitiveness was not about safety, which was one of the Qantas Group's competitive strengths. "Competitiveness is about how we band together and create a stronger, viable business . . . and also the flow-on benefits to the rest of the tourism industry," he said.


Yep, I'd be laughing to if I were in their shoes.

15th Oct 2010, 11:47
It says it all. This is what takes control when good men do nothing.

16th Oct 2010, 02:06
Exactly right BBB! So come on guys, don't allow complacency to win the fight.

We have less than 2 weeks to get our submissions in to the Senate Inquiry.

Challenge your mates and the guys/gals you fly with...ask them if they have submitted something...and if not, WTF NOT!!!


Shell Management
16th Oct 2010, 14:53
Probably that poor reporting culture amongst Australian pilots that the Senate are also investigating;)

16th Oct 2010, 17:34
The Indian guy there has the biggest wallet by far!

19th Oct 2010, 06:06
Forget having an inquiry into airline safety. Go and read the Strategic thread. An inquiry into the australian regulator is more urgent and should come first.

Shell Management
25th Oct 2010, 18:20

CASA only ever played at SMS and I'm not convinced they really have embraced the future of safety regulation

The safety risks of pilot P-platers and new style airline managers raised in Senate – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/10/22/the-safety-risks-of-pilot-p-platers-and-new-style-airline-managers-raised-in-senate/)

Australia’s largest pilot union has warned that the indifference of airline managements and young pilots to training standards and experience is dragging down safety from its previously high level in this country.
It has sent a Statement of Concern on Diminishing Flight Standards to senators in advance of the impending Senate Inquiry into these matters.
Headed Are we handing the keys of the Ferrari to a bunch of P-platers the paper by the Australian and International Pilots Association says the operational safety of the country’s major airlines is falling.
The president of the association, Captain Barry Jackson, said this morning that there was a ‘total disconnection between new managements at airlines and the high safety cultures of the past that Australians are lead to believe in today.’
The AIPA paper says pilot conditions and training arrangements are being made “the playthings of young MBAs trying to make their mark in the business world.”
The Senate inquiry, instigated by the South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon, will consider tough new standards for pilot training and experience levels in Australia following the US reaction to the Colgan crash at Buffalo in February 2009, which killed 50 people after two badly trained and fatigued pilots lost control of a Q400 turboprop.
The US Federal Aviation Administration subsequently lifted the minimum experience level for a first officer flying for a major American carrier to 1500 hours, compared to as little as 250 hours in Australia.
In the paper, AIPA says :
“We must make a stand to protect the safety of the public and ourselves…There is growing evidence that we have stagnated at safety levels achieved in 2003 and may even be going slowly backwards.
“Very low air fares have increased the demographic pool of potential air travellers and created a significant demand for increased capacity that appears set to continue.
“However the expectation of the public is generally that the cheap fares come without any reduction in safety.”
AIPA says the current emphasis on streamlined and lower flight time progression to a pilot job with a major airline is fraught with compromises, exacerbated by shifting the costs to the would be pilots through courses run by third party training solutions providers who are compromised by the need to churn out ‘qualified’ pilots to the carriers who award them contracts.
The statement makes no secret of AIPA’s industrial agenda in terms of protecting Australian pilot jobs in Australia but also expresses what many have recently spoken about in recent times as serious failures in the cultural attitudes of new pilot recruits and the low cost carrier management styles of all the major Australian carriers, which despises and exploits those trying to fast track their careers in them.

27th Oct 2010, 08:21
Get your submissions in...deadline is tomorrow.


27th Oct 2010, 21:11
Why not give the Federal Police an aviation related branch. At least investigations into an alleged 'breach' of regulation would be properly investigated, by trained professionals who are governed by code of conduct and ethical standards.

Why not expand the ATSB to oversight 'safety' related matters. At least we would get a logical, reasoned opinion as to why a thing is deemed 'unsafe'.

That only leaves the clerical details which could, with modern technology be done on a cost effective basis.

The only safety the present crew seem interested in is 'legally safe' prosecutions. They don't seem to able to do that very well either, looking down the long, sad and probably expensive list of judgements against them.

The negative impact on aviation safety that this body has must be of serious concern to this industry. The total cost, including 'legal' fees measured against the minuscule positive safety based outcomes and improvements offered is truly staggering.

Now we have to fund the cost of yet another inquiry and probably a Royal Commission. They need to hang their collective heads in shame.

28th Oct 2010, 01:26
It will be interesting to see if enough people forwarded submissions to the inquiry to make a difference. Well done to those who did and good luck to all of us! This needn't be the end of it though as I am sure the Senator would still be appreciative of your thoughts, even after todays deadline for submissions has passed. this is the most positive step I have seen in my time in the industry and we have some momentum going now. Let's not drop the ball....GFR

29th Oct 2010, 00:32
Hear Hear GFR!


29th Oct 2010, 04:04
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) Published Submissions

29th Oct 2010, 04:55
Only ten?

The anonymous submission from a Jet* captain was good reading.

29th Oct 2010, 15:50
But the attachment was kind of cheesy :ouch:

30th Oct 2010, 03:49
Pretty sure there'd be more than only 10 submissions. The submission I put in isn't showing. So you can only guess the amount of others which aren't showing as well.

Quite damning reports there on Jetstar though....


30th Oct 2010, 20:02
Well, done my bit. Thought it out, wrote it down, edited, formatted, checked for spelling, syntax and all that stuff. Even tried to provide a reasoned balanced approach. (Got a headache and everything).

Then I did some serious research. Man, has there been a lot of heavy duty inquiries, reports, commissions, recommendations etc. and some very well informed, intelligent expert opinion on the current subject and related subjects. Not a whole lot of change has occurred, despite the time, effort, trouble and money invested.

Is the game worth the candle. I would like to think so, but I am concerned that by the time the back room boys, spin doctors, vested political interests the lunatic fringe and all the rest of interested parties have finished, we could end up with 'plenty a nuthin'. Again.

Oh well, that's enough serious stuff for a year; back to the party Joyce. (No not the Greens you fool).

30th Oct 2010, 20:51
Not a hope in hell of any real change, just some cosmetic makeovers.

IMO, it will take a major loss of life with maintenance and procedural implications before anyone looks too hard at CASA.

tail wheel
30th Oct 2010, 21:07
As Joh Bjelke-Petersen once said: "Never hold an inquiry unless you first know the outcome."

Only time it failed him was the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

30th Oct 2010, 23:45
What we also need is one or two of the heavier-weight journalists to keep shining their light into the dark corners of the process and keep it alive in the press from time to time.

31st Oct 2010, 00:40
How can we get some heavy weight "Polly's to support this, without killing an maiming some more folks.

How much longer can this industry support the current situation.

Is this xylophone fella fair dinkum, or is it just feel good, in the spotlight fluff ?:.

I expect time will tell.

Lets see, who would we pick to run the show.

Bill Heffernan, Greg Vaughan, Leroy Keith, Hannibal Lector, Dick Smith and ?

(perhaps the Muppet's. I reckon they'd do a job lot and sack them all).

31st Oct 2010, 00:57
Despite what happens now, they have been warned, and they ignore us at their peril. When the inevitable accident happens and there is loss of life worthy of an investigation, there are (unfortunately only) 10 submissions on the public record saying I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!! Legaly quite tricky for an airline when it comes time to explain why/how could this have happened, and hopefully that is food for thought. We've done the right thing here even if it feels futile now.GFR

31st Oct 2010, 06:00
Lets see, who would we pick to run the show.

Bill Heffernan, Greg Vaughan, Leroy Keith, Hannibal Lector, Dick Smith and ?

Or Terry Farquahson, Mick Quinn, Geoff Dixon, Anthony Albanese for the pick of a shite bunch?
Or what about The Stig, Russell Crowe, Mark Latham, Ban Ki-moon or even better - - - Robert Mugabe, Muammar al-Qaddafi or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad !!

31st Oct 2010, 07:15
What about the Fuehrer from YSBK??
Ve haff vays und meens to make zis zistem verk. Vot do you meen - you don't unnerstand? Und vile ve are about it, ve vill make ze BAL outlawed.:D
Lets see, who would we pick to run the show.

Bill Heffernan, Greg Vaughan, Leroy Keith, Hannibal Lector, Dick Smith and ?

Or Terry Farquahson, Mick Quinn, Geoff Dixon, Anthony Albanese for the pick of a shite bunch?
Or what about The Stig, Russell Crowe, Mark Latham, Ban Ki-moon or even better - - - Robert Mugabe, Muammar al-Qaddafi or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad !!

31st Oct 2010, 07:25
There are only 10 submissions published so far, I know of at least 2 that are not on the list...:ok:

Stay Alive,

Frank Burden
1st Nov 2010, 09:40
My choice to return would be MQ as he has been there before and may remember the mobile number of evilC to give him a call to do all the work.

Otherwise, Kamahl - "Why are people so unkind!";)

But then again ....

Frankly, I don't give a damn!

3rd Nov 2010, 03:18
I have just received a reply to an e-mail I sent to the committee regarding the publication of submissions. They informed me that they have received a "bulk" of submissions and are awaiting a date for a private meeting of the committee. This date should be around mid November and the other submissions should be published in the third week of Nov. GFR

3rd Nov 2010, 04:48
For the update, much appreciated. Was just beginning wonder.

Perhaps the motto for the guys who cared enough about this game should be:-

'Nos es illegitimate permissum nos frendo lemma down'.

Now we, the illegitimate grind them down. (near enough).

Frank Arouet
4th Nov 2010, 23:03
Lets see, who would we pick to run the show.

The Mafia. (you know exactly where you stand with them).:ouch:

19th Nov 2010, 21:11
The sort of thing that 'Boston Bruce' and Alan Joyce desparately don't want federal regulators or the public to know...........

Fasten your seatbelts

November 20, 2010 - 3:00AM

WHEN a Rolls-Royce engine on a Qantas A380 was ripped apart by a turbine disc shattering inside it, the terrified passengers on-board were comforted by a soothing voice of experience emanating from the flight deck.

The flight crew of QF32 was a little different to usual. The captain was undergoing his annual ''route check'' - a check carried out by supervisory pilots on the standard of a pilot's flying and management skills. Sitting beside him was a first officer with more than 10,000 hours of flying time and an A380 command endorsement stamped on his licence. This command endorsement allows him to be in charge of the flight when the captain is resting during long hauls. Qantas's first officers routinely fly every second take-off and landing and must complete demanding simulator exercises to the same standard as the captains they fly with.

Sitting behind both were two experienced check captains - one conducting the route check, and the other ''checking the checker''; in effect clearing him to conduct further route checks on other pilots.

The fifth member of this crew was a second officer. Every pilot in Qantas starts as a second officer and works their way up through the ranks. Second officers do not perform take-offs or landings, regardless of their previous piloting roles, but act as relief pilots in cruise and as a vital pair of eyes and ears during critical phases of flight such as take-off or landing. They are also there to learn the tricks of the trade in preparation for future promotion.

There was more than 60,000 hours of combined flying experience present on the flight deck of the Qantas A380 during the emergency on November 4.

While full details are yet to emerge, anecdotal evidence suggests that even this highly experienced crew had its collective hands full as the shrapnel sent flying by the disintegrating disc severed wiring, electrical systems and fuel tanks in the aircraft's wing.

For two hours over Indonesia's Batam Island they methodically worked their way through multiple warning messages. They dumped fuel and figured out what aircraft systems would still be working for them on landing at Singapore's Changi Airport. That the subsequent landing was successful is a testament to the training and experience of the crew, and the design of the modern marvels they fly.

In July 2008, when a QF30 flight from Hong Kong to Melbourne experienced a rapid decompression after an oxygen bottle exploded in a cargo hold, the captain and first officer, with military and general aviation backgrounds and more than 25,000 hours between them, had initial memory checklists complete, oxygen masks on and the 747 descending towards the safety of lower altitudes within 15 seconds of the initial explosion.

In October 2008, the QF72 A330 incident near Learmonth in Western Australia had a US navy former ''Top Gun'' pilot at the controls and a highly experienced support crew for his back-up pilots. The aircraft landed safely after an unprecedented control malfunction caused by a design flaw in the aircraft's guidance computers.

Australian pilots now fear, however, that the system that resulted in these outcomes to critical situations is under threat from airlines that seem to pay lip service to safety when it suits them, yet exploit any method at their disposal to cut pilot costs.

Ten years ago, if you wanted to end up in the captain's seat of a Qantas airliner the path was difficult but well delineated. Training costs were steep and either paid out of the trainee's own pocket or by a lengthy return-of-service as the price of military training.

The average cost of commercial training was $100,000, and military pilots were required to spend at least 10 years of their lives in the services. These pilots would spend those years carefully building the required time in command of multi-engine civilian and military aircraft before submitting their applications for analysis by a picky Qantas recruiting department.

If lucky, they would set about learning the Qantas way of doing things, a distillation of more than 80 years of experience, and 50-plus years of flying heavy jets around the world. Promotion would come with time, but was helped by the rapid expansion of the airline starting in 1985.

The idealised picture of Qantas, held by many who flew with them in the 1970s and '80s, riding the first 747s to Europe and beyond, no longer exists. Qantas in 1984 flew fewer than 30 aircraft, all 747s and only on long-haul international routes. Since then, the privatisation in the early '90s and the need for continual growth has seen the total Qantas Group fleet - including Jetstar, Qantaslink and JetConnect - grow to more than 250 aircraft.

Such a massive growth has required large numbers of pilots. This demand for experienced pilots was echoed in the creation of Virgin Blue. Needing experienced commanders from day one, Virgin employed many former TAA and Ansett pilots who had lost their jobs in the pilots' dispute of 1989.

In 2001, two events transpired that set the stage for what is happening now in the Australian airline industry. The first was then Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon's purchase of Gerry McGowan's struggling Impulse Airlines, and the second was the collapse of Ansett, three days after the tumult of September 11.

Dixon commented that the purchase of Impulse was ''for a rainy day''. And it now seems that a strategy was beginning to form at that time which threatens to change the way all Australian pilots progress through the system. The ramifications can only be guessed at.

Impulse Airlines morphed into Jetstar Airlines in 2004. One of the reasons that Jetstar was formed was as a counter to the low-cost carrier phenomenon introduced into Australia by Virgin Blue.

Qantas pilots at the time naturally assumed that the formation of another group airline would mean more opportunities for career progression, in the same way as they had flown for Australian Airlines for some time. Qantas management thought differently and effectively sidelined any progression of pilots into the airline, by an onerous set of preconditions and by the employment of many pilots who were caught up in the great Ansett diaspora of 2001.

Alan Joyce, then CEO of Jetstar, made a reference to not wanting Qantas pilots ''polluting the culture'' of the nascent airline. Margaret Jackson, then chairwoman of the Qantas board, also made reference to the desirability of ''internal competition'' for work inside the Qantas Group.

Many Qantas pilots looked at the enviable safety record of the airline and audibly wondered just how they were supposed to be ''polluting'' the culture of the orange start-up. Their wonder increased when the first reaction of Jetstar management to any adverse publicity, such as an aircraft incident, would be to invoke the Qantas name.

Eighteen months ago a Jetstar A330 flying from Tokyo to Australia had a fire in the flight deck. Many pilots were less than delighted to hear Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway laud the fact that an ''experienced Qantas captain'', one of the few to brave the sideways jump into Jetstar, was the major contributing factor to the successful conclusion of the incident.

The A330's introduction into Jetstar was another example. When Jetstar launched its international arm in 2006, it was done using A330s drawn straight from the Qantas fleet. These four aircraft had been operating very profitably on routes in and out of Perth, contributing greatly to the Qantas bottom line.

The Qantas A330s arrived at Jetstar, but the Qantas pilots did not. Jetstar filled the pilot vacancies with many pilots from overseas - a lot of returning Australians but a good number of South Africans as well. The Qantas A330 pilots were assigned leave and even urged to take leave without pay so they would cease to be a financial burden on Qantas. Many barely flew for a year until replacement aircraft arrived, a huge cost to Qantas. In the meantime the Perth route was serviced with geriatric 747s.

These incidents served only as a precursor. Tasman flying was farmed out to another subsidiary called JetConnect. JetConnect pilots fly Qantas-painted 737 aircraft and dress in Qantas uniforms, but none of them has ever been employed by Qantas. They are paid in New Zealand in NZ dollars at a substantial discount to Australian pilots.

If Jetstar pilots thought they were immune, they were in for a rude shock. Earlier this year it was announced that two of their A330s would move overseas to Singapore to be flown by Singapore-based crews. Jetstar pilots were ''invited'' to take up the new positions, at a substantial pay cut and with none of the allowances usually afforded expatriates in Singapore. The possible outcome of not accepting this ''invitation'' is redundancy.

All this was seen as a harbinger for the arrival of the Boeing 787, and the savings that could be made by basing these pilots halfway to Europe instead of in Australia, and subject to Singapore's less rigorous industrial relations regime and reduced pay.

But the major concern is the trend towards circumventing the traditional methods of training and acquiring experience before joining an airline, via the airline pilot cadetship. Once again Jetstar leads the way in this as it recruits trainee pilots directly into the right-hand seat as a first officer, and not via the second officer method used by Qantas.

Jetstar cadetships now involve being employed and trained in New Zealand, and having the ''opportunity'' to take leave without pay to be employed by any Jetstar subsidiary, on New Zealand rates of pay. These are individual contracts, circumventing the Australian Fair Work system.

Pilots pay for their training via a salary sacrifice deal that means they must fly for Jetstar for several years until after the training is repaid. The airlines have a guarantee pilot positions will be filled for years.

These individual contracts state that personal illness is a reason for dismissal. With only five sick days per year accumulating to a maximum of 20 days, the safety implications that pilots will have no choice but to fly while unwell are obvious.

What is even more disturbing is the possibility that these 200-flight-hour cadets will be thrust into a situation such as the one that the crew of the QF32 was faced with.

How would they cope?

Most experienced pilots harken back to that stage of their own career and concede that the captain would be pretty much on his/her own.

Modern flight decks in an emergency work on the basis of a strict allocation of duties, with pilots cross-checking and supporting each other. One captain commented that a first officer is ''there for two reasons: one is to prepare for his own command, but by far the most important is to make sure I do everything correctly when the shit hits the fan''.

Most pilots agree and are concerned that airline managements seem to think that experience, and the ability to have spare brain capacity available in an emergency, can be instilled in a meagre 200 flying hours.

Other recent incidents point to the desirability of having seasoned professionals on the flight deck. When Captain Chesley Sullenberger was faced with the unexpected nightmare of having to ditch his A320 in New York's Hudson River last year, beside him was an extremely experienced first officer, Jeffrey Skiles, who continued his attempts to relight the stricken engines while simultaneously supporting Sullenberger in his attempts to find a place to set the aircraft down.

The ability to compartmentalise emotions and continue functioning as a crew in an emergency is something that most pilots agree cannot be instilled overnight.

ON FEBRUARY 12, 2009, in Buffalo in the US, 50 people died when a Dash 8 commuter aircraft crashed after the tired and poorly trained crew mishandled a wing stall caused by ice build-up. Safety issues examined during the accident investigation led the Federal Aviation Administration to issue a ''call to action'' for improvements in the practices of airlines. One of the main recommendations enacted in the US was the implementation of a minimum requirement for pilots to have 1500 hours' flying experience before they are permitted to occupy a control seat on an airliner.

South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon has commissioned a Senate inquiry into the alleged decline in standards in Australian aviation. The terms of reference are far-reaching and similar to the FAA inquest. Pilots eagerly await the outcome of this inquiry.

Qantas pilots have a hard time reconciling Alan Joyce lauding his Qantas pilots as some of the ''best trained and most experienced in the world'' after a safety scare like the QF32, and his dismissal of them as potential polluters of the Jetstar culture in 2004.

They also point to continued attempts to prevent experienced Qantas pilots participating in the expansion of the group, on pure cost grounds.

This has resulted in career stagnation, and low morale among junior pilots who claim that after jumping through all the hoops to get the dream career with Qantas, that career is being sold off beneath them to the lowest bidder. Recruitment is also affected. The RAAF is experiencing record retention rates because military pilots see Qantas now as a dead end, and the pay and conditions of the low cost carriers as less than they enjoy now.

Junior Qantas pilots see their skills being under-utilised for cost saving reasons.

Captain Barry Jackson, president of the Australian and International Pilots Associations, summed it up as follows: ''The fear is that the trends we now see will place an over-loaded captain and an inexperienced first officer in trouble one dark and stormy night, and same as the Buffalo crew, not see the options available to avert a tragedy. It doesn't have to happen. Airlines need to decide whether experienced pilots are a cost or an asset. The Australian public had a safe aviation system in place; it is now being dismantled purely for reasons of cost. They deserve better.''

The author is a current Australian airline pilot. The Age has withheld the name.

........Certainly hope the current Senate enquiry can shine a bright light on these practices and the similar goings on within the maintenance side of things. The travelling public deserve the truth. Not the lip service they get from Bruce and the Leprechaun.:ok:

19th Nov 2010, 21:20
The truth hurts.
Whoever put the pen to paper, well done.

Waghi Warrior
19th Nov 2010, 21:35
Totally agree,the truth does hurt.
And well written.

Thats what she said
19th Nov 2010, 21:52
I've got many mates in QF, and in fact one of them was on the flight deck of QF32, but if being part of that organisation means.....

..... they would set about learning the Qantas way of doing things, a distillation of more than 80 years of experience, and 50-plus years of flying heavy jets around the world.

which restlts in an attidude that suggests.....

.... One captain commented that a first officer is ''there for two reasons: one is to prepare for his own command, but by far the most important is to make sure I do everything correctly when the shit hits the fan''.

...then my decision to join another major carrier for my career seems like a better decision overall. The word "I" should never appear in any communications to do with teamwork. An appaling statement within an otherwise well constructed argument.

19th Nov 2010, 21:55
Agree, very well written.

I was reading this yesterday and one line really stood out at me....

Is this the best boss in Australia? (http://www.smh.com.au/business/is-this-the-best-boss-in-australia-20101119-180y2.html)

THEY are a happy bunch at Clive Palmer's Yabulu nickel refinery near Townsville. Certainly happier than they were when BHP Billiton owned the operation and rumours of its closure surfaced on a regular basis.

Mr Palmer acquired the then loss-making operation 16 months ago and has turned it around. Productivity has gone through the roof with the help of widespread pay rises for the 800-strong workforce.

Who would have thought that treating your staff well would increase productivity for the company? That Clive is a genious!

19th Nov 2010, 21:56
Well done that man:ok: This also is not just for the guys in the game now, but the ones like myself wanting to go down this career path. I see my future going down the drain with this sh!t and it has to stop.

20th Nov 2010, 00:13
That is a well written unemotional article.
How many of your non aviation. Friends and relatives would have read it?

Can I suggest that if every person on here sent this article to all their friends and associates, maybe asking them to forward it in, we are doing the job of the media and ensuring all people have to option of educating themselves about the current aviation situation. Copy/paste/send to address book.:ok:

23rd Nov 2010, 04:08
I agree that is a very good article and may I suggest that it doesn't just reflect the situation at Jet* either!!!:ugh:

Seems the inquiry won't be presented in the Senate till March next year (see link below)!? Does this mean they were bombarded with submissions or has the whole inquiry been put in the too hard basket?? :hmm:

Does anyone know if they are still having the public hearing in Sydney on December 1st, and when will they publish more of the submissions?

At the request of Senator...: 17 Nov 2010: Senate debates (OpenAustralia.org) (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-17.97.2)



25th Nov 2010, 12:30
More Submissions published , including AIPA , VIPA , AFAP , QF JQ , Virgin , Cobham and more.

44 now in total.

Senate Submissions (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm)

26th Nov 2010, 07:19
I hope it keeps rolling and actually addresses the issues. Well done all who put their 2 bobs worth in. But can you beat the spin and political agenda with honesty and concern for the 'game'. I hope so.

The CASA submission is a hoot.

The ATSB is tragic. Resources for 70 investigations against 8300 odd acknowledged 'safety issues'. Thats got to be worth a Royal Commission. Stand alone. All the safety spin in the world and not a feather to fly with.

I tend to agree with Sunny, where on earth are we headed.

A. Le Rhone
26th Nov 2010, 07:50
....and surely when some employee finally has the balls to coherently, intelligently and rationally explain the current state of the industry and gets the sack for doing so - this too is worthy of assessment by any senate inquiry.

What a rotten industry this has become.

26th Nov 2010, 18:56
.Quote - (AER) - and surely when some employee finally has the balls to coherently, intelligently and rationally explain the current state of the industry and gets the sack for doing so - this too is worthy of assessment by any senate inquiry.

This is only one reason why it it was so important to support this inquiry. Just once, without being isolated you could have your say with a modicum of protection. I hope there are a lot more submissions piled up, The 'big' end of town' know how to play these games and they are good at them.

Carpe Diem boys, big time.

28th Nov 2010, 05:29
The ATSB is tragic. Resources for 70 investigations against 8300 odd acknowledged 'safety issues'. Thats got to be worth a Royal Commission. Stand alone. All the safety spin in the world and not a feather to fly with.Bingo !! Rose Thorns nails it one sentence.
The ATSB are getting stretched wider than Lady Gaga on tour !
Australia severely lacks the financial resources and levels of manpower needed to safely, adequately and professionally oversight aviation across all levels, as well as investigate. Mitigation strategy I hear ? This, $$$$$$$$$$$.

28th Nov 2010, 19:19
This makes me feel sick.

Senate inquiry: Australian airlines abandon exceptional excellence in pilot training – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/27/senate-inquiry-australian-airlines-abandon-exceptional-excellence-in-pilot-training/)

There is something truly alarming about the major airline submissions (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm) to the impending Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety standards instigated by South Australian independent senator, Nick Xenophon.
None of them invoke (or revive) the concept of exceptional excellence in piloting in Australian carriers.
They endorse the notion that if an airline can meet the minimum requirements set for pilot competency in training outcomes in Australia they are adopting world’s best practice.

Roller Merlin
29th Nov 2010, 22:30
Picked up by The Age newspaper this morning (most viewed article so far):

Air India Express | Panicky pilot caused passenger jet plunge (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/panicky-pilot-caused-passenger-jet-plunge-20101130-18edn.html)

It really worries me that there junior pilots in these airlines who rely so much on automatic systems, and have insufficient background nor confidence to disconnect, take over, recover and fly the damn aeroplane. The cockpit gradient between Captain and First Officer experience is a real problem.

The Senate Enquiry are still receiving submissions and will continue to do so as long as they come in, regardless off any cutoff date.

First hearing is tomorrow!

29th Nov 2010, 23:24
SYDNEY: State Room, Mercure Sydney Airport Hotel, 12.30pm - 3.00pm

The first cab off the rank is AIPA, with Joe Eakins as one of the speakers,next T*ger then R*X.

So is anyone turning up to show support?

30th Nov 2010, 02:12
The airlines are in the driving seat when it comes to pilot training requirements. They provide the market, hence dictate the quality of the product. The airlines provide 94% (?) of CASA's and AsA's operating funds in a climate where the customer is always right. CASA can't get an updated set of regulations published. There's no need. The airlines don't need them and GA makes up such a miniscule economic input to CASA's coffers that to work on updating regs seems like throwing a huge capital expense at an area that has little economic return. Two private entities run the entire industry.

Wasted writing...I know, but IMO, the demand for quality pilots has to be encouraged. To this extent, ditch many of the RPT regs limiting route operations to specific companies and open the skies to effective competition. But first CASA needs to get the regs in order.

30th Nov 2010, 04:29
Does anyone know if/where transcripts of the hearings will be available to the public?

30th Nov 2010, 06:06
Transcripts will be published here: Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Public hearings a (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/hearings/index.htm)

There is sometimes a lag between the hearing and the publication, depending on how busy Hansard is. Also, if the Committee hears evidence in camera, transcripts of that evidence may not be published.

By the way, vision and audio of hearings in Canberra are usually broadcast live, here (and sometimes audio is available for hearings outside Canberra, although there doesn’t appear to be anything scheduled for 1 Dec yet) : Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/Default.aspx)

30th Nov 2010, 22:02
Also, if the Committee hears evidence in camera

After speaking with the committee, it appears there are many such submissions due to the fact that most submitters are fearful of retribution from their employers. It sounds like there are quite a few more submissions than has been published on the website.

1st Dec 2010, 01:27
Senator's are asking great questions ... let it all begin.:D

Listen Live - audio only.

1st Dec 2010, 03:22
Damn - I missed the first couple of hours.

Did anyone by any chance record the feed or alternatively if, and where the 'archive' mp3 file may be available from??



1st Dec 2010, 07:36
Pilot standards dive in low-cost era (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pilot-standards-dive-in-lowcost-era-20101201-18gjc.html)

1st Dec 2010, 10:43
Just thought I would post this for those that haven't seen it...

Jetstar sacked pilot Joe Eakins pulls out of Senate safety inquiry (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/sacked-pilot-pulls-out-of-senate-inquiry-20101201-18g3j.html)

The Kelpie
2nd Dec 2010, 03:07
Submissions to the Senate by Airlines seem to have the common theme that Competency is a better system than hours. This was comfirmed by the REX testimony yesterday when they specifically stated that Cadets perform better than pilot that have been 'polluted' by a few thousand hours up in the top end.

If that is the case why do they maintain minimum experience levels for recruitment purposes? Why not just do what companys do outside of aviation and seek CV's from a unrestricted level of experience, then invite those they like the look of for a sim check to assess their competence??

The Kelpie

2nd Dec 2010, 03:43
The other interesting thing I see from QF/J* submission and I gather from the other submissions is that in order to get a command you need to have a met a certain hours (4000hr narrow body 6000 hrs for wide body J* case) requirement along with a minimum time in the company and passing the training. So they admit that experience in hourly and in yearly terms does play a role.

Taking their argument to extreme: (sarcasm on) If a 200 hour cadet is good enough for the right seat because of competence then why not the left seat? Why do they place the restriction for hours or time in company for command. If competent the why not have a CPT that has 500 hours? Is that because they actually believe that time spent doing the job is a good thing. That some experience can't be taught in the sim. They should be lobbying CASA to drop the 1500 hr limit on obtaining an ATPL and dropping their own requirements for command if they think that hours don't matter. (Sarcasm off)

I was a QF cadet and I know that I wasn't ready for the right seat after finishing my course and I went to one of the better, if not the best flying training school outside of the RAAF. Could've I learnt quickly if I was placed in the right seat. Probably. But I know I would've been a liability for a substantial period of time. I struggled to make HF radio calls as a new S/O as I had had no exposure to it, My radio work in general was rubbish as I had little exposure to how ATC worked in the non training environment, let alone being able to pick a CPTs error in fuel ordering or alike or being able to help interpret a difficult MEL. I certainly benefited from sitting in the back watching and I certainly made a lot of errors along the way. Book knowledge is different to practical application. I'm sure most of my fellow classmates and other cadets would agree.

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

Capt Kremin
2nd Dec 2010, 05:06
That sounds exactly like the sort of submission the Senate should hear.

The Kelpie
2nd Dec 2010, 05:49
Yes Captain Kremin you are right.

Another thing the Senate seemed particularly interested in was the cost for the cadet schemes and who paid for it.

REX told the committee that their cadet scheme costs approx. $88,000 funded 25% by 7 year bond, 25% by scholarship or Applicant and remaining 50% by applicant at a preferencial interest rate. Ab-Initio to RHS SAAB 340 for $88,000 in a state of the art, brand new, custom designed training facility run by the airline itself in 32 weeks and guarantees a job - sounds competitive!!

Will be interested to see how Oxford and CTC in their partnership with Jetstar justify to Senate circa $180,000 for essentially the same course (albeit different endorsement) without the guarantee of a job. I find it highly coincidental if not suspicious that the training costs from two completely different third party training organisations can be within $1,000 of each other - especially when they seem as inflated as they do.

Oxford and CTC you are companys with a history of charging these rates in the UK. This is Australia - different market - different market rate. Well that is the argument Jetstar are putting up for Asian expansion isn't it?

Oh and Oxford the fact that you trained the first 4 JQ cadets in a Seneca simulator with 300 knots of wind up the arse instead of a Glass CRJ jet type simulator (as you are supposed to have) and with a handwritten cardboard speed scale placed over the mechanical ASI has not gone un-noticed either!!!

From the Jetstar Website

Advanced Cadet Program (ACP, for pilots with a CPL,MECIR and ATPL subjects)
Includes Multi Crew Training + Jet Conversion Training + A320 endorsement + Jetstar In-Flight Line Training

Also I wonder whether Jetstar will cough to the fact that they are charging circa $40,000 of the total for the cadet's line training in Jetstar aircraft on normal A320 passenger carrying operations - a cost which a direct entry FO would not have to carry!!!! This $40k is in addition to the cost of the A320 endorsement!!

To tie this into the Senate Theme and the issues surrounding Joe Eakin - Stress caused by being skint all the time as a result of being ripped off and from being treated badly will contribute significantly to cumulative stress levels in what is already recognised to be one of the most stressful jobs in the world. Stress causes poor performance. Poor performance causes ACCIDENTS!!!

More to Follow.

The Kelpie

2nd Dec 2010, 06:27
32 weeks sounds awfully fast. I think my course was 13 or 14 months full time from ab-initio and without a SAAB endorsement on it. Though they seem have got good results. I think my course (flying component) was priced around the 80k mark in 1990s dollars.

The Kelpie
2nd Dec 2010, 06:29
So $88,000 seems a pretty competitive deal in todays money for this amount of training and prospects.

2nd Dec 2010, 09:18
$88K would have been competitive in the last '90s for a course such as that.

I'm amazed at how they cram it into 32 weeks. My cadetship took 15 months in 1991-92. It could have been shortened by two months without too many dramas but that's about it. I wonder how much content is retained and how much is simply learned for the exam and then 'dumped.

2nd Dec 2010, 09:30
Is 88k without ATPL subjects but includes room and food from what I understand.

Were you ready for a right seat after your course Keg? What about your classmates?

2nd Dec 2010, 11:54
Right seat of what? An RPT airliner? Hell no. After two years in the back seat I found F/O training bloody hard going. Having had those two years to sit back and watch other guys do it and get a bit of 'experience' behind me was invaluable when I finally checked out as an F/O.

I should point out that my cadetship included the following:

SE CIR and then IFR navs to consolidate hours.
CPL Nav training in a duchess
MECIR coincident with the nav training including solo navs (VFR) in the duchess.
Aerobatics endorsement on Cap 10 (15 hours)
15 hours multi crew in a C500.

Total syllabus was about 210 hours. I've not heard of a cadet course that has run things that way since my course. Now it's bare minimum hours. Much less experience IF and much less experience in the twin. Better or worse? Dunno. I know that I wasn't ready for the RHS of an airliner.

2nd Dec 2010, 12:59
I take it yours was before the Industry Experience keg?

Do you think it's actually safer to go straight in as an SO (where you are in the back) rather than have those 2 years of industry experience?

2nd Dec 2010, 21:24
gotta LOVE this gem....

Mr Davis said the trend for airlines to train their own pilots was positive and increased safety. He saw any move to increase minimum training requirements as a backwards step in terms of safety.

how times have changed!

2nd Dec 2010, 22:57
I think what Mr Davis really meant was " Rex is was sick and tired of having pilots that are not locked into their shitty conditions and pay pissing off to better jobs"
The real reason they like the cadet scheme is the lock in obligation and having Fark All experience means they could not piss off if they wanted too!:}

Tee Emm
5th Dec 2010, 00:59
Aerobatics endorsement on Cap 10 (15 hours)

What a rip-off. 15 hours to teach someone to do a slow roll, barrel roll, loop, roll off the top, stall turn. You could do the lot in one hour in a Tiger Moth provided you didn't get air sick..

5th Dec 2010, 02:05
That 15 hours included about seven hours solo to go and get out of shape however you liked. If I recall correctly it was a couple hours of general handling and dual circuits. An hour of solo circuits. A couple of hours of aeros and then the remainder was solo or dual depending on your choice. For me I chose to fly with Dog Seaver on a couple of designated solo sessions to pick up a few additional manoeuvres than just the basic things you can do in a Tiger Moth.

Mcgrath50. I've never flown regional in 'industry experience' so I don't think I'm qualified to say whether that would have worked effectively for me or not.

The Kelpie
6th Dec 2010, 01:31
For anyone that's interested the Proof copy of the Senate public hearing held 1st December is available.


6th Dec 2010, 08:16
an interesting read, for sure. But it doesn't ask the question about WHY pilots move one, and why, in particular REX lost 50% of their pilots in 07/08.
no one has asked WHY pilots will keep moving jobs/companies.... and I think that some of the presenters dodged the underlying issue rather effectively, by saying that pilots will move because they want to fly 737's, or A320's .... mentions NOTHING about the low $$$ on offer,managements refusal to deal with the issues at hand, or the company increasing working hours for no more renumeration.That pilots were pressured to extend their working day because the company didn't want to have a decent number of pilots on reserve lines, or that pilots, sometimes even MANAGEMENT pilots could(and did) earn more $$$ working their second job, than they would by going in to work for the airline.
They don't mention that in the end, the pilots who applied AND were interviewed may have been "second rate" because the HR departments didn't get back to the better ones, and so they withdrew their applications once they saw how badly they would potentially be treated.
They gloss over the fact that now EVERY captain will HAVE to be a pseudo training captain, and that cadets will be MENTORED by those captains who have cut their teeth in GA, and industry prior to joining the airlines. and that these pseudo training captains wont be paid any extra for the privilege of babysitting a new chap.
They also fail to experiment into WHY GA is paid so poorly. WHY it is over-regulated, and WHY so many dodgy operators are allowed to keep on operating.
They fail to mention that regional airlines in a lot of cases have monopolies on certain routes, and that it is the airlines themselves that discount the airfares, when there is no need to. they then cry poor and take it out of the workers potential paypackets. in the rest of cases, generally it is a duopoly or at WORST a triad of operators, and, without alleging price fixing, generally they all charge about the same price for the same service over the same route.
I would seriously LOVE to sit down for an afternoon of off the record chatting with senator Xenophon.... although it seems he has more than a "press reported" view, at this stage. I will reserve my judgement of the committee once I read the rest of the transcripts and see their findings.

very interesting.

The Kelpie
6th Dec 2010, 09:02
Now I have had a chance to have a good read something doesn't add up.....literally.

For the JQ cadetship AIPA reports the course as costing almost $200,000. This is correct but as all cadets are to be put on Nz contracts and paid in Nz$ this equates to a payback amount of approximately Nz$259,000, less the JQ 'sponsorship' of $21,000 (Nz$27,000).

The tax liability in Nz is marginally higher than Oz so from a salary of Nz$47,000 this would reduce take home pay to approximately Nz$28,000 per annum in years 1 to 3. In years 3 to 6 there is an increase to salary to Nz$54,000 reducing take home pay yo approximately Nz$36,000.

Over 6 years total take home pay is Nz$192,000.

Income of Nz$192,000 - Cadetship cost of Nz$232,000 = -Nz$40,000 over 6 years which equates to a negative average income of Nz$6,700 per annum.

Cadets will be paying them!!!! I hope the Senate committee identifies this as it is clearly below the minimum wage.

More to follow

The Kelpie

Captain Nomad
6th Dec 2010, 10:38
What about the issue of cadet F/O 'upgradeability'? Rex might be happy to have the security of a bonded F/O for seven years but where are their captains coming from? The Senate seems to be under the impression (due to a lack of info on this) that there will be a natural career path progression within the company for cadets and because the company is getting them 'early' they will automatically stay longer. :suspect:

Also totally agree with Apache that there are a lot of other unaddressed questions. Not every pilot aspires to fly an A380. How come other companies flying similar equipment didn't experience the same dessertion problems to the extent that Rex did?

6th Dec 2010, 20:09
Training bid to force Rex cuts: minimum experience levels | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/training-bid-to-force-rex-cuts-minimum-experience-levels/story-e6frg95x-1225964705724)

Jim Davis and Chris Hine what a pair of scumbags!! Truly bottom feeders of the industry...:yuk::yuk::yuk:

The Kelpie
6th Dec 2010, 20:27
....and now the political blackmail commences!

6th Dec 2010, 21:32
I know of one kid with a learning disability that is now flying for the Qantas group.....

The Green Goblin
6th Dec 2010, 23:03
When Rex took on their first direct entry FOs earlier this year, the training captains remarked what a relief it was to fly with them.

Chris Hine has not flown the line for some time, so I doubt he is qualified to make that assessment. Perhaps the training captains need to leak the real situation on the frontline to the good senator. The word is cadets are hard work, sporadic and need to be watched like a hawk.


6th Dec 2010, 23:49
Green Goblin
Any idea if REX are going to start recruiting direct entry F/O's again soon or do you think they will stick with the cadets?

The Kelpie
7th Dec 2010, 00:13
Either way it is now a matter of public record that Mr Davis stated that 100% of REX new FO's are cadets that have gone through the Academy because they are 'so impressed with the outcomes'

Well that was the testimony given to the Senate Committee - hope he is not telling porkies!!!.

7th Dec 2010, 00:26
The answer is obvious. They'll have to! Jim's Phophecy of having to cut routes if the 1500 hour rule were to be introduced, will ironically come to pass if they continue to employ only Cadets!

So far REX have avoided the real issue. Thanks GFC! Time will tell if their strategy will last.

My guess is REX will continue with their pathalogical refusal to actively retain their experienced Captains. I also believe that this attitude will once again result in substantial schedule cancellations. As before the travelling public will be the losers. REX will make say... $18mil instead of $25mil. They don't care!

And GG you are exactly correct, but the problem is many of the REX training Captains were still wet behind the ears themselves when offers were made about a year ago. Many experienced Captains simply didn't want the grief! As such most of these training captains are still new enough to put ambition above rocking the boat. You probably won't see many official complaints from that department! :sad:

7th Dec 2010, 01:20
So is it a criminal offence to lie to a senate enquiry? Genuine question. :suspect:

The Kelpie
7th Dec 2010, 01:45
From the Parlimentary Website

After reading some of the written submissions from the Airlines and Training providers over half of them could be accused of this in my opinion. Many of the documents seem to have been lifted from sales type documents with so much spin in them they are misleading

Anyway to answer the question:
Contempt of the Senate and remedies for contempt

When the actions of a witness or another person influencing a witness have the effect of obstructing the inquiries of a Senate committee (or future inquiries), those actions may be treated as contempts. Examples of such offences include:

Refusing without reasonable excuse to answer a question;
Giving false or misleading evidence;
Failing to attend or to produce documents when required to do so;
Intimidation of a witness;
Adverse treatment of a witness;
Wilfully disturbing a committee while it is meeting.The Senate refers allegations of contempt to its Committee of Privileges for consideration and report. This committee has developed a considerable body of case law concerning parliamentary privilege, especially in respect of the rights and obligations of witnesses, interference with witnesses and the giving of misleading evidence.
The committee has, for example, inquired into a case where the chairman and senior members of a statutory body attempted to place restrictions on another member of the body from giving evidence. Although no contempt was found to have been committed, the committee was highly critical of the actions of the statutory body.
In another case, the Committee of Privileges investigated an allegation that a witness received adverse treatment from his superior officers as a result of his appearance at a joint committee hearing. Senior officers of a statutory body imposed a penalty on the junior officer, who had given evidence in a private capacity. The Committee of Privileges found that a contempt had been committed and was strongly critical of the officers and the organisation.
The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that a House of Parliament may impose terms of imprisonment or substantial fines for individuals and corporations as a penalty for contempt. To date the Senate has not had occasion to use either of these penalties, preferring an educative and preventative approach. The Senate has accepted apologies and remedial action, and has encouraged government officials in particular to attend training courses on the rights and obligations of witnesses before parliamentary committees.

7th Dec 2010, 02:25

I know of one kid with a learning disability that is now flying for the Qantas group.....

What an absurd statement.

7th Dec 2010, 02:25
But cadets have to pay for their own training and are bonded for 7 years, no comparison really.

The Green Goblin
7th Dec 2010, 02:55
Green Goblin
Any idea if REX are going to start recruiting direct entry F/O's again soon or do you think they will stick with the cadets?

They have been interviewing and hiring direct entry FOs all year.

Why? Because they have an extreme shortage of upgradable FOs.

A common complaint I have heard with REX, is that they will interview roughly 6 at a time, hire maybe 2, and keep the rest hanging without ever letting them know their interview result. This has been going on for at least 2 years that I know of.

Shame on you rex.

8th Dec 2010, 03:27
I thought CASA was part of the Qantas Group.

11th Dec 2010, 10:20
"If we were not able to recruit pilots and put them through a cadet scheme it would take us back to the randomness of trying suitable candidates that wouldn't be at a high standard to join our airline or any other airline," he said.
Does he mean that they would have to hire applicants in the same manner as just about every other business in Australia and that this results in randomness!?

13th Dec 2010, 07:24
what Rex said is that the standards of applicants from GA was crap!

those crappy standards have arisen from a training sector that consistently fails to produce the goods and operators who choose to live with the crap rather than fix it.

Rex chose to fix it by starting their own training school focused on producing an airline capable pilot that met their standards for knowledge, skills and behaviour.

the root cause is the largely self-regulating flying training sector - CASA needs to fix the problem at source RFN!

actually, Rex is still not doing enough to fix the overall problem, despite their self-congratulation. but in all fairness, individual operators shouldn't have to fix a systemic problem, and at least they are doing something.

13th Dec 2010, 11:55
That is what Rex said but they have an agenda. Maybe they said it not because the standard of GA was crap but because they saw an opportunity to make money out of training cadets who will pay the airline and then be bonded to them for 7 years under marginal T&C's. That is quite an incentive to rubbish GA.

This has proven to be a money spinner for the EU airlines but their GA was never enough to supply the number of pilots needed, especially now that military pilots are staying put.

The USA, which has an extensive GA sector and has recently outlawed this cadet practice by the introduction of the 1500 hour rule for the RHS.

The Kelpie
19th Dec 2010, 20:29
Aipa gave evidence before senate that it thought glider experience was not appropriate. JQ Singapore cadets on the advanced course can use 700 hours rotary time to satisfy the local Singapore minima - how relevant is that to flying a fixed wing jet?

I hope casa and the government spot that one when these guys are flying round in a vh registered jet!!

The Kelpie
25th Dec 2010, 02:00
I was just reading a great article from the Royal Aeronautical Society. It is an interview with QANTAS Senior Check Captain David Evans and gives a detailed account of the QF32 uncontained engine failure in November.

When asked the question
ASChan: Interesting you mention airmanship. As a training/check captain are you personally worried about the next generation of pilots who may be fixated with the glass cockpits?

He replied:
DE: Absolutely.* Nothing will replace experience. In a legacy airline like Qantas where we have the luxury, if you like, of very experienced pilots (the most junior pilot to the most senior all have extensive backgrounds in aviation – whether it be military or general aviation). That can’t be replaced.

Don't think Uncle Alan or Uncle Bruce will be asking you to represent the QANTAS Group and Jetstar at the Senate enquiry in February, your answers are far too honest and do not support the 'company line' that the accountants are spinning.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Ps DE if you are reading this, the QF32 crew did a great job - well done to you all!!

26th Dec 2010, 04:20
(the most junior pilot to the most senior all have extensive backgrounds in aviation – whether it be military or general aviation). That can’t be replaced.
Not counting any of the cadets with neither experience?

The Kelpie
26th Dec 2010, 06:10

FRQ Charlie Bravo
26th Dec 2010, 17:33
With respect to QF cadets it must be remembered that they weren't immediately put into the RHS as an FO as their first job.


Capt Kremin
26th Dec 2010, 21:00
.and that is the difference....

26th Dec 2010, 21:30
It should also be remembered that the Qantas Cadets only make up a very small sample of QF flight crew.

It is some time before QF cadets have an opportunity to try their hand in a control seat and by this stage should have a very good grasp of QF/airline flying ops and only need to concentrate on the handling part as the standard ops should be well ingrained.

The combination of Airlines putting through large numbers of cadets through their ranks and the possibility of fast promotion to command ends up with the blind leading the blind.

If these airlines really believe that cadet programs produce a better result than GA/experienced pilots why not foot the entire bill for training and pay a decent wage at the end of training.

If the cost to the airline was the same, airlines would take experienced pilots every day of the week.

Barry Mundy
26th Dec 2010, 21:34
FRQ CB i beg to differ but Q cadets placed direct into RHS in QLink and with the ICUS (which noone is required to verify) and their vast experience a number now hold commands at QLink. Unless regional experience and 74 seats doesnt count. A couple have even been placed in the sim as training instructors without been yet able to hold an ATPL. Youve got to love the company that is QLink.

Mr. Hat
27th Dec 2010, 02:57
Suggest trying here.

Nick Xenophon - Independent Senator for South Australia (http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/)

Being put in the back seat for 10 years on international is completely different to rhs of a jet on domestic sectors in Australia.

The Kelpie
27th Dec 2010, 09:25
Does anybody know whether Anthony Petteford from Oxford Aviation Academy has been asked to give evidence in front of the Senate Enquiry?

His written evidence is at first glance confusing, he states:

There is no evidence to indicate that the source of funding for ab initio airline pilot training courses has any impact upon either the quality of training or safety of pilots who have self funded their training course rather than an airline. Quite the opposite as these courses are full-time duration over 18 months requiring real commitment and devotion to achieving the standards. Airlines receive a more motivated pilot as a consequence.

It is interesting that of all of the established Cadet programs in Europe that he cites in his submission, nearly all are wholly funded by the Airline under bonding arrangements are delivered in their own flight academy, none are Low Cost Carriers and most have no connection with Oxford Aviation whatsoever.

Petteford does makes specific reference to British Airways, a company which, through the "old boys network'' has had a long and established relationship with Oxford - he emphasises the success of this particular Cadet Program over a long period of time. This program has not run since 2001 and prior to that was fully sponsored by BA.

It is interesting that he does not mention Easyjet, Ryanair and Flybe, all programs that Oxford certainly do have business dealings and all of which are self-sponsored and for Low Cost Carriers. The reality of these programs is that they do not guarantee jobs and have graduated many pilots who are now unable to find jobs and who are being drowned by GBP80,000 ($160,000) loan repayments without the prospect of a job which they have trained for. For those who have not secured the loans against family homes, bankruptcy is a serious consideration and a drastic course of action some have elected for.

Why did Petteford emphasise the success of the airline sponsored programs in his submission which have nothing to do with Oxford Aviation yet fail to mention those self-sponsored programs which Oxford has involved itself with and has an in depth knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding them? Perhaps the good Senator should ask this question why this was so.

The answer may lie in some of his later statements nestled in with his conclusions. In relation to the Colgan Air Accident Petteford citing the NTSB report concludes:

What would have had an impact is more relevant training. Had they communicated better as a team from this more relevant training
and made better use of the aircraft automation, the event is unlikely to have occurred.

So, Relevant training to improve flight deck performance and better communication leads to a safer flight and reduces the liklihood of an accident - I can go with that. However in a later conclusion he states:

Poorly paid, unsupported pilots on the flight deck can have a deleterious impact upon flight deck performance and communication due to poor morale and dissatisfaction.

The Jetstar Cadet Program not only imposes a large debt liability on the individual cadet, but expects them to work under an illegal contract that offers extremely poor pay, no super and provide absolutely no job security whatsoever.

Does Petteford's submission to the enquiry suggest that there is in fact a link between the Colgan Air Accident and the JQ Cadet Program in that a link between safety and self-funded training/poor pay does exist?

This question is central to the enquiry and needs to clear all of this up - Perhaps Anthony Petteford could help the Senators figure it out.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

27th Dec 2010, 10:29
Lets go back to the old way. You do your training then head north for a few years and learn to fly. I have seen some of these cadets in action and it scares me.
Sorry but i believe a 1500 hour limit should be brought in. Nothing can beat experience.

27th Dec 2010, 22:28
Aipa gave evidence before senate that it thought glider experience was not appropriate. And the folk who walked away from Gimli would find that at odds with reality :hmm:

Lets go back to the old way. You do your training then head north for a few years and learn to fly Be Taught to Fly >Learn to Fly > Learn how to Really Fly > Learn Jets > then into the back seat as an S/O for a few years.

And that is how Qantas used to do things in the 60's. Produced I understand a generation or two of the types of aircrew you want in the pointy end.

The Kelpie
27th Dec 2010, 22:35
I wonder how keen the airlines would be to continue with cadet programs if the government insisted that all cadets must be tied to the airline and guaranteed a job and that all training costs be borne by the airline.

Surely it would not make any difference because it is the benefit that cadet schemes produce a higher quality pilot that really matters.

I think not- they would be dropped tout suite!!

Mr. Hat
27th Dec 2010, 22:50
Well there are a few would be airline short cutters (would be cadets) that are playing russian roulette with 180k out there that would be losing some sleep at this stage. The good Senator is onto this little scheme.

Another one that might be worrying a few is that big brother over in the US thinks its not the way to go and we generally follow them in anything/everything.

The only thing that doesn't work in our favour is that both sides of politics in Australia support/promote sweat shop conditions.

The Kelpie
27th Dec 2010, 23:10
Losing sleep is not a good thing for airline safety - Right?

180k for training that costs circa $100k outside of the cadetship is a rip-off that should be considered anti-competitive - after all there is no commitment from the airline it is just an approved course!!

Mr. Hat
27th Dec 2010, 23:17
Got to wonder where the facilitator err i mean regulator is on all of this.

Oh that right ..facilitating.

Wined and dined...

29th Dec 2010, 13:23
As far as BA cadets go this is what I understand:

In 2006 they were called SSPs, self sponsored pilots. They recieved a reduced salary for the first 5? years. After that on the same scale as everyone else for their years of service.

The SSP guys on my course had around 250-300 hours with Seneca the largest a/c. BA had put them through a full A320 JOC course prior to their start with BA (as a trial I believe) They then did the full endorsement with other DEPs, direct entry pilots. We (2) had 500hrs on an ATP, and 1500hrs on a DHC8 respectively along with other experience.

The SSPs performed very well and all got through their training with flying colours. Off the top of my head they were scheduled for more hours/sectors line training but I am not sure how many. They also had to do circuits prior to their first line training flight. The DEPs did not.

After check to line they flew RHS as PF on low vis down to 300 m for T/O, with the ability to conduct the RTO. And autoland to Cat 1 radio alt.

During my time there I am not aware of any incidents or issues with SSPs however some captains did mention it was nice to fly with someone "where some previous experience was evident."

I guess it will come down to selection and training. Hopefully Jetstar will work with other companies in establishing their own training regime.

All the best to these guys.

The Kelpie
29th Dec 2010, 21:39
The last BA-sponsored course as far as I am aware, was AP211A at OAT, starting May 2001.

The British Airways SSP was not in itself a cadet programme, it is important to recognize that. BA had on its radar a number of schools, Oxford being one of them, that run what we now recogise as integrated courses. My understanding is that SSP was merely a scouting exercise through the old boy network where high flyers (or kids of existing captains) were tagged, their training monitored and based on results possibly given an opportunity to apply to join BA once they graduated.

The BA SSP has not run since the GFC and responding to this in an effort to survive, schools like CTC and Oxford have re-marketed the model to use the carrott of strong airline links and prospect of employment to encourage prospective pilots to train with them under the banner of a cadetship. They are not cadetships in the true sense of the word only 'Approved Courses'.

Given the low level of economic activity in the Uk, it is no surprise that it is this model that has now found it's way to Australia where CTC and Oxford feel justified in charging UK market rates for training ( approx. 100% more than an Australian school) for essentially the same product albeit with a 'designer brand'.

Oxford did not buy GFS just because it was a school with a good reputation, it bought it because of it's existing links with the airlines and saw the opportunity to use these to bring its UK cadetship model over and exploit prospective young pilots as they have done successfully in the UK over recent years.

Does it work? Ask the 300 pilots who graduated from Oxford in the UK on self funded courses over recent years who are crippled with debt and cannot secure a job - so much for the links with airlines.

Mr. Hat
29th Dec 2010, 22:35
I guess it will come down to selection and training.

I guess it will come down to the type of scenario that presents itself on the dark and stormy night.

The Kelpie
30th Dec 2010, 10:48
On another thread Tarkeeth wrote, before getting closed down:

Jet Star Cadets with 500 hrs + now F/O rostered East Coast AU
Was told today of cadets with low hours who will be flying as an F/O on Monday 3 Jan on East Coast routes. Restrictions apply as to Airports they can fly into as F/Os.

Is it legal to fly as F/O on A320 A/C with so few hours?

This is the first batch of cadets commencing their line training. First time in the aircraft and 177 passengers, 4 CC and a training captain to witness it.

Good Luck!!

Mr. Hat
30th Dec 2010, 11:18
At the top of the thread reads

"PASS THE EMIRATES INTERVIEW". People over in Dubai have their finger on some of the skippers' pulse!

30th Dec 2010, 21:06
Are they Cadets Kelpie, or accelerated low time CPL's. I don't think the true cadets (zero to hero) have completed their training yet. Either way a bloody steep learning curve, but at least they have some flight experience.

The real rub of course is the reduced pay for CPL holders only. It's good enough for them to sit in the RHS of a 188 pax airliner, but it's not good enough for them to be remunerated the same as other F/O's who hold an ATPL.

Some may argue that's fair enough. My arguement is that if they don't deserve the same pay for doing the same job, then they probably shouldn't be there in the first place! As you say...

More to follow!

The Kelpie
30th Dec 2010, 21:43

They are graduates of the Advanced Course.

My view is if in the company's eyes they are good enough to sit in the RHS with a regular captain they are good enough to be paid the same as a FO once they obtain their ATPL thus transitioning from a JFO to FO under the OZ EBA.

Whilst I have made argument that salary can be connected to safety elsewhere I personally do not think that the NZ salary and conditons are good enough considering these guys have to start paying back $87k at the end of January plus any student loans they may have. That being said the first three months should be pretty stress free financially as during this time they are officially NZ BASED and their hotels and meals are covered by JQ and are paid overnight allowances whilst away from base.

The real financial pressure will come once they are checked to line - let's see how that affects their stress levels and their performance on the flight deck.

Anybody know whether Westaway has penned a press release for the occasion? Simon, if your reading, I have a suggestion for a headline "Jetstar offers new free service - the opportunity to backseat a flying lesson!"

More to Follow!!


31st Dec 2010, 01:04
well... there is a circular argument if ever I saw one:

Junior F/O's are paid less because they don't have the experience required to hold an ATPL, but experience means nothing because they are a higher quality pilot.
So... the higher quality pilot is paid less?

BUT.... once the "higher quality" pilot gets some experience, he/she will be paid more, therefore joining the ranks of less qualified pilots. and then they will have the experience which we didn't want them to have in the first place.

31st Dec 2010, 01:25
Hehe apache I had been thinking the same thing for sometime.
The most roundabout upside down and illogical arguements of course must seem right to someone... Bonus for the person who thought up this mess...

Roller Merlin
31st Dec 2010, 01:42
Regardless of the operational argument for experienced pilots, there is a wider National imperative to enforcing mandatory pilot experience in RPT.

Historically the GA pathway to the airlines has provided the GA sector with a ready low-cost workforce keen to gain experience requirements of the big employers. Our small but nationally important GA sector needs only relatively small government sponsorship in remote and other critical areas due to it being the pathway to better pilot jobs. If this pathway is no longer viewed as such, governments will be forced to top up millions to keep remote and other smaller essential services running as more operators struggle to get low-paid pilots and salaries jump. The Euro-cadet model in Australia would incur cost shifting from the airline to the taxpayer, and governments will cop this economic deficit without supportive legislation to protect the fragile GA sector.

NZ has a law prohibiting pilot flying as RPT crew with <500hours. US congress has approved law of similar intent, but with higher hours. These countries have GA sectors of vital importance that will now be supported by the legislated RPT requirements. Australia, like the USA in the past, has had no such law, largely due to previous levels of industry self regulation. The USA is now leading the way in enforcing a strategy that keeps the balance right for governments, the economy and the travelling public. This is what the senate enquiry should take note of, and this alone is enough to enforce a minimum experience level for RPT in Australia.

31st Dec 2010, 01:45
a good argument, but this assumes that the government cares about GA!

5th Feb 2011, 21:30
Ok. So does anyone know the latest on the inquiry. Creampuff kindly posted the link to day one, but since then NADA!

Have they postponed due to the recent natural disasters? Have the airlines bought them off! (just kidding :E).

Or has it just peetered out? :confused:

The Kelpie
5th Feb 2011, 21:59
Next public hearing 25 Feb in Canberra. Amongst the guest speakers Mssrs Joyce and Buchanan I understand.

Mr. Hat
6th Feb 2011, 00:33
March is the end of the enquiry from memory.

6th Feb 2011, 01:20
so.... a senate enquiry will have 3 days of submissions over 6 months?

wow..... how much more "in depth" can you get.

6th Feb 2011, 07:05
Apache, more specifically, it assumes the regulator doesn't simply hate GA!

14th Feb 2011, 22:03
A further hearing has been schehuled for 1245 to 1345 (AEDT) today. Should be broadcast here: Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/)

Mr. Hat
15th Feb 2011, 01:01
Its on now

HMS9V (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/asx1/hms9v_100K.asx)

Gives you a glimmer of hope..

Captain Geoff Klouth you have made us proud. A calm professional front.

The various Senators are getting a bit of an idea of what is going on in this industry.

15th Feb 2011, 01:58
To quote the Senator at the end:

"Got me packing my daks now, I don't know if I want to get on a plane."

Well done Geoff and all other for having the professionalism and courage to represent all pilots in Australia well.


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)

15th Feb 2011, 02:35
caught the last 45 mins of that. well done to Geoff.
It is a pity that he could not answer the question on why REX found themselves so short of pilots a few years ago.
one aspect that has been missed, I think, is that airlines themselves admit that good airmanship and technical knowledge is a MUST.
I know that in most cases, airlines actually admit this in a small phrase in the front of either the QRH or SOP's, when they state that they are unable to anticipate and write procedures for ALL emergencies, therefore airmanship/knowledge/experience should be diligently used (or words to that effect).
With respect to the american(?) news report into pilot fatigue, I wonder if they would like a copy of the Wagga Wagga PRIME news piece about pilots and Flight attendants being Forced to stay in sub-standard accommodation as part of their MANDATED crew rest? the student accommodation is barely better than the crew room. At least in the crew room, you would have access to nearby shops for food and drink.

Maybe some background of how the "10 hours may be reduced to 9hours free of duty if it encompasses the hours of 2200-0600 local" rule came about? How iot was a trade off YEARS ago by airlines/pilots so that they COULD operate that first flight back in the morning without costing the companies exorbitant amounts of money.... BUT, it was supposed to be only used for ONE sector, as the pilot was having MINIMUM rest! This has now been abused by companies the country over to get that extra drop of blood from the stone.

Looks like the senators are finally asking some good questions, and they are starting to listen!

15th Feb 2011, 02:41
Just got through watching the hearing. Capt Klough did an excellent job with his submission.

A couple of points that were raised during the submission that if we have the opportunity needs further clarification.

Pilot fatigue:

There are regulations in place which govern flight and duty time limitations for pilots, however, most operators operate under exemptions to the published Flight and Duty time restrictions in CAO48. These exemptions are issued to airlines by CASA at the airlines request, are generally less restrictive and permit a company to roster a pilot to work and fly for an extended period of time than would otherwise be allowed. The exemptions to the flight and duty time restrictions fall into the same category as exemptions allowing airlines to operate onto narrower runways or operate aircraft with fewer flight attendants than would otherwise be allowed by the regulations. CASA are exempting airlines from certain published regulations in order to bring the airline a cost advantage even though there is a negative safety outcome.


Capt Klough seemed reluctant to say what I am sure he and most of us know. REX's pilot exodus and their inability to fill the empty positions was a direct result of the bad reputation they have as an employer. Even given their reputation and below market pay and conditions I still find it hard to believe that they could not find enough "suitable" pilots. Did one of the senators say the REX chief pilot searched the country looking for suitable pilots but could not find any??? What a load of rubbish!

The Kelpie
15th Feb 2011, 02:53
I have just watched the coverage of the Senate's enquiry.

Well Done GK your courage to step up is to be commended. Your opening Statement was, I have to say excellent, well thought out and well communicated.

Unfortunately when it came to answering the questions I felt you were not given an obvious opportunity in your responses to the questions posed to cover some of the more pertinent topics of your written submission such as outsourcing and funding of flying and making these relevant to safety although you may have been able to 'stitch' these into some of the other responses you gave - but you were on the spot and these links do not always manifest themselves at the right time.

I believe you were picked to give evidence out of the many people who made a submission because of your vast experience across a range of functions within the industry, not least an Airline Training Captain and ex ATSB investigator. This should have allowed you to leverage a credible argument from an industry perspective, IMHO you didn't quite achieve this but a good effort all the same.

Safe Flying!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

ps. Does anybody know what the Agenda is for the Senate Hearing on the 25th February?

15th Feb 2011, 03:31
hopefully the 25th will see some hard questions being asked of the Orange Emperor and Lady Bruce. - there a re few good prompts in a few of the submissions - esp those that came with a confidential tag.


15th Feb 2011, 09:01
I thought he said that there were enough pilots with the 1500 hours but maybe Rex just weren't looking hard enough. I thought he also said ask Rex why they were leaving in the first place. Anyway hopefully it will finally put to rest the idea that Jetstar pilots aren't willing to step up to the plate in the struggle to stop the race to the bottom.

15th Feb 2011, 10:57
And if the 1500 hour minimum is mandated, and Rex or Jetstar don't increase their salaries and terms and conditions, they still won't get the applicants they need to fill the right hand seats, or at least that is what they will say to the department of immigration.

Has anyone guessed yet where they will source the applicants if they "cannot find suitably qualified Australian residents?"

15th Feb 2011, 21:02

About 5 years ago as the pace of the resources boom in WA was really starting to accelerate, several publicly listed mining companies realised they were losing skilled employees (geologists, heavy machine operators, diesel mechanics, etc) to bigger operators and that such a continual labour drain would progressively impact their long term competitiveness. A google search by any interested poster will turn up the associated media.

After looking at the alternatives some of the miners advised the ASX they were implementing a deliberate one time short term profit reduction, to fund provisions to significantly increase wages and improve staff terms and conditions, to arrest the skilled worker losses and become more attractive employers in the labour market.

On receiving this news did the market punish the miners for deliberately reducing the profit that year?

No, the market was well aware of the labour market pressures and understood the need for management to fund T & C increases to retain, preserve and attract the most valuable resoure of all - skilled and dedicated labour. The market responded to these announcements positively and share prices either didn't change or increased, with the media support of labour and mining market analysts, who saw the move as sensible and providing for a sustainable future.

Aviation is a very capital intensive business, just like mining. I think the 'race to the bottom' in aviation experience, skills and associated T. & C.s results more from naval gazing airline managers, who are too close to their own problems and lack the insight to look at other similar industries (mining in this case) for inspired solutions to these problem.

Uninspired management always looks to the accountants (CFO's) for advice and the problem with accountants is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Which is why their answer is always to cut costs.

The Oracle

15th Feb 2011, 22:49
Last time, REX scoured G/A and then went overseas in an effort to find "suitable" pilots. The G/A experience whilst initially sucessful, soon became problematic as most of the prime candidates had already accepted jobs with the Majors. Subsequent candidates were of a calibre that made them increasingly "unsuitable", but not for the reasons that Jim Davis has purported!

REX then went to Eastern Europe, but this amounted to naught. One can only speculate at the miriad of reasons for this. REX found some relief by going to South Africa. They employed 6 guys with a variety of experience, the last of whom are now completing their Command upgrades. By and large these guys have worked out well (I have personally flown with them all), but IMHO they were no better or worse than one would have expected from the ranks of Aussie G/A applicants with similar experience.

So why had the Experienced G/A applicants (and there are still plenty of them) become unsuitable, but more to the point, why are the South African Guys who come from similar backgrounds, suitable? Simple, as far as the Aussie G/A applicants are concerned, THERE WAS NO WAY REX COULD HOLD ON TO THEM! The Law and Order issues in South Africa, and the desire for these pilots to provide a better life for their families, enabled REX to "secure" their services. REX paid for their relocation costs, and provided up to $30K in settlement expenses for them to come over. In return, they give REX 7 years service, or they have to pay the money back. Do we see a trend here? In a similar way the same applies to the Cadets, Captive Workforce.

Senator Heffernan's remark about REX not being here today if it weren't for the Cadet Scheme is unfortunate, but not surprising. He has taken REX management at their word, and as such has failed to grasp the true nature of the problem. REX would most certainly still be here today. The company's impressive debt/equity ratio would have seen to that, but one of two things would have happened. Either REX would have contracted in size, or the company would have had no choice but to compete for experienced pilots. Jim Davis has stated on more than one occasion that the latter course of action would bankrupt the company. The fact of the matter is, that to effectively compete for the limited experience pool out there, REX would probably need to increase fares by approx $7 dollars per ticket! If such an increase would lead to financial disaster, especially when you consider REX enjoy a virtual monopoly on 90% of their routes, then they should probably close the doors right now! Somehow I don't think so.

So what will happen in the not too distant future when REX are once again cancelling flights because of a lack of Captains? Well, they could pray for GFC MK2, or hope that another friendly English speaking nation descends into chaos, or they they can do the only thing that will lead to workforce/schedule reliability into the future. $7 a ticket? Money well spent I would say.

Unless of a course a fundamental make-up of your DNA (see Airline management) prohibits any thought of such a response! :rolleyes:

15th Feb 2011, 23:24
I think the good Captain 'struggled' answering the Rex question because in reality the answer is an industrial one. If Senators start to see this as pilots whinging about wages then the real point will be lost.

That said, the reason Rex is not an option for me is the massive paycut I'd have to take from my GA gig. Can't fund a mortgage on what they offer.

The Kelpie
16th Feb 2011, 03:11
In his interview GK was asked about the statement he made in his submission relating to a strategic objective voiced by Bruce Buchanan to make cost savings year on year by 10%. GK was not able to recall where that was published and replied to the Senator's question on that basis. The manner by which the Senator then responded sounded like the good senator fully intended to find out (words to the effect of 'not to worry we can find that out). I would imagine it is certainly something that BB will be asked about next Friday.

Does anyone know where the 10% saving statement originated from?

There is evidence that BB has made similar comments publically but only to the extent of 5% savings year on year. He is quoted in the press as follows:

Jetstar Chief Executive Officer, Mr Bruce Buchanan, said the cooperative approach was a result of the two organisations’ strong focus on costs.
“Jetstar and AirAsia are passionate about offering consistently low fares,” Mr Buchanan said.
“Year on year, Jetstar is reducing its controllable costs by up to five per cent annually. This agreement will enable a further step-change in our cost position and ensure sustainable low fares.

Not quite the 10% but the intent is there and if BB denied to me that he had ever made the 10% statement I would have to doubt whether he was being honest with me.

More to follow

The Kelpie

18th Feb 2011, 09:26

Given you thought to provide Geoff (and the rest of the PPRuNe world) with the benefit of your critique of his live performance, can you just let me know which of the submissions are yours and when you are to appear before the Committee so that I might be able to see how it is done? :cool: :cool:

It will be good to see you control the Committee members to ensure that they ask you only the questions that provide the vehicle for you to correct all the misconceptions under which the members are currently labouring. :ok:

I guess you will also be helping Geoff put together his supplementary submission to correct the errors and missed opportunities that you have identified.....

18th Feb 2011, 09:30

Senator Heffernan's remark about REX not being here today if it weren't for the Cadet Scheme is unfortunate, but not surprising. He has taken REX management at their word, and as such has failed to grasp the true nature of the problem.

That is what is supposed to happen in the absence of dissenting testimony. If no one is prepared to say it, it doesn't exist.....

20th Feb 2011, 11:04
Here's the transcript for Captain Klouth's statement to the Senate Inquiry, a very balanced and true to life presentation of the current state of affairs in Australian aviation. I only hope the Senate Committee took notice!!??:D


Here's hoping there is more G.Klouth's to come........



20th Feb 2011, 12:50
YouTube - 747 Pilot Flying Lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hEYiqkwy-4&feature=related)

A light hearted look at The Future

20th Feb 2011, 18:57
I don't know why Captain Klouth needed to give evidence. Heffernan knows everything already. :ugh:

20th Feb 2011, 21:37
Geoff klouth, one of aviations true gentleman.

Well done!

20th Feb 2011, 23:13
The two latest submissions that have been processed are also very good :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)

Mr Laming's submission also includes a thread from pprune, hinting perhaps that he is a member on here!:ok:

The GKs and JLs of this world keep up the good work!!!:D

The Kelpie
22nd Feb 2011, 23:42
The details of the 25th February hearing has just been posted on the APH website although no Agenda as yet.

9am until 4pm.

Wow 7 hours!!! (although I expect there will be breaks) I don't know who is appearing but if it is just Alan and Bruce they had better take their vaseline!!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

The Kelpie
23rd Feb 2011, 01:05
We are in for a good day!!!

9:00 am

Mr Alan Joyce,
Chief Executive Officer
Mr Bruce Buchanan,

Chief Executive Officer
9:45 am Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Mr Paul Tyrrell,

Chief Executive Officer
Mr Jeff Boyd,

Technical Working Group Vice Chairman
Mr Peter Sobey,

Technical Working Group
Mrs Helen Sobey

, Training Manager
10:30 am Morning tea
10:45 am Virgin Blue Group
Mr Sean Donohue,

Group Executive Operations
Mr Rick Howell,

General Manger, Flight Operations
Mr Stuart Haynes,

Manager, Flight Standards
11:30 am Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Captain Bryan Murray,

Mr Terry O'Connell,

Executive Director
12:15 pm Lunch
1:00 pm University of New South Wales, Department of Aviation
Mr Jason Middleton,

Head of Department
Mr Brian Horton,

Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot
1:45 pm Swinburne University of Technology
Professor John Beynon,

Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Mr Stephen Fankhauser,

Aviation Discipline Leader
Oxford Aviation Academy
Mr Anthony Petteford,

Managing Director
2:30 pm Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan,

Chief CommissionerMr Patrick Hornby, Manager, Legal Services
3:15 pm Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Terence Farquharson, Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Dr Jonathon Aleck, Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Roger Crosthwaite, Manager, Permission Application Centre
Mr Roger Weeks, Manager, Flying Standards
4:00 pm Adjournment

Mr. Hat
23rd Feb 2011, 01:29
I haven't read J. Laming's submission but can tell you that he is a true gentleman. I can imagine already what he says in it.

A very experienced aviator and a lovely fellow. He has my total respect.

The Kelpie
23rd Feb 2011, 01:48
Yes Mr Hat I too have sat in a sim with John and he is indeed a Gentleman

23rd Feb 2011, 03:25
I have had dealings in person with one of the CASA people to speak before he held his current office, over a percieved licencing issue. Even in his regional role he was so far out of touch with the reality of the industry and so obstructive that a simple matter took weeks to sort. He clung to his rule book like it was a life preserver after a ditching when it was clear the rules had short comings in the paticular situation and some judicious use of his powers was the sensible option. I concluded after (when the dust had settled) that a combination of jealousy and ego must have been his prime motivators. I am saddened to see he has the audience he has now and hope that his CASA colleagues aren't cut from the same cloth.

23rd Feb 2011, 04:02
What the hell is a Permission Application Centre?

23rd Feb 2011, 04:28
Is this the same John Laming?

John Laming - 10 Squadron RAAF - Townsville (http://www.ozatwar.com/laming.htm)

Mr. Hat
23rd Feb 2011, 22:19
framer, I can only speak of the experience I've had. Found him to be pretty helpful and a nice guy. I'll have a read of the submission and get back to you.

I don't know of the role in CASA but understand your frustration if you had dealings with them. You're not alone it seems. That's government for you.

Mr. Hat
23rd Feb 2011, 23:13
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)

Read it and all I have to say is:

GAME, SET, MATCH: John Laming.

60 years of experience and nothing to gain from his submission. Recommend the read. There's even a few laughs in it.

If the Senators can't work it out after that submission then they either don't want to or... I let you figure out the rest.

The Kelpie
24th Feb 2011, 03:47
Further evidence that possibly suggests that training standards are on the slide!!

Deaths from aircraft accidents worldwide on the rise

DEATHS on commercial aircraft worldwide rose 15 per cent last year while the overall accident rate involving Western-built jets fell to an all-time low.

Those figures were released Wednesday by the International Air Transport Association, a trade group for the world's airlines.
The group said 786 people died in 23 separate accidents last year, up from 685 deaths in 18 fatal crashes in 2009. The figures include all kinds of jets and turboprops operated on commercial flights but don't include private or military aircraft.
The most common cause of accidents remained planes leaving the runway during takeoff or landing. Many incidents involved wet runways, or too much speed.
IATA said there was one serious accident last year for every 1.6 million flights operated with Western-built jets compared with one for every 1.4 million flights in 2009. It said 2.4 billion people flew safely on 36.8 million jet and turboprop flights last year.
The 2010 accident rate was about six percent lower than the previous best, in 2006, and 42 percent lower than reported a decade ago.
The rate of serious accidents - those in which the plane was destroyed or heavily damaged - was lower among the roughly 230 airlines, including the big ones most familiar to travelers, that belong to IATA.
Accidents rates were higher than the world average in the Asia-Pacific region, Middle East-North Africa and Latin America-Caribbean.
The highest rate was in Africa. IATA said African airlines accounted for two per cent of worldwide passenger traffic but 23 per cent of serious accidents.
Rates were lowest in the former Soviet republics and North America, followed by North Asia and Europe.

Read more: Deaths from aircraft accidents worldwide on the rise | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/deaths-in-aircraft-accidents-worldwide-rise/story-e6frfq80-1226011113181#ixzz1Eqf52L9v)

Mstr Caution
24th Feb 2011, 21:14
Live Broadcast now
Alan Joyce speaking

The Kelpie
24th Feb 2011, 21:52
Vaseline Alan??

Mr. Hat
24th Feb 2011, 22:03
You tube worthy?

24th Feb 2011, 22:12
Jetstar NZ Cadets!!!

Go lady!!!

The Kelpie
24th Feb 2011, 22:13
Buchanan is a liar. CONTEMPT!!!!

Mstr Caution
24th Feb 2011, 22:15
BB - 4800 applications for the cadet program. I thought he said a while ago they had 20,000 applications!

The Kelpie
24th Feb 2011, 22:18
NZ cadets on 68k per year. The evidence of these lies is on the way to the good lady senator as we speak!!!

Going Nowhere
24th Feb 2011, 22:19
Popcorn ready! This is a ******* pearler! :ok:

Mstr Caution
24th Feb 2011, 22:22
Looks like BB is gunna miss his flight out of CBR.

24th Feb 2011, 22:38
A link to the Hansard transcript would now be handy... may take a few days to come out.

The Kelpie
24th Feb 2011, 22:40
I would love to be a fly on the wall in Alan and Bruce's taxi back to the airport.

If you are a JQ cadet or are considering it be very wary before you do your dough!!!

24th Feb 2011, 22:40
Listening to some of the lies makes me sick. The industrial strategy to divide us all lives on re. the remarks about how Jetstar and QF compare with regard to the 330 pilots performance. By throwing this out there he hopes to create a pissing competition between the groups.

There is now officially zero respect for this turkey of a CEO now. Only chance we have left is coming.

Mr. Hat
24th Feb 2011, 22:40
I'm hoping someone will put it on utube or something like that. Would be good viewing.

24th Feb 2011, 23:09
The question that they neglect to ask is. Is a 1500hr pilot with the same training as a 200hr pilot a better pilot, the same or worse! I think we all know the answer.

25th Feb 2011, 00:12
Cheezus. It got interesting when Xenophone dropped the CASA letter about stick shaker events in Qlink turbo props.

Qantas ambushed in Senate over CASA demands concerning 15 stick shaker events in its Q400 turboprops – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/02/25/qantas-ambushed-in-senate-over-casa-demands-concerning-15-stick-shaker-events-in-its-q400-turboprops/)

25th Feb 2011, 00:20
These CEOs' need to be very careful. Contempt of Parliament is treated just as seriously as Contempt of Court. :=

25th Feb 2011, 00:26
Just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the incompetance and dishonesty of these two! If the professional pilots they are so determined to exploit showed the same lack of preparation and competance in their checks as these two clowns have shown today, then they would be quickly shown the door before they ended up killing someone.

Exactly what should now happen to messers Joyce and Buchanan!

25th Feb 2011, 00:33
Could someone please tell the senators that bigger airlines do not 'Poach' pilots.
It is a free labour market and if someone leaves one airline to fly for another than that's the way it is.

The fact is that there has always been an oversupply of pilots in the market in the past, and owners always seemed happy to exploit that in the past. Now that things have turned around and there is a labour shortage the owners have put this idea out there that it is now poaching if a pilot leaves from one company to another.

25th Feb 2011, 00:40
The Orange Emperor and his Court Jester were shameful performers - saved only in part by Borghetti's no show - it appears the brighter of the Senator's however saw through the QF JQ charade.

I did love the "take off every second" and "tech problem every 4 minutes" reference .....a new benchmark perhaps!!

Note to QF CEO Minders: - somebody better tell Joyce that the entire SMS/ & risk mitigation matrix is built on net potential cost of [risk] impact.......

As for AFAP!!!!!!!! - what are you thinking by saying xfer fees could be a good thing........next thing we'll see is an AFL style draft for pilots !!!!!!!!!!

(that said & tempting roster karma.......I know one or two left seats that the employer might even pay for another carrier to take!!!!)

Think FRMS might get a run with CASA later.....


25th Feb 2011, 00:51
Any way of seeing, listening to or reading this mornings proceedings prior to the transcript release?

25th Feb 2011, 00:56

Click here. Second bottom from list.

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

The Kelpie
25th Feb 2011, 00:56
go to google and type 'webcast aph' and then follow links.

These broadcasts are not archived online so you will only get this afternoon

Mstr Caution
25th Feb 2011, 01:01
BB stated at Jetstar "we" have an FRMS.

Do they actually have one? Is it currently applicable to Cabin Crew? As it came up when discussing cabin crew fatigue on MEL-DPS-MEL duties.

25th Feb 2011, 01:04
Hi - any chance the entire day can be viewed on-line somewhere at a later time?

I'd love to see this tonight?

Stalins ugly Brother
25th Feb 2011, 01:25
This morning proved just how inept these two are at running an airline, cost cutting and lies, thats all they have.

It was good to see Sen Heffernan state to AJ that "he could talk under cement", a clear indication that they believed they were being treated with contempt. The sh#t that came from BB mouth was unbelievable, especially in regard to the basing of pilots offshore and in regards to wages and condition and pilot hours from graduates of the cadet program. At the end he had a look on his face that even he couldn't believe the crap that had just came out of his mouth. Lets hope that these two clowns get what they deserve, SACKED, and hopefully prosecuted for unthruths told during their short but eye opening appearance. It was also a shame to see PW sitting next to these two during this circus, a good man being set up for failure.

One thing is for certain, one recommendation from this enquiry will be 1500 hrs min for RPT ops as they will follow the lessons learnt and the lead taken in the US.

John Citizen
25th Feb 2011, 01:34
any transcripts please anyone ?

The Kelpie
25th Feb 2011, 01:35
Lets see where Petteford's arrogance gets him with Sntr Heffernan and Senator Xenophon!!

25th Feb 2011, 01:59
John, the transcripts come in later, here's a link to the transcript page, check back over the next week or so - 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/index.htm). Here's the link to this committee's home page (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/index.htm).

Later I will post a link to enable you to download a series of files with the audio from this afternoons hearings that I am currently capturing from the live stream.

25th Feb 2011, 02:04
burrito - are you doing a rap mix of AJ & Bruce???
....maybe a ringtone!!!!!!

John Citizen
25th Feb 2011, 02:04
thanks breakfastburrito :ok:

25th Feb 2011, 02:27
Sorry to disappoint, I only managed to capture from ~13:20. Unfortunately the T&C of the broadcast include:
The Commonwealth Parliament makes the broadcast material available on the following condition :

The material shall not be used for:
political party advertising or election campaigning
satire or ridicule
commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising
So, mixing it up would be contempt of Parliament.

There will be full transcripts available in the near future from the committee page.

John Citizen
25th Feb 2011, 02:32
would be contempt of Parliament

But the CEO's are allowed to get away with this ? :confused:

25th Feb 2011, 02:51
Unfortunately I didn't get to listen to the broadcast, a lot of posts are ranting about lies and contempt but little provided in the way of examples. Anyone able to provide a more balanced commentary?

The Kelpie
25th Feb 2011, 02:57
You'll be able to ask Alan Joyce, Bruce Buchanan and some of the others shortly cause the Committee should be calling CONTEMPT when they get some contradictory primary evidence and the AFP will be knocking on their doors!!

Not even the excuse of I must have mis-understood. - It was blatent!!!

Ken Borough
25th Feb 2011, 02:59
If Stalin or any of the more unsettled types here really believe that lies have been told or the Senate mislead, it surely is incumbent upon them to make a written submission refuting the alleged lies and then making themselves available to be orally examined by the Senate Committee.

Oh, I forget that this is PPRUNE where character assassination, scant regard for the truth, and unbalanced emotional argument is par for the course.

The Kelpie
25th Feb 2011, 03:02
Hey Ken

It is already in the email inboxes of each of the members of the committee. but they are busy listening to CASA at the moment.

Do not be surprised if AJ and BB get called back.

Stalins ugly Brother
25th Feb 2011, 03:36

Bit hypocritical to call people dickheads then complain about character assassinations don't you think?

As an example seeing you asked so politely, there is plenty of information in the public arena with respect to pay and conditions of jobs within Jetstar and how they are moving jobs overseas, not just pilots, this is a fact. Now go and watch BB response to the question.

When asked about future plans and (s)tragedies to grow these jobs offshore, directly asked by the way. What was the response?

When asked the actual FLYING hours a cadet pilot joining J* has? remember flying hours, not sim time, what was BB response??

How about the response to cabin crew training in regard to first aid? The fact is cabin crew are required to have a first aid certificate as a requirement before they join, the QF group do not provide this training. so what was BB response to the question regarding the dead passenger, diversion to Darwin and the training standard for first aid of the questioned flight attendant? True or misleading? Tell me wise one.

I can go on and on but I won't, all that I will say is that you actually go and do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

25th Feb 2011, 04:05
Mr Joyce laughed off the bomb maker comment. (AAP: Sergio Dionisio)
Firebrand Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan has called the Irish-born head of Qantas, Alan Joyce, "an old Irish bomb maker".

The comments were made as Mr Joyce appeared in front of a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra today.

Senator Heffernan initially asked if Mr Joyce came "from a long line of Irish bomb makers", before later calling him one.

"Mr Joyce if the power was yours, you know from being an old Irish bomb maker, if you had the choice, what would be the ideal pilot training?" he said.

The Qantas head laughed off the comment, and Senator Heffernan made several other Irish jokes throughout the hearing.

The New South Wales senator is no stranger to controversy, with a long list of public faux pas to his name, including calling Julia Gillard "deliberately barren".


25th Feb 2011, 04:07
Sorry to report the stream capture failed, we will have to wait for the transcript to be posted.

25th Feb 2011, 04:12
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience?

CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing"

Is it really?:confused:

Roger Greendeck
25th Feb 2011, 04:47
And there I was working on captaincy and decision making when I should have been working on my aeros. Thats a couple of decades of my career I wont get back.:uhoh:

25th Feb 2011, 05:39
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience?

CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing"

Is it really?

I am now p*ssed off that I've spent 80K on learning how to fly,
I should have just got a playstation or xbox.

25th Feb 2011, 07:08
Look I am no Rat fan but the Village have kicked an own goal here.

Why was their submission only TWO pages?

Why did they send a third tier Exec?

They just didn't treat it seriously and from my vision of the hearing this pissed off the Senators.

Sorry guys but you have to get this right if you want to come out as a winner.

Senator comments re the Rat CEO were inexcusable and may have played into Rat hands.

Mstr Caution
25th Feb 2011, 07:28
For those that missed it today.

The topic of discussion came around to the QF32 in Singapore & the experience of the particular crew on the day. AJ commented that any other airline & the outcome may have been a lot different.

When questioned whether a JQ cadet in the right hand seat would have given the PIC the sufficient support to produce a favourable outcome. Or, if a serious fault existed with a PIC incapacitated.

M.R responded he would have complete faith (or similar term) in the competency of the 200 hour cadet. :yuk:

Does anyone know whether the issues "On Notice" to be answered by 11th March will go public? I believe it will indicate what strategy the company intends to pursue which would otherwise be commercially & Industrially sensitive information.


25th Feb 2011, 07:42
After catching bits of todays webcast I am absolutely astounded that our country runs as well as it does.

McGauran showed the comprehension abilities of an 8 year old.

Heffernan sounded way out of his depth.

Xenophon's level of understanding made those two look like amateurs.

I expected insightful questions that might produce constructive answers. Maybe I saw the wrong parts.

25th Feb 2011, 08:58
Hi All

Do you think a 200hr, 500hr or 700hr cadet could safely navigate & land this A/C ? let alone in extremely deteriorated weather conditions and Thunderstorms, then an emergency such as engine failure.
With the incapacitation of the Captain.

YouTube - Cockpit view of a jet landing into Tegucigalpa Honduras TGU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxAso8xSo0)

25th Feb 2011, 09:50
Do you think a 200hr, 500hr or 700hr cadet could safely navigate & land this A/C ? let alone in extremely deteriorated weather conditions and Thunderstorms, then an emergency such as engine failure.

The FACTS are that flying has never been safer. More than 2 billion people took to the skies last year and it was the SAFEST year on record.

Air travel saw safest year on record in 2010 -IATA | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/uk-airlines-iata-safety-idUSLNE71M01T20110223)

The FACTS are that just about ANYONE can be trained to operate a modern, western built aircraft.

Technology has improved and continues to improve to the point that it is no longer necessary to have operators with highly developed "raw" flying skills..

One accident per 1.6 million flights (and even less in Australia) is an acceptable risk.

The FACT is that the 'profession' of pilot is and will continue to be READJUSTED (downwards).

frozen man
25th Feb 2011, 10:08
incoming :=

25th Feb 2011, 10:28
As a fellow Gen Y Compylot, I have to say...you have no F#(@*#N idea what you're talking about...so sit down before you hurt yourself.

You can train a monkey to push the right buttons in the right sequence and write the required hieroglyphics on the take off data card, but when the shiser hits the fan, no doubt the monkey is going to run and hide for his nearest banana. The poor captain is going to run the entire show, WITHOUT the required support from the FO because he has absolutely no experience to draw back from.

The captain knows how to handle a situation, not because he's been through the simulator more times than the FO...it's because he's actually been SCARED. He knows FEAR...he know's his limitations, and knows when the pucker factor is going to be just enough before he has to pull back and draw on his EXPERIENCE to find another way out of a pickle.

I can guarantee no amount of simulator flying is going to make things safer. You comment that raw skill is not necessary. I'd like to see you say that to the crew of QF 32. Not even the most sadistic checkie could come up with a more dreadful scenario for a check than what those boys EXPERIENCED...

Again, as a fellow Gen Y I say go back in your box...your ignorance is nausiating...:yuk:

Fuel-Off :ok:

Mstr Caution
25th Feb 2011, 11:32

The Air India Express 812 accident in 2010 comes to mind.

So just about anyone clown can be trained to fly these western built B738's.

They just about fly themselves these days do they?

The 158 fatalities on board were due to a runway excursion / pilot error.

Anway, thread drift. Back to the clowns at Canberra.

25th Feb 2011, 17:08
I see aircraft is back...

25th Feb 2011, 21:35
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience?

CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing"

OMG. Don't tell me CASA have been sucked into this crap too?

It's a very sad state of affairs when asked an obvious safety question, CASA (the SAFETY REGULATOR IN AUSTRALIA) regurgitates the rhetoric of airline management's cost-cutting policy.

I used to have zero respect for CASA. But now I have even less... how does that work?

The Kelpie
25th Feb 2011, 22:10
Why not allow the industry to self police itself and rename casa the caaa (civil Aviation Administration Authority).

If yesterday was anything to go by the Senators will hopefully see that the whole management of safety at all levels within the industry is lacking and impose an emergency bill requiring an immediate increase to the hours to 1500 until such time that it can be sorted out. I believe it is this type of scenario that prompted the U.S to try and play it safe.

If cadet schemes produce better quality multi crew pilots then let's restrict the amount an airline can charge a cadet for their training to 60,000 dollars with a guaranteed job (bonded for remainder of training costs) and see how popular the cadet programmes are then.

On the whole the evidence received yesterday was tainted by those seeking to protect the commercial interests of their organization instead of focussing on what is best for the Australian aviation industry in terms of safety.

25th Feb 2011, 22:16
I saw most of it. It seemed to me the stuff about Qantaslink stick-shakers not being reported to the authorities and Jetstar changing the go-around procedures before it nearly cost them a jet was pretty interesting, and there has been no media on this apart from Sandilands.

Yesterday made me realise how useless the papers are when you are trying to get a grip on what on going on.

25th Feb 2011, 22:21
On the whole the evidence received yesterday was tainted by those seeking to protect the commercial interests of their organization instead of focussing on what is best for the Australian aviation industry in terms of safety.

That, my friend, is the smartest thing I've read on Pprune in the last 5 years. It was, in fact, the subject of an email I sent to Xenophon yesterday afternoon while watching the inquiry. I'm quite hopeful Xenophon can sort through the BS being presented by those intent on lining their own pockets and those of their organisation.

The other two Senators, well they'd be lucky to be able to spell their own names.

25th Feb 2011, 23:40
Kelpie did indeed offer an accurate summary - it was also intersting that in context the issue of training CC also emerged in several questions.

What was apparent from the QF/JQ/DJ/CASA performances is the aggregate across-the-board deterioration in RPT standards and governance.

One key aspect Senator Xeno will have to grapple with is that if his bill gets up - who will be the responsible entity to enact it? - CASA and to a slightly lesser extent the ATSB have demonstrated inability despite their broad and generous Ministerial delegations - (CASA yesterday missed the whole point of foreign carriers & the AOC pass the parcel game plan)

Perhaps an idea would be for an empowered panel made up of operationally relevant people to provide governance and accountability of safety reporting and resolution?? - not the usual patsy appointees - but an expert panel with real hands on people pilots, CC, legal etc etc.,

The panel would need legislative platofrm to provide it with powers of discovery where necessary and would operate as a house of review - that is it would scrutinise the findings/decisions of CASA and the ATSB where required.

Sort of an ICAC for aviation safety?

Club-Canberra will hate it but it might just be the only thing that can turn around the erosion of Australian Air Safety.


26th Feb 2011, 03:31
Perhaps an idea would be for an empowered panel made up of operationally relevant people to provide governance and accountability of safety reporting and resolution?? - not the usual patsy appointees - but an expert panel with real hands on people pilots, CC, legal etc etc.,

Spot on. Draft them randomly from industry, pay them 150% of their current salary for two years, guarantee them their seniority.

The Kelpie
27th Feb 2011, 02:18
Why the Senate needs to recall Qantas executives

February 27, 2011 – 10:43 am, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, Jetstar group CEO Bruce Buchanan and the Qantas head of safety, John Gissing, should be recalled for further examination by the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety.
In what was a day packed full of surprises on Friday, the committee members heard and discussed some very important insights into their terms of reference, as well as Senator Nick Xenophon exposing a series of serious ‘stick shaker’ incidents involving Qantaslink turboprops, and Senator Bill Heffernan outing what Plane Talking understands was a seriously amateurish incident in a Jetstar A330 that nearly landed at Singapore Airport last year with its wheels up.
Xenophon and Heffernan have ‘scooped’ the media with those disclosures, and the committee has been promised written replies concerning them which one would expect will be made public, since they are of immense relevance to the travelling public.
But the senators also ran out of time to fully explore some of the issues, some of which are unlikely to be completely resolved by the dozens of questions on notice taken by those who appeared.
Some pilots are understood to have contacted the members of the committee concerning pay and conditions figures quoted by Bruce Buchanan in his testimony on Friday morning.
However another issue that needs attention is the actual submission Qantas made to the hearing concerning the circumstances in which a Jetstar A320 nearly crashed at Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport on July 21, 2007, while making a missed approach in fog at the end of a flight from Christchurch with about 140 people on board.
The bottom of the fuselage of that jet came to within six metres of the ground as the confused pilots attempted to make the jet climb away from the airport.
In their testimony to the committee both the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, and the CEO of CASA, John McCormick, said the prime factor in that incident was the changing by Jetstar of the standard operating procedures for a missed approach some two weeks before the incident.
Yet the Qantas submission to the inquiry makes no mention of this, and tries to blame the pilots. This in itself is a nonsense, as Qantas and Jetstar are responsible for piloting standards.
The ATSB final report makes it clear that the pilots were confused because they had been instructed to check the throttle settings (which had been incorrectly set) much further down the check list that required by the manufacturer.
There are several critical elements in this. It was illegal for Jetstar to change the standard operating procedures for the missed approach. It was illegal for Jetstar to fail to conduct a safety systems management evaluation of the changes and the airline also failed to keep any written records that the ATSB could find in relation to these changes.
To quote from an earlier report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/12/05/something-else-that-the-atsb-casa-and-qantas-have-not-told-the-senate-inquiry/):
Before 1998 Australia allowed unique flight manuals, and thus their incorporated standard operating procedures or SOPS, to be devised by its airlines and approved by the equivalent of CASA today.
But since then, the only approved flight manual, or AFM, for any type of airliner flown by an Australian carrier is the one published by the manufacturer and approved by the certification authority in the jurisdiction that applied to it. Boeings thus have AFMs which are approved by the US authority and adopted by convention by other aviation regulators, and Airbuses have AFMs approved by the European authorities.
If Jetstar wanted to change any of its SOPs in relation to its A320s it was under strict legal obligation to obtain the approval of both Airbus and its certification authority. A formal variation of the certification paperwork in Australia would then ensue.
None of these steps were taken by Jetstar. It made a change to the SOP applying to missed approaches by an A320 that meant the pilots were no longer required to immediately confirm the correct flight mode of the jet. That mode should have been to put the jet into its go around mode by engaging the TOGA or take-off and go-around engine power detent. In fact they selected a lower, inadequate and potentially dangerous setting.
The ATSB report also says:
The operator had not conducted a risk analysis of the change to the procedure and did not satisfy the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system (SMS) or of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.
These failures on the part of Joyce and Gissing were matters that brought Australia close to its first crash by an Australian registered jet airliner. They are inexcusable failures, and they would not have come to light but for media persistence. What CEO of an airline and what head of safety for that airline would be ignorant of their reporting obligations in law, or ignorant of the rules concerning changes to standard operating procedures?
Did they seriously think the committee would accept a submission that blamed those events on the pilots other than themselves, as the heads of the airline and of its safety respectively?
Perhaps they did. In Friday’s hearing Alan Joyce made an unsuccessful attempt to rewrite history by claiming that it wasn’t a media report, including one of mine in Crikey on September 11, 2007, which lead to the incident being fully investigated by the ATSB.

Make the call Senators!!

27th Feb 2011, 09:34
The transcript is yet to be released/processed, probably because most public servants have the weekend off. To check if/ when it has been released go to the Australian Parliament website home page:

Parliament of Australia: Home (http://www.aph.gov.au/index.htm)

Then click on Hansard in the centre of the page:

Parliament of Australia: Hansard (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/index.htm)

Then click on Senate under Committees in the index to the left of the page:

Hansard - Senate Committees (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/comsen.asp)

Then click on Rural Affairs and Transport:

Hansard Senate Committees (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/committee_transcript.asp?MODE=YEAR&ID=187&YEAR=2011)

And magically you are there.......!!?:ok:

Capn Bloggs
28th Feb 2011, 04:53
Good to see the Fin Review (Andrew Cleary) has a grip on the situation. In today's rag, in a story about Senate questions on Qlink stick shakers, he writes:

A stick shaker is when the control column on an aircraft vibrates rapidly to warn the pilot of an imminent engine stall.
Better than an engine spin, I suppose. :D

28th Feb 2011, 06:39
What hope have we got when some Journalists (loosley applied term) are incapable of even basic research before they commit to paper. I know aviation is not eveyone's field, and some of the terms can be confusing, but good God almighty! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There, I feel better now. :ok:

28th Feb 2011, 11:56
I would be interested to hear his ideas on stick pushers. :eek:

28th Feb 2011, 22:02
Ahhh, you use stick pushers to give you a jumpstart when you have a flat battery don't you?

C'mon journos, it's not hard to get it right :ok:

2nd Mar 2011, 03:21
It appears the date the Senate Inquiry will be presented to the Senate has been extended yet again!!:=

See link below:

Rural Affairs and Transport...: 1 Mar 2011: Senate debates (OpenAustralia.org) (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-03-01.47.1)

The Kelpie
2nd Mar 2011, 03:45
Perhaps an indication that there is possibly going to be a further hearing??

Qantas / Jetstar (recalled), VIPA, Virgin Blue (John Borghetti?)

We will wait and see.

2nd Mar 2011, 04:59
Perhaps the issues are not so much with the airlines but with the regulator ?
My sources tell me that CASA staff are bailing in droves. Not the pilots or engineers but the safety system people. One high level melbourne safety system person has gone to jetstar melbourne, one low level melbourne safety system person has also gone to jetstar melbourne. Another brisbane based program leader who was working on the CASA 787 program has also bailed and started with jetstar melbourne as their 787 implementation leader.One low level brisbane safety system person has gone to virgin blue brisbane, one high level safety system peron in sydney has been removed from doing work with virgin blue due to a conflict of interest and replaced with a high level brisbane safety system person who is in negotiation with virgin blue. My question is why all the safety system inspectors ? I hear they earn around $140 000 to $160 000 per year so are the airlines paying them that much or more ? I also heard that a stack of junior staff are bailing as well due to ongoing HR harrassment and have launched civil proceedings against CASA.
Seems that there are major issues at the regulator losing all that safety system capacity, a worrying trend and a sign of internal management and HR issues. My concern is with the loss of so many safety sensitive inspectors that safety standards will tumble. The airlines do not want the old inspectors from engineering or flying operations but are pinching the relatively new saftey (past 5 years) inspectors suddenly ? I also hear that senior management have lost the plot and are destroying projects and blowing millions in the process and mismanaging entire departments to the point that staff are leaving or suing. This is not a good look at all and it seems that Albanese is failing the travelling public.

Mstr Caution
2nd Mar 2011, 08:54
If Joyce is called back to the Senate enquiry, maybe he could expand on his "People Agenda".

When asked by Andrew Dyer, a senior partner and managing director of The Boston Consulting Group about how he managed the balance between long term perspectives & shorter term urgencies of reduced demand & rising oil prices.

Embedded in AJ's response:

"........as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It gives you an opportunity to make significant changes in the business. The crisis was a great opportunity for us to accelerate our people agenda, our change agenda, and several important strategic issues."

The full interview is available at:
Future of Leadership - Alan Joyce (http://leadership.bcg.com/asia_pacific/joyce.aspx)

2nd Mar 2011, 09:02
well there's certainly no shortage of serious crisis!

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 03:35
Anyone a subscriber to Crikey.com to get the full story??

Pilot training, air safety inquiry to recall industry heavyweights

by Ben Sandilands (http://www.crikey.com.au/author/bensandilands/)
After the shocks (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/02/25/casa-confirms-qantaslink-incidents-and-joins-atsb-in-blaming-jetstar-for-causing-pilot-confusion-in-serious-melbourne-incident/) that emerged in a Senate committee hearing last Friday concerning pilot training and airline safety in Australia, the inquiry has been extended to May 4.
It is understood the inquiry, chaired by Senator Bill Heffernan, will recall the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, the Jetstar Group CEO, Bruce Buchanan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport […]

3rd Mar 2011, 03:41
Pilot training, air safety inquiry to recall industry heavyweights
Ben Sandilands, aviation reporter and Plane Talking blogger, writes:
After the shocks that emerged in a Senate committee hearing last Friday concerning pilot training and airline safety in Australia, the inquiry has been extended to May 4.

It is understood the inquiry, chaired by Senator Bill Heffernan, will recall the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, the Jetstar Group CEO, Bruce Buchanan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Martin Dolan and the CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, John McCormick, and seek the attendance of Virgin Blue CEO, John Borghetti, who did not attend last week’s hearings at which his airline offended some of the committee with the dismissive brevity of its written submission.

It is further understood that some of the those the inquiry wishes to question further are keen to be recalled, after a hearing that was crammed with fresh information and gave rise to dozens of additional questions on notice including to representatives of a range of private pilot training organisations.

During that hearing Senator Heffernan raised an incident involving a near wheels-up landing by an Australian registered A330. Heffernan’s disclosure caused confusion at the witness table for the Qantas entourage in which Joyce said there was no incident, and Buchanan said he thought it was a Jetstar A330 at Singapore Airport. (Which it was, and which is being investigated by CASA.)

There was similar disarray when Senator Nick Xenophon, who had instigated the inquiry, ambushed Joyce over the existence of a letter from CASA demanding an explanation of a series of 15 "stick-shaker" incidents involving Qantaslink Dash 8 turbo props in which the airliners, which operate many of the flights politicians use to complete their trips to Canberra, were put in imminent danger of stalling.

Only one of those incidents had been previously disclosed to the travelling public through a report in Crikey blog Plane Talking, and that involved a first officer disobeying the instructions of a captain to abandon an unstable approach to Sydney Airport and go around.

Instead, the junior pilot persisted with the dangerous approach, causing two "stick-shaker" warnings within 10 seconds while it was dropping towards the airport from the direction of Botany Bay.

This incident was of major safety concern yet air-brushed in the ATSB report into a short document that escaped general media attention, after being released too late in the day to make any of the papers.

The senators are also understood to have unfinished business in relation to their reference to examine the near crash of Jetstar A320 during a missed approach to Melbourne’s main airport on July 21, 2007.

Critiques of the differences between the Qantas/Jetstar submission to the Senate inquiry over this incident and the testimony of the ATSB and CASA, have been published by Plane Talking.

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 04:33
cheers limelight

3rd Mar 2011, 04:53
The Captain of the Dash 8 called for a Go-Around and the F/O disobeyed his orders.
Where is the problem? Except for the F/O disregarding the explicit instructions of the Captain of the flight. This clown should be hung out to dry! I am an F/O, and for all you clowns out there who just don`t get it, IT is not a Democracy on the flight deck!
But lets try and link this into Terms and conditions and the Jet* Cadetships and how the world is about to end.
Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees!

When you guys can see the bigger picture, we might actually be able to have a serious debate and get things moving in the right direction.

The guy from Swinborne might actaully be right and we all need to do a Multi-crew training course.

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 05:46
Metro Smoker

If you think that a 3 week multi crew course is the answer then you are sadly mistaken in my opinion. I am not saying that I do not think that this course is a positive step, but I do not think that it is the answer.

This recommendation was made by Anthony Petteford from Oxford Aviation, a man who sells aviation training courses for a living. The QLink Traineeship is approx $20kAUD for what is essentially a multi crew course combined with a Jet Orientation Course carried out in the fixed base piston simulators at Moorabbin.

Would it surprise you to know that this course carried out in either a CRJ Sim or a full motion 737 Frasca Sim in Oxford UK costs 4,490GBP (based on their 2011 price list) which equates to $7,205AUD? A difference of almost $13,000AUD

In Oxford Aviation Academy, Kidlington U.K. the course is taught by qualified, experienced (some retired) airline pilots but in Moorabbin the sims are conducted by relatively speaking inexperienced instructors compared to the UK whom I understand have been applying for the Qlink Traineeship themselves!!

Oxford are ripping everyone off, not just in monetary terms but probably also in the product they are providing!!!

As for the 'money back guarantee' he was peddling to the Senators last week - One has to wonder how this 'insurance' is funded? Well let me tell you - hardly anyone qualifies for a refund under the skills guarantee because it is so heavily conditioned and it is designed that way. If anyone sees this as an advantage ask for the terms and Conditions - you will soon see it is a scam. As to how it is funded; the answer is by all your classmates through charging well above the market rates for the 'course' in the first place and the $300 'assessment fee' that was charged to the other who knows how many thousand wannabees.

As for Swinburne, it seems that after potential cadets pay a massive price for the cadetship they go any make claims for Comonwealth funding etc. on your behalf without you knowing and pocket it - extra profit for them.

The only reason that Oxford need Swinburne is access to FEE HELP which Oxford cannot get in their own right.

So, after a cadet claiming their lifetime FEE HELP limit and it being paid to Oxford for flight training the cadet then leaves the country and works for Jetstar New Zealand away for the prying eyes of the Australian ATO and therefore potentially never to be seen again, apart from the fact they live and fly in an around Australia every day! Tax is paid to the NZ Government so cadet is not earning as far as the Australian ATO is concerned. Congratuations Australian Government you have just funded the training of a pilot for them to work and contribute to the economy of another country!!! Jetstar know this!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

3rd Mar 2011, 06:32
Man! I've said it before, this thing has more legs than a centipede.

I get the impression that Heffernan and Co may have gone away after last Monday's proceedings and possibly thought ..."these blokes (Joyce & Buchanan) are having a lend of us!.." It'll be interesting to see who takes the fall for all the dishonesty.

My money's on the Qantas head of safety. :eek:

3rd Mar 2011, 06:36
[x] Airline - Cheap Indentured labour with zero outlay
[x] Training provider - extortionate profit.
[x] University - fee paying students, profit.
[ ] Pilot - Career paying above minimum wage.
[ ] Taxpayer - Return of loan.

Yep Kelpie, that's one slick business model.

Going Nowhere
3rd Mar 2011, 06:38
Investigation: AO-2011-036 - Bombardier DHC-8-315, VH-TQL, near Sydney Aerodrome NSW, 1 March 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-036.aspx)

Make it 16 I guess... :ugh:

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 06:41

You have forgotten that jetstar only pay Oxford 45k of the 87k the cadets have to repay so it's a 'nice little earner' for jetstar too on top of providing them with cheap indentured labour.

Three companys turning a profit. Someone has to pay!!

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 06:49
Is MR, the CP of Jetstar a 'fit and proper person' to hold this office. Strikes me as someone who has not got the spine to stand up to AJ and BB. Same goes for The safety guy!!

3rd Mar 2011, 07:10
Kelpie, you got me, I was waiting for someone to spot the "deliberate" error:

[XXXXX] Bonuses all round.

3rd Mar 2011, 18:22
Its great to see that this inquiry might actually be getting somewhere. I'm quietly optimistic that the Senator's can see through this dangerous smoke and mirror double act that are all about cost reduction at the expense of safety for the air travelling public. Fingers crossed that everyone's hard work will mean some sensible rulings...

3rd Mar 2011, 22:17
Anthony Petteford from Oxford Aviation seemed extremely over confident. I thought everyone in the room was going to leave with a used car and a time share on the Gold Coast. This is the future of how Jetstar will get their FO's??? unbelievable

3rd Mar 2011, 22:32
Fingers crossed that everyone's hard work will mean some sensible rulings...

I am not going to hold my breath for that. If anything legislative comes out of this it will most likely be something similar to the US 1,500 hour requirement. That was a knee-jerk reaction to a specific crash and there is a very mixed reaction to its implementation. Please also remember that there are exemptions from the 1,500 hour requirement contained in that legislation for students from selected schools. There would be a similar clamour for such exemptions here and for precisely the wrong reasons.

One of the lessons that I learnt during a stint as Parliamentary Counsel (the people who actually draft legislation at the direction of the government) is that specific facts make poor law and this is what happened in the US. I would hate to see the same knee-jerk reaction here.

I am not saying there isn't a problem. There is, but I don't think mandating a minimum experience level and requiring an ATPL will fix it. Why not 3,000 hours, or 6,000 hours which were not unheard of as airline entry level required experience several decades ago? In the US 1,500 hours became the magic number as it is the minimum number of hours required for an ATPL. Not exactly an exact science but at least in the US an ATPL requires a flight test.

PPRuNe is littered with threads on the question of experience versus training, most of them written by people who have only been exposed to one side of the debate but they make interesting reading nonetheless. Those who have flown with the European trained cadets are mostly supportive of the concept, even some who themselves have come through the experience school. For an example, read this link (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/436662-dying-breed-airman-pilot-airlines.html) but please ignore the huge willy-waving contest contained therein.

The experienced GA pilot route has worked in the past only because the airline has trained out the bad habits that many have picked up along the way and I have seen some appalling examples of poor discipline and flying practices in the bush. The argument that "I would never do that in an airline" doesn't hold water for me. If you do it in GA then you should not be allowed near an aircraft of any type. This is not to say that everyone is like that but a sufficiently number are and that is a worry.

Based on what I have read and seen over the years I am coming to the conclusion that the cadet scheme is the way that airline training will go BUT not the way that Australian airlines want to do it. Safety comes from rigorous training, that is the way the RAAF can put low-houred pilots into the pointy end of fast things, it is the way European airlines train their cadets and it is the way that flight training should be done. For airlines, the best way to ensure that the end product is at an acceptable standard is via the cadet route.

The Kelpie
3rd Mar 2011, 23:05

The 1,500 hour requirement that was introduced in the US was most probably introduced, not because of the Colgan Air tragedy in isolation but done because the US Senate could not comprehend as a result of the inquiry what a mess that safety regulation and the structure of the US aviation industry had become in the US. They most probably resorted to a safe political solution after all it would be them that had to answer should a similar event happen in the future that they could have, and had the opportunity to be seen in the eyes of the public to be doing something about.

I am in very broad agreement with what you are saying in places but what do you propose we do when all training programmes develop a multi crew / SOP bias aimed at airline work but there are not enough vacancies within the airlines?

These guys will have to go up north where they will undertake single pilot ops for which they will find the multi crew and SOP training about as useful as tits on a bull! This training model works in Europe because there is practically no GA.

By the time they achieve enough hours for direct entry they will be classified as contaminated by ga and will need retraining in any case to get rid of any bad habits.

Australian pilots are regarded by many to be amongst the best in the world - who knows what effect introducing cadets will have on this track record. For me if it ain't broke, why fix it?

These changes were sold to the Australian Airlines by Petteford from Oxford. Until Oxford bought GFS the only cadet scheme in Australia was run by Qantas...and it was a good one that was well structured, substantially funded by the airline. Do you think it is a co-incidence that the arrival of Oxford in Australia and the emergence of these cadet funded slavery schemes is a co-incidence??....and the Qantas Cadet programme ceased??

Ask the stressed out unemployed ex Oxford Cadets that were attracted by glossy brochures, posters all showing shiny white jets and smiling pictures of airline pilots on them - only to be dissapointed by the reality that there are not enough jobs for all the cadets that Oxford spits out. Many write on PPrune about being made bankrupt, or those that are on the verge of it with massive debt. These guys are not trained to seek decent salaries elsewhere.

This practice of selling flight training with pictures of shiny white jets has to stop. If it was any other industry the advertising standards would be pursuing actions of mis-selling as this ideal outcome only finds its way to a few and not everyone.

Another point.....The banks have strict guidelines as to what they consider is responsible lending for both unsecure and secured debt. Pressure groups campaign about responsible lending because they know, only too well the misery and potentially devastating consequences that overstretching yourself financially can have. Do you think that encouraging young people to get themselves into $200k of debt is a responsible thing to do given there is no job guarantee and that once the FEE HELP limit has been obtained there is no further funding available to retrain and develop a 'plan B' for the rest of your life? This should be regulated!!

At the very least these courses and the financing of them should come with a Product disclosure Statement' spelling out the risks to the Gen Y's who remain blissfully ignorant about what they are getting themselves into. Such documents are mandatory for any loan or financial products!!

......also Cadets should be familiar with the company 'mybudget'!!!

Unfortunately for the young men and women that these schemes are attracting have not yet learned the value of money and how it is hard earned and easily spent. Once this reality hits them the misery of financial stress will be obvious perhap to themselves and the many thousands of people that have entrusted their lives to them!! (although I hope not).

The Kelpie
4th Mar 2011, 00:31
A particularly relevent article given the recent revelation about the lady that died on a Jetstar flight from Singapore to Adelaide. Note the Bold statement from the lawyer!!

I wonder what Jetstar's policy is as the circumstances appear spookily similar.

Emirates airline sued over Carol Wilson's death

<LI class="byline first ">By Kate Schneider <LI class="source ">From: news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/)
March 04, 2011 12:03PM
Woman dies on board Emirates flight
Family claims that crew let her die
'No type of life support was used to assist'A DISTRAUGHT family has revealed shocking details of their mother's death on an Emirates flight, claiming the crew did nothing to save her.

Carol Wilson, 70, suffered a heart attack while flying from Dubai to her home in Houston, US, in April last year with her son Shawn Carriker. She had no existing medical problems.
Her family alleges that the flight crew failed to provide adequate medical assistance in the crucial moments following Ms Wilson's heart attack.
"Emirates airlines really let my mother die on that flight," daughter Tamala White told AOL Travel News (http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/03/03/family-claims-flight-crew-did-not-help-dying-passenger/).
"It was horrible."
Mrs White said that her mother had visited the restroom shortly before the plane's landing but failed to return. A flight attendant called Mr Carriker over to knock on the door, but there was no response.
"When they opened the door they found my mother slumped over and unconscious with her eyes rolled to the back of her head," Mrs White said.
"Her pants were pulled down. My brother had to dress my mother. She was gasping for air."
With the crew allegedly failing to act, Mr Carriker attempted to move his mother out of the bathroom but struggled as she was "dead weight".
Eventually a male flight attendant helped move her onto the floor in the middle of the aisle and handed Mr Carriker an oxygen mask, but allegedly did not assist in putting it on.
The family claims that the crew did not perform CPR, did not announce a medical emergency and that no defibrillators - which the airline states it has on its planes - were brought out.
Still unconscious, the crew moved Ms Wilson to a jump seat and strapped her in for landing.
The horror didn't end there for the family - after touching down the crew allegedly let all the other passenger off the plane first before letting paramedics on board.
"No type of means of life support was used to assist my mother. They just let her die," Mrs White said.
"By the time we landed – and they let the people off the plane first and then they let paramedics on the plane – it was too late."
Mrs White, who was waiting in the terminal to meet the flight, said she was receiving frantic calls from her brother saying "she's not breathing, what should I do?".
She said that Emirates staff wouldn't tell her what was going on, instead handing her a phone number. Hysterical, she approached police officers to help get information.
Meanwhile paramedics had performed CPR and Ms Wilson was taken to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Lawyer Kerry Guidry has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family at US District Court in Texas, with a court date set for September 19.
"There's policies and procedures in place when a medical emergency arises and Emirates failed to follow those policies and procedures and that contributed to Carol's death," Mr Guidry said.
"She suffered cardiac arrest. The first seven to 10 minutes are critical in cardiac arrest, and they (Emirates) did nothing, and that's what we believe led to her death."
He said that all air passengers should be concerned about this case.
"We put our lives in (the crew's) hands when we're in planes and they're supposed to be professional and know what to do," Guidry says.
Mrs White said that the airline has not contacted the family to offer remorse or sympathy.
Emirates denies the allegations and says that the investigation into the incident is ongoing.

4th Mar 2011, 01:33
I only managed to have a quick listen to the senate enquiry last week, it was said that Qantas pilots (perhaps Qantas group I can't remember) spend 16 hours a year in the sim for taining, how many hours do JetStar/ Qantas Link/ JetConnect pilots have in the sim each year?
This is a honest question with no put down comments coming from me.

John Citizen
4th Mar 2011, 01:49
Excellent question offchocks, but also don't forget to ask/consider if pilots are given free access to simulator to practice whenever they want for their own proficiency ?:confused:

You will find that some pilots have unlimited access and others have no access :confused:

An extra few hours on your own whenever you want to work on your weaknesses without the stress off being examined will make a difference I think :ok:

The Kelpie
4th Mar 2011, 02:01
A Good Point John. perhaps this is something that the Senate will consider as part of the wider issues of the inquiry. It may cost the companies a bit more for extra sims but as AJ said safety will never be compromised for financial gain!!

The old addage "practice makes perfect"

4th Mar 2011, 02:07
John, you can take this an put it in the anecdotal evidence file. A while back I caught up with a QF A330 SCC, and he related to me a story about 2 J* Cruise FO's who he had checked the week before. They were both new on type & with low jet experience (no criticism intended). The session didn't go well, in the debrief the SCC told them they would need to repeat the session. One, became quite distressed at hearing this. The SCC explained to him that with study & practice they would make it through. However, the CFO then explained that the repeat would have to be paid for out of their own pockets at the full rate, not J*.
Perhaps someone from j* could confirm or deny that repeats are at the pilots own expense.

4th Mar 2011, 02:27

I remember that story from 2-3 years ago, if I have it right the problem was the guys were new to the company doing the endorsement on the aircraft at their expence. Petty tough financially when you have just come out of GA.

Capn Bloggs
4th Mar 2011, 02:35
John, you're being simplistic. "a few hours" would cost thousands of dollars. Real SIMs aren't Link Trainers. They cost an arm and a leg to run. You don't just hop in, turn on the key and go for a drive. A standards line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. If a pilot regularly needs "hours" extra SIM time to make the grade or not get overstressed then maybe there is a talent/skill problem.

Good job for a checkie on his days off, I suppose. Run a tutoring class in the SIM!

The problem with SIM time, as I see it, is that more and more is being squeezed into the same time. That will eventually lead to ineffective SIM training (or time only for checking?).

You will find that some pilots have unlimited access and others have no access
Which company?

Capt Kremin
4th Mar 2011, 04:26
QF allows pilots to book a sim session for practice. No motion though.

The Kelpie
4th Mar 2011, 09:14
Remember this? Pmsl

Jetstar backs Senate safety inquiry into pilot training | The Australian

Steve Creedy From: The Australian October 15, 2010 12:00AM

JETSTAR chief Bruce Buchanan welcomes a Senate inquiry into pilot training and incident reporting as a chance to get facts on the table.

Mr Buchanan said this week that the Qantas Group would be putting a submission to the inquiry that would cover Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink.

It would also be happy to send representatives to the inquiry if required.

"It's good to get the facts out," Mr Buchanan said. "What we need to separate here is what's the union political agenda and what's the real issues on the table. And there are real issues and it's good to get them out on the table and debate and discuss them."

The Senate committee inquiry was championed by independent senator Nick Xenophon and will look at several issues hotly debated by pilots.

These include the consequences for safety from reductions in pilot flight hour requirements, as well as whether Australia should adopt recent US requirements that a pilot operating regular public transport (RPT) services has at least 1500 flight hours.

It will also look at how regulators are dealing with advancing technology, pilot recruitment, and whether pay-for-training schemes affect safety and incident reporting in Australia.

Mr Buchanan said some of the issues reported during the debate on training had lacked substance and were misleading.

He had no problem with changes if something was not right, but the debate so far had not pointed to "anything of substance that we can see at the moment".

He found that many of the matters being wound into the debate, such as a 2007 Jetstar incident and commentary about pilots reporting directly to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, were bizarre. "That's what got us into hot water -- we copied word-for-word what the pilots reported to us and gave it to the ATSB," Mr Buchanan said.

"It was only internal checking that actually registered an anomaly. The concept of a pilot having free access to the ATSB was what occurred in this instance."

Mr Buchanan rejected inferences that it was somehow in the interest of airlines to bypass safety. He said the Qantas Group had always been a passionate believer that safety was the first priority.

Unions also have been expressing fears that Jetstar is using its pan-Asian network to slash wages and conditions.

Mr Buchanan called for debate about the broader prospects for Australian aviation and what that meant in terms of a strong local base.

"We're in a business where we've got declining market share in international traffic and declining relevancy," he said. "That should be the bigger concern for the unions and the employees.

"We as a nation, if we're not careful, will cease to be competitive with the rest of the world."

He said competitiveness was not about safety, which was one of the Qantas Group's competitive strengths. "Competitiveness is about how we band together and create a stronger, viable business . . . and also the flow-on benefits to the rest of the tourism industry," he said.