PDA

View Full Version : At Last - A Voice of Reason


balance
20th Nov 2010, 05:44
Fasten your seatbelts (http://www.theage.com.au/national/fasten-your-seatbelts-20101119-1817t.html)

Read and discuss. :D

Tankengine
20th Nov 2010, 05:46
Best article I have read for some time!:ok:

megle2
20th Nov 2010, 06:03
QantasLink escaped comment but otherwise what is there to discuss.
The article says it all!

Wizofoz
20th Nov 2010, 06:07
Here-frickin-here.

Part of the whole paradigm is that there is that there are a HUGE number of very experienced Australian pilots NOT flying for Australian Airlines, as the T&C differential between what is available overseas and what is paid in Australia is so huge.

J* et al would rather artificially create a skill shortage and come up with a money-spinning cadet scheme, than pay what is required to entice the skills they need back on shore.

Thats what she said
20th Nov 2010, 07:25
This has already done the rounds today.

Merged with the Senate Enquiry thread

Jabawocky
20th Nov 2010, 07:50
The author is a current Australian airline pilot. The Age has withheld the name.

Did you all notice that bit at the bottom?

After Jetstar fired Joe, they in very poor form fired off an email to all staff about how they sacked someone for speaking to the media......Clearly we all know the article concerned.

How sad it is a company can threaten and intimidate on freedom of speach, especially when it was the truth and a balanced well written article.

I hope Joe wrote this one because he can not be sacked twice, so if not whoever you are cover your ar$e.

J:*

noip
20th Nov 2010, 09:38
Like the Hydra ...




n

dodgybrothers
20th Nov 2010, 10:04
Little has been said about Joe's dismissal. I for one was surprised even at Jetstar's actions, I thought they may have shown some restraint, but with individuals such as nutbag running the the 'remains' department nothing would shock me.

Its a sad indictment on our industry when a guy really who was being nothing more than a 'whisteblower' has been sacked. Jeez they must be insecure. There were laws passed federally that prevents this but I guess because Joe was a signatory to the EBA, Jetstar believe they can get away with it.

I hope, no I know, that AIPA will be going Jetstar, I just hope that all Jetstar pilots see this company for what they are and all join a union with some clout and stand up for guys such as Joe. Jetstar keep getting away with murder and at some stage, we the pilot group have to say enough is enough. Even those blokes that take crap SIN conditions, you will not be protected by the purple circle forever, have a look at what this once proud industry has now become. Its a disgrace, I'm ashamed to be a part of it and the only other thing I can say is....I am an army of one.

Ixixly
20th Nov 2010, 11:35
Why is it that articles like this never seem to make the front of News.com.au yet somehow "Travellers snap up airfares for under $20" makes it to the Travel section?!

I think I need some suggestions on where to get the real news from now on as News.com.au appears to be a bit of a misleading name.

The Professor
20th Nov 2010, 15:42
“There was more than 60,000 hours of combined flying experience present…..”

Correct, although grammatically dubious. Is the author suggesting that this is why the outcome was successful?

“…..more than 25,000 hours between them”

Again, correct. However, aircraft depressurize and descend every week without requiring “25,000” hours of experience to accomplish it.

QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community.

ferris
20th Nov 2010, 16:04
Again, correct. However, aircraft every week without requiring “25,000” hours of experience to accomplish it.

QF pilots may have logged many hours of cruise flight but are not more experienced when measured against the wider airline community. So which is it? Is experience valuable, or not?

KRUSTY 34
20th Nov 2010, 21:42
You're missing the point Professor!

But as a non pilot retired high cost manager, that's not surprising. :rolleyes:

Capt Kremin
20th Nov 2010, 22:24
You are correct Professor. QF pilots are no more experienced than the general airline community. And that is the point.

But if people like you get your way, that will change. Jetstar will be the first Australian based jets to have L-platers on the flight deck. You would have no idea, but 200-1500 hour airline pilots are L-platers, no matter how well they are trained.

The accidents/incidents will come, as sure as night follows day. A crew will lose situational awareness going into Queenstown perhaps? A tired captain will make a bad decision and his FO will have no background, no frame of reference to question that decision. People will die, lives will be wrecked, but as long as people like you grow richer, who cares?

Unless you happen to be on one of those flights. Tell us all-seeing omnipotent one.. which flight would you rather be on?

7378FE
20th Nov 2010, 23:05
which flight would you rather be on?

The cheapest one, I'll take my chances, as I do every day when I get into my car, a young driver may lose control of his/her vehicle and snuff me out in a moment, if your time is up, it's up, you have no say in the matter.

If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.

KRUSTY 34
20th Nov 2010, 23:43
Good Wind-up 7378FE. :ok:

Errr..., at least I hope it's a Wind-up? :sad:

PLovett
21st Nov 2010, 00:20
The crux of this whole debate is the quality of the training, whether it is a 200 hour puppy farm graduate or a 2 to 3,000 hour former GA driver.

and his FO will have no background, no frame of reference to question that decision

Playing devil's advocate here but won't a new FO, whatever their background, have the same problem? It is an awfully big jump from GA to a B737 or A320 with a totally new set of parameters to deal with and any new start is going to be struggling for a time.

I have read comments on here from a number of pilots who have had low time FOs' trained by the European schools and most have stated that they were not a problem; they knew their systems and could handle the aircraft to the point there was little or no difference between them and FOs' who had come through the traditional route to the right hand seat.

I also appreciate that these people were talking about normal operations but I suggest that any new FO is going to be in the same boat when it comes to an emergency because their training for that is going to be at the same level whatever their background.

As a personal aside I am currently working in an uncertified B737 simulator (no it is not Microsoft) that reasonably accurately represents the handling of a 737-800. It is very noticeable that clients who have a GA background (mostly PPL holders) do worse in handling it than people who with no aviation training. In nearly every case it is the inertia factor that they struggle with and that is with me taking care of the throttles and speed control.

The ATSB has noted in two incident reports that the quality of training by third party organisations was an issue but in both cases their criticism was directed at the airline as they had both gone with the cheapest training expense and had not done any post-training for their specific procedures.

I agree that aviation safety in Australia is being threatened but I don't agree that it is because of cadet schemes, rather it is because the airlines are not emphasising the quality of training that is required.

Captain Sherm
21st Nov 2010, 00:50
Plovett has it right I suggest.

It would be useful around about now to get away from the emotion, myth and rhetoric in the “hours” debate and have develop this discussion into an arena for those with varying experiences to share their history and stories.

Good for us all to hear experiences of those who have flown with low hour F/Os on jets. The good and the bad.

I was a cadet, going onto the F27 with only 200 hours. I only had about 4500 hrs when I got my command, barely 100 actual PIC by myself (in singles) but I had been through years of a good check and training system and probably 2000 sectors, of which I would have flown half.

I later flew with very low time F/Os in demanding short-medium haul European routes and then again with an Asian carrier on short haul routes with former cadet F/Os. Yes it was almost single pilot IFR in lots of ways but they were well trained and learned fast. It’s a challenge briefing the young guy in the RHS about the forthcoming descent to 700 ft minimums then the night circling approach in drifting snow and mist, but if he is well selected and well trained to listen and learn with solid SOPs rusted on, then it’s a great learning time at very very adequate standards. I would rather have a well-trained former cadet than an ex-fighter pilot with his own agenda and knowing it all.

(Must say in passing that doing 40-50 sectors a month in very challenging conditions, arctic winters, monsoon summers, short haul and lots of military traffic is good for the soul and for training. I learned far more there about being a PIC than ever before and certainly an hour in that world is worth 10 of those I spent in cruise in my beloved 777 over the night skies of the Pacific).

A young Sherm on the F27 heard many stories about the hiring profiles of the Captains he flew with. Not a few stories about rapid hiring phases where pilots went from low hour instructors on the Chipmunk to Viscount or DC-4 F/Os. The key then, as now, was the quality of training on both seats. I remember that the then Chief Check and Training Captain, Frank Fischer (any like him left?) said that they had done research into hiring profiles and found that it really didn’t matter what your background and experience was, after 8 years with the airline pretty much everyone would be at the same standard. And that was with simulators far less capable than now, before LOFT and CRM, and probably only 2-300 sectors a year.

The point I am trying to make is that Plovett is right: we should separate the quality of the training (in the left seat as well as the right) from the simple issue of hours. If the training is good then hours in the RHS are far less relevant. If not, yes, problems will come inevitably. If pilots get promoted into the LHS with too few sectors or too little training (and it’s sectors that count for a new A320 or 737 Captain, not hours) then there will be problems.

All the "hours in the cockpit matter when something goes wrong" anecdotes don't mean much. The "hours" didn't help stop the hull loss (ish) of the Qantas 744 at Bangkok, the 737 that came within minutes of running out of fuel, the 737 nearly lost flying an approach into a microburst at BNE, the A330 that nearly ran out of gas trying endlessly to get into foggy SYD. Every airline has such stories and good airlines learn from them and train for avoidance in future. How many hours were in the cockpit in two eminently avoidable horrific accidents, KLM at Teneriffe, Air France at Toronto?

Training-and all that goes with it is what matters: and "what matters" includes good management, generous fuel policy and few MELs, good CRM/TEM training and practice, good FOQA system, quality SMS, confidential self-reporting, "Just" culture in practice, not just theory.

Be good to hear the paths travelled and experiences of others before we too quickly get a bandwagon going that is contrary to the way many leading world airlines operate, and quite successfully.

Monorail
21st Nov 2010, 01:38
The cheapest one, I'll take my chances, as I do every day when I get into my car, a young driver may lose control of his/her vehicle and snuff me out in a moment, if your time is up, it's up, you have no say in the matter.

If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.

Well, there you have it folks. I certainly hope you aren't in the LHS.


I also appreciate that these people were talking about normal operations but I suggest that any new FO is going to be in the same boat when it comes to an emergency because their training for that is going to be at the same level whatever their background.


Wrong. There are levels of understanding. Years of flying leads to osmosis of sorts about aircraft systems, their interoperability, ATC, and the environment you are flying in. Even if the aircraft itself is different. Yes, flying a glass cockpit jet is a big leap from a GA type aircraft. This is the advantage of having new hires spend a few years as an S/O - start the osmosis before its you under the pump on a dark and stormy night.

Capt Roo
21st Nov 2010, 02:19
Good article and well written, but the writer "doth protest too much" with the hours. He has an axe to grind I reckon.

As Sherm pointed out, it is the experience (take-offs and landings) that matter. Umpteem zillion hours spent as a cruise pilot are of very little use.

I spent very little time as a S/O - thankfully. to spend years and years watching (as is the case with QF/NZ/CX and other legacy airlines) what I wanted to DO would have driven me crazy.

Yes we do not need L-Platers flying passengers in Aus. But well trained and suoervised "P-Platers" have a place in Australian aviaition. In fact they NEED to have a place if we are to keep the system safe and control costs.

CASA are you listening?

MaxHelixAngle
21st Nov 2010, 02:30
With respect guy's and girls, I think we're missing the point here.

It is true that an effective training system can transform someone from 0 hrs experience to a very effective operator in very little time. You can train in simulators and classrooms to impart knowledge, skills and manipulative ability to such a standard that previous experience in GA is really quite redundant.

The problem is how do you train someone in the innate thought processing of a pilot who finds him/herself in unforeseen circumstances? Well really, you can't. This is where experience will show. As a crude example if you were to take two prospective pilots with no piloting experience, let's say an ex-accountant and an ex-pro footballer. Train them both from no experience to CASA/Airline competent First Officers. Now put them into an un-forseen circumstance and see how they perform. May I suggest that the sportsman, who from his previous vocation is used to eyeing up the big picture, used to assessing different plays three moves ahead, used to critical thinking under pressure, may indeed have the upper hand over the accountant?

Just as the footballers experience helped, so to does previous GA experience. It's not really rocket science, it is perfectly reasonable to say that experience is helpful in building effective thought patterns.

Now the harder question is, what kind of experience is beneficial and how much should be expected? Here is where I like the AIPA proposal, a system or matrix is developed to assess the likely experience level of the F.O. and then training is tailored to the F.O. to mange any areas of risk.

Thought's anyone?

Regards,
MHA

The Green Goblin
21st Nov 2010, 02:56
I've always been under the impression the more you do something, the less you need to think about it, and the more 'head space' you have for analyzing your predicament.

The first time I polled around a transport category aeroplane, my mind was completely occupied with how to fly it, what to say and when to say it, checklists, SOPS etc. This lasted for at least the first 500 hours (on type). My total time was around the 2000 hours mark at that stage. After that, everything was ingrained, I didn't need to think about what I was doing anymore, and could concentrate on the 'big picture', my decision making, the overall operation, company needs, crew needs etc etc.

At 200 hours I was still learning how to be a Pilot, I certainly was not ready to fly a jet.

balance
21st Nov 2010, 10:30
IMHO experience is getting the crap scared out of you, and learning from it. A 200 hour pilot probably hasnt been in that situation. Some 2000 hour pilots haven't yet either, but there are far fewer of them.

Experience is a "gut" feeling that something isnt right. It is an instinct. It is rat cunning, it is survival, it is interacting with other humans in a mature fashion.

There are probably a few 200 hour pilots who have natural abilities in these areas, but I would suggest not too many. I know I wasnt. I had to earn my experience. I scared myself. I listened and interacted with guys who had been there and done that. I earned the right to my position through EXPERIENCE, not hours.

So, I guess what I am saying is those 1500 hours suggested as a minimum? It isnt about the hours. It is about the experiences that are IN the hours. Those hours are a general mimimum to give you some experiences, not just experience.

Look deeper. Cadets with 200 hours won't have these experiences, through no fault of their own, unless they too earn their story.

Those who havent read "Fate is the Hunter" by Earnest K Gann, I humbly suggest that you do. Therein lies "experience".

Nuthinondaclock
21st Nov 2010, 11:16
Well said, Balance.

ferris
21st Nov 2010, 16:14
The issue is "HOW DO YOU LEGISLATE A RULE TO CAPTURE THE 'THING' ", given that you can't legislate to "be an ex-footballer" or having "the rightcombination of training and experience". A simple way (as the yanks are alluding to) is just to require 1500 hrs (and maybe an ATPL). It's a blunt instrument, however, achieves an outcome.

PLovett
21st Nov 2010, 20:58
just to require 1500 hrs (and maybe an ATPL). It's a blunt instrument, however, achieves an outcome.

Would 1,500 hrs of, say (and no disrespect to any of the following), instructing ab-initio, glider towing, meat bombing and ATPL theory (comprising eminently forgettable material) be the answer? I suggest not.

With the possible exception of some in 2007 I suggest that there hasn't been any pilot accepted into an airline in Australia who hasn't had 1,500 hrs and at least ATPL theory. Despite this there have continued to be "close calls" which the ATSB have identified as been due to poor training.

It would be an impossible task to craft a training regime for each individual candidate so I suggest the only answer is to improve the quality of the training. This starts at ab-initio level and continues throughout the pilot's career. For an airline pilot this would include specific multi-crew training and airline specific operations. We should not be continuing the broad brush approach to airline training that some are choosing to implement for no other reason that cost.

breakfastburrito
21st Nov 2010, 21:23
Google the 10,000 hour rule.
Download & read "The Making of an Expert" (http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Expert.pdf).
Read the wikipedia page on the book Outliers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)) by Malcolm Gladwell.

Experience & practice do count. Experts are made with ability PLUS practice. Whilst a 200 hour cadet, with 500 hours experience may look the part, when the shit hits the fan they don't have the "I've seen something similar to this" insight & intuition. There is no frame of reference to evaluate confusing, contradictory or incomplete information.

Practice does make perfect. Any one who has attempted learn a new skill knows this to be intuitively correct, to deny it is just wishful BS by management to increase their bonus.

Captain Sherm
21st Nov 2010, 23:53
Thing is that in many countries, the cadet system works well. Training is the key and a good manufacturer based Ops Manual and robust SOPs.

It works when you have a well trained but green F/O who know his standard calls, knows the SOPs and systems and with a Captain who is competent and has properly "set the tone"-in particular pleasantly reminding his F/O that every flight is a training mission. It is tougher on the captain, that's for sure. And a good airline will therefore not push everything to the limits so that the captain is not only the last line of defence but possibly the only line of defence. Separate story.

The new generation non-normal checklists and innovations such as computer based flight planning, EGPWS, Windshear warning etc etc mean that the number of occasions is very few in which the whole show only works because of the world weary wisdom and foresight of the old grey haired Captain. Having lots of grey hair Sherm would naturally love to believe this isn't true but whatever once was the case, things have changed now. We have a great learning environment for the new F/O and it supports the rapid growth that builds even more jobs.

Lets remember that there have been many accidents where a bunch of very experienced pilots all thought that the "other" guy had lots of hours so therefore knew what he was doing or would call out if things got too bad. Southwest at Burbank and Midway, American at Little Rock, KLM at Tenerife, Air France at Toronto, Air Florida at Washington National, Qantas at Bangkok, American at Jamaica. How many hours were there in the cockpit when the BA 747 elected to cross the US and the Atlantic on 3 engines then had to divert because they couldn't get the fuel out of the tanks? How many hours in the cockpit of the Qantas 737 that very nearly had a double flame-out with fuel mismanagement.

Here's what happens when experienced crews use judgement or memory when simple SOPs and good embedded training would have saved the day:

The "Azores" glider (A330 fuel starvation)

"The captain's skill in conducting the engines-out glide to a successful landing averted a catastrophic accident and saved the lives of the passengers and crew," the report says.

However, the report makes clear that such heroics would not have been needed had the pilots shut down the right-side engine (where the fuel was leaking) or had not pumped tonnes of fuel from the undamaged left wing into the right-wing tanks, from where it was poured overboard at more than three kilograms a second.

"Either of these actions would have conserved the fuel in the left-wing tanks and allowed for a landing at Lajes with the left engine operating," the report says.

Instead, "opening the crossfeed valve put the fuel in the left tank at risk, and initiated a worsening of the serious fuel-leak situation."

The crew failed to comprehend that the aircraft had a major fuel leak, even after the second engine died.

"Notwithstanding indications that there had been a massive loss of fuel, the crew did not believe that there was an actual fuel leak," the report says. Instead, the crew believed they were dealing with a computer malfunction.

Investigators established that fuel began leaking from the twin-engined, wide-bodied jet more than an hour before the pilots noticed anything amiss. When they did, they treated the problem as a fuel imbalance and failed to heed the checklist warning of fuel-leak possibility.

They did not call up the checklist on the computer screen, relying instead on memory for their actions. Fifteen minutes later, with the fuel level dropping alarmingly and below the minimum needed to reach Lisbon, the crew elected to divert to the Azores. But they continued to transfer the dwindling fuel from the left wing to the leaking right side.

The report says that the Air Transat flight crew were inadequately prepared to recognize and deal with fuel leaks. "The flight crew members had never experienced a fuel leak situation during operations or training," the report says, adding the "lack of training in the symptoms of fuel-leak situations resulted in this crew not being adequately prepared."

I'm afraid that this thread's argument, or perhaps I should say constructive debate among professionals, needs now to be about HOW to manage cadet schemes, no longer is there any justification for WHETHER to manage cadet schemes.

breakfastburrito
22nd Nov 2010, 00:33
I'm afraid that this thread's argument, or perhaps I should say constructive debate among professionals, needs now to be about HOW to manage cadet schemes, no longer is there any justification for WHETHER to manage cadet schemes.
Sherm, a subtle re-framing of the problem to justify an end. In Oz & NZ there is no shortage of experienced pilots. Your argument holds weight in Asia & parts of Europe, not here. Qantas implemented exactly what you are talking about for cadets/low time pilots - SO time to learn the ropes. They also sent cadets on industry experience.

Cadets are needed only because most experienced pilots won't work for some of the lowest T&C in the world. If T&C where improved in j*/j*NZ/VB/PB/jetconnect, there would be a FLOOD of Oz citizens returning to fly. There is no shortage of Oz pilots with significant experience on every type currently flying. I say again, there is no shortage of Australian citizens with Australian licences capable of doing the job.

rogerexplosion
22nd Nov 2010, 01:47
7378FE

The cheapest one, I'll take my chances, as I do every day when I get into my car, a young driver may lose control of his/her vehicle and snuff me out in a moment, if your time is up, it's up, you have no say in the matter.

If the fuel tanks on QF32 ignited, it doesn't matter how many hours the tech crew have, the result would have been the same.

Jesus mate, I hope that is a wind up, and if it isn't I hope you're not a pilot! Sure you can't avoid the unforseen, but thats the whole point of having redundancies in aircraft, experience in flight crew and a decent training regime in an airline. Your philosophy on life is fine for you mate, but I'd rather a pilot up the front who tries everything he can to avoid his and everyone elses time being up.

Might be time to buy some airbags for your car? Who said you have no say in the matter.

kimir
22nd Nov 2010, 04:14
b'fast burrito, t&c on the 737 at VB aren't that bad. I agree though that there are acceptable experience levels in this country at the moment. I think we all know that the companies are using the cadet schemes as a way to lock in a workforce and manipulate the industry.

max1
22nd Nov 2010, 04:25
Experience- that thing you get just after you needed it.

maggotdriver
22nd Nov 2010, 06:01
It may seem extreme but most people do that sort of risk analysis before they buy the ticket and with safety of aircraft so good they are essentially correct - for their circumstance. They have a smaller chance than if they drive and that IS a fact. Where the problem comes into its own is the cost to the company and the society. No, I'm not a dispassionate t..d. The truth is that most of these things come back to money. Whilst you would have to be very unlucky as evidenced by aviation history in this country the cost of the accident as a whole to society and it's impact is what may finally change the minds of the powers to be. Aviation professionals have to sell the cost of inadequate training to the politicians and regulators. Average Joe will take his punt and even too a greedy manager as it may boost their career sufficiently that they will bet against the risk for the few years they may be exposed. The politicians and the regulators are the ones with the greater vested interest that we have to gain the attention of, even then they will probably make the decision on how many extra dollars the lower cost of tickets may boost the Australian economy.

Speaking of economies can one of the experts here explain to me why the UN has tax havens on a naughty list and yet we're so willing to let foreign carriers with such obviously slanted tax regimes in to compete with Australian and other legitimate companies from a more normally excepted tax regime? The cynic in me says it's about selling more sheep!:{

Sunfish
22nd Nov 2010, 18:52
I'm afraid that while the issue of the training and experience levels of airline pilots I don't have the experience to comment on, I can say that investors want to see the maximum return for their investment in new technology.

The thinking works on this line "Forty years ago you were flying with steam gauges, compass and ADF, now I have invested billions to give you GPS, intelligent autopilots, and God knows what else in the way of automation, and you still tell me that you need the SAME experience levels in the cockpit? I won't pay for it! I expect to see cost reductions!".

The result is what is called risk shifting, a not very well studied phenomenon which explains why the introduction of ABS brakes on cars has not resulted in any decrease in nose to tail collisions on the roads. People think "I have ABS, I can drive closer to the car in front because I can stop quicker.:ugh:"

To put it another way, if I can't get operational savings out if this stuff, then I had better be getting labour cost savings.

The Professor
22nd Nov 2010, 20:44
“Jetstar will be the first Australian based jets to have L-platers on the flight deck.”

Well, except for the cadets on the flight deck of QF aircraft, correct. Welcome to the real world, it’s about time.

“The accidents/incidents will come, as sure as night follows day.”

Really. Does the data support such sensationalism? Take a look at developed countries and you will find there is NO increase in accident rate as a result of the employment of cadet pilots.

“Tell us all-seeing omnipotent one.. which flight would you rather be on?”

I feel comfortable flying in any aircraft that is operated by competent, well-trained crew. Most of my business trips take me to Europe and most of these are with airlines largely crewed by pilots of cadet background. BA for example and LH. Were I to succumb to the QF pilots paranoia and chose a non cadet airline on these sectors, I would be forced to take a US based airline with a much poorer safety record such as AA or DL or god forbid, UA.

Is this really a sound decision?

Red Jet
22nd Nov 2010, 21:20
Well, except for the cadets on the flight deck of QF aircraft, correct. The difference Professor, as it seems to have escaped you, is that the Cadets operating QF aircraft do not fly the aircraft below 10.000 feet. They are employed as Second Officers (we call them Cruise First Officers at VA) and are there to expand their "tool-kit" by observing the primary crew, who are most definitely NOT P-platers! The same applies to long-haul crew from Cathay, SIA and many other long haul airlines. LH and BA may not have SO's (or CRFO's) but they will always put the inexperienced pilots on narrow body short haul ops and only progress to long haul after having gained the required experience. Airlines like EK do not employ SO's, and all flight crew operate as primary crew, but their entry requirements are very high (2.500H on jets, last time I checked), and you can therefore be assured that all the flight crew have a high level of experience.

The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management who have chosen not to educate themselves on the real issues at hand (or care beyond the next KPI- milestone / bonus package payout).

It is true enough that in Europe, low time pilots are employed to fly narrow body jets. Why there and not here you may ask? Well, first of all, there is a very limited amount of GA in Europe (as compared to she sheer numbers employed by the airlines). This means that the military does not produce enough experienced pilots to facilitate the traditional learning curve and experience accumulation prior to airline entry, that you find here in Australia and the US. Thay therefore have little other option than to go down this path, but the risks associated with this scenario is partially mitigated by retaining T&C's attractive enough to attract a very high number of quality applicants. This in turn allows recruiters access to a massive number of potential cadets to choose from and they are therefore able to ensure that only the very best and brightest are allowed entry into a cadet scheme. The T&C's on offer from Jet* will most definitely NOT achieve this aim, and as a result the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.

Here as anywhere else in life - you'll end up getting what you pay for.

Zapatas Blood
22nd Nov 2010, 21:27
I dont think Ba and Lufty have S/O's

forgetabowdit
22nd Nov 2010, 23:56
...what Red Jet said...

balance
23rd Nov 2010, 04:35
Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll, professor, I will make a short attempt to explain these things to you. Even though I suspect that your qualifications are in economics, and you cant see past your abacus.

Pilots are trained to keep their passengers safe. That in a nutshell, is our job. High time, low time, doesnt make a rats ass of a difference, as you so eloquently point out. Keeping ourselves and the punters safe is our job. You give us the tools, and we do it.

Experience sir, is what tells us that we and our passengers, are about to die, and it tells us to do something before that happens. Or it should do, anyway. But if you havent that experience to rely on, you just dont know when its gonna happen, do you?

Take for instance, the Turkish Airlines B737 that recently crashed. An inexperienced crew sat there and watch as their sophisticated B737-800 aircraft (all those systems and protections?) stalled and crashed. Why? Inexperience. They didnt know enough about the type to recognise that the rad alt had failed and the thrust retarded to idle. They didnt understand basic stall recovery. They were trained, as most multi crew pilot licence types are, to trust automation implicitly.

And look where it got them. Professor? Ask the passengers on that flight what they think about pilot training. Oh, that right, you cant. Most died. Get it now?

dream747
23rd Nov 2010, 05:21
With all due respect, giving them another 1000 hours on light twin for example in GA wouldn't help them understand the systems better? Wouldn't training be a larger factor in this?

Capt Kremin
23rd Nov 2010, 05:49
Airline safety is based on airlines having multiple lines of defence against an accident. These lines of defence include maintenance and training amongst others.
Professor, I would posit that approximately 100% of all airline captains would include " experienced, and well trained First Officer" as an indispensible line of defence for a safe operation. Who are you to argue with their opinion?
Qantas has successfully used cadets in the past. But never directly into the FO's seat. Neither have BA or Lufthansa.
Why does Jetstar management think it knows better than the experts?

MaxHelixAngle
23rd Nov 2010, 08:37
Capt Kremlin:
Professor, I would posit that approximately 100% of all airline captains would include " experienced, and well trained First Officer" as an indispensible line of defence for a safe operation. Who are you to argue with their opinion?

Well said.

Regards,
MHA

teresa green
23rd Nov 2010, 10:45
MHA, I concur. I always look back with amusement, as my F/O quietly commented on us losing a donk on rotate out of CBR (DC9) Skipper, he said, I think we might have to have a beer at the CBR Hyatt, instead of the SYD Hilton. We made haste back in fairly smartly, with a full load of fuel, and the pollies heading home, being a friday night. My experience after 49 years of flying and more than a few scares, is that your training kicks in, and you automatically work towards a solution, no fear, no what ifs, no thinking about the people behind you, just working towards a good outcome. A good F/O is paramount, we also had the luxury of a Flight Engineer, always a comfort when things appeared pear shaped, but alas you people don't. Training is everything, and I mean everything, it is what will get you thru. That is what I found.

Jabawocky
23rd Nov 2010, 12:15
TG

I have learned so much from folk like you.........ven just talking and sharing tales of the past.

If you are ever bored and up my way.....give me a call, its stuff like that story we cal all learn from.

J:ok:

max1
23rd Nov 2010, 13:17
Too true,
We have reached the situation that the bonus driven managers running Aviation businesses in Australia have come to the conclusion that somehow we have an enviable safety record and that this , for some reason, will continue.
They do not seem to understand that those (and those that came before them) asking them to moderate their short term ideas are actually interested in MAINTAINING that record for the benefit of the punters who actually travel on the aircraft.

The Professor
23rd Nov 2010, 21:31
“The same applies to long-haul crew from Cathay, SIA”

I think you will find that SQ doesn’t operate with S/O’s.

“and many other long haul airlines.”

Can you list the “many”?

“will always put the inexperienced pilots on narrow body short haul ops and only progress to long haul after having gained the required experience.”

They also place cadets directly into wide body aircraft too. Do you think long haul flying requires some special expertise that one can only “progress” to?

“The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management”

Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?

“Thay therefore have little other option than to go down this path”

So BA and LH have no option but to employ a crewing system that so far has yielded excellent results? How very odd.

“And look where it got them. Professor? Ask the passengers on that flight what they think about pilot training.”

You appear confused, as your argument has changed from experience to training. I have NEVER advocated a reduction in training standards.

“Neither have BA or Lufthansa.”

They sure have. And one of these cadets successfully landed a powerless 777 recently.



“…the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.”

Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought.

“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”

Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?

You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.

Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?

Sunfish
23rd Nov 2010, 21:59
Unfortunately Professor, I suggest that the statistics don't agree with you.

Complete systemic failures leading to great loss of life are rare, but the probability of their occurrence is not zero. Training alone is not the issue; aptitude, dedication, commitment and experience all play a role, and it is up to an airlines management to ensure that each of these factors is given weight.

If you want to read a document that underlines what I have just said, read the entire transcript of the pilots of The Colgan Buffalo New York crash aircraft. It is the saddest I have ever read; Aptitude? Dedication? Commitment? Experience? The resulting NTSB recommendations were accepted in full without comment by a chastened industry and regulator who discovered that they had cut way too close to the bone.

Aircrew Buzz: Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript from Colgan Air Flight 3407 released by the NTSB (http://aircrewbuzz.com/2009/05/cockpit-voice-recorder-transcript-from.html)


Of course Professor, it won't be the current Qantas Board and senior management that cop it when a stretched Jetstar A380 with 600+ punters on board crashes into the middle of central Sydney, they will be long gone. However they will have laid the foundations for that eventual calamity years before.



You need to read this too, if you haven't already.

It starts out like this:

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement?

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

Shark Patrol
23rd Nov 2010, 22:15
Hey Prof,

For a self-confessed manager you really seem to get off on commenting on a pilot's bulletin board. But then I guess that's pretty typical behaviour for sociopaths such as yourself.

So why don't you do us all a favour and find a management bulletin board somewhere so you can all blow smoke up each other's a%$s about what a clever bunch of guys you all are. I imagine after the GFC there must be a lot of ex-managers with time on their hands.

oicur12.again
23rd Nov 2010, 22:20
I think you will find most Euro airlines put cadets into wide body a/c as do most asian airlines.

Seems to work.

balance
23rd Nov 2010, 23:52
“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”

Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?

You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.

Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?

I'm fairly certain that you have completely missed the point, prof. Which is not surprising, given your unpopularity on this forum.

And no, I dont regard you as a troll because your opinion happens to differ with mine. I regard you as a troll because you are getting on this forum and talking crap. A troll is someone who tries to wind others up. In this case, you probably wont find too many pilots who agree with you, therefore you are likely attempting a wind up.

You talk about facts and statistics? I ask you, what is the cost of just one life? If it is economically acceptable to you that inexperienced pilots are up front, again I ask, what price, one life? Would it make a difference if that life is yours?

Where do you get YOUR statistics from to prove YOUR point. There are plenty of pilots arguing on this forum that experience counts, and they are qualified to say that, because they have been there and done that. You on the other hand are suggesting something is OK, because it is economically viable, and no-one can prove otherwise. Righto, then prove your statistics. Where are they?

Again, what is the cost of one life?

breakfastburrito
24th Nov 2010, 01:10
The Professor knows the truth. The truth is there are two classes in society, the people & the oligarchs, in a ratio of 99.9:1. People like the professor chant the mantra of "Free Markets" & globalization, but they are the shill's of our true overlords, the oligarchs in the banking cartel. Events of the last 2 years should have awoken everyone to the fact that the free market applies only to the little guy.

If you can't see this you haven't been paying attention. Why are the the bankers bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer? If it were a true free market the bank would go bust & banker would be out of a job or in jail for fraud. How many bankers have we seen charged with fraud? I have been paying attention and I cant think of one. Bankers bonuses are back to record levels.

The entire global monetary system is designed to take from the poor & give to the rich. As the money supply is increased by governments & private banks relative to the goods in production, inflation occurs. This inflation steals from savers & rewards debtors, is a hidden tax that hurt those on fixed incomes (usually the poor & workers who can't get a pay rise because of globalization) the most. Those that win from inflation - governments & its contractor friends of the that get to spend the money first. The banks also get to create loans out of thin air on collect interest on it, but you already know that Professor.

The hedge funds that destroy or reward, based in Los Angles or Nice as you say, derive most of their funding through the biggest banks, which in turn are lent money by the US Federal Reserve (a private corporation with the sole monopoly to print the worlds reserve currency, but you knew that already) at 0.25% interest. They take this money and spray it round like confetti to distort markets & profit from the known outcome (determined in advance). If the bets go wrong, the banks are bailed out by the taxpayer. And who owns the Federal Reserve you ask? Why the big banks of course. The Professor knows this.

Professor, I am also a believer in the free market, but there hasn't been a free market for nearly a 100 years. Governments (under the direction of the banking cartel) are free to print unlimited amounts of paper currency, determine interest rates & conduct wars. These alone provide massive distortions in prices for everything everywhere. The "free market" that you talk of cannot exist as described by modern orthodox economics. When the price of money has no relative value to anything real, there cannot be price discovery.

Troll In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

Professor, you are here to elicit & provoke other PPRuNE readers into a response. You provide no solutions other that "Lower Cost is always better". You pose question, & only ever one solution. Therefore, you are a troll. You might be able to bullshit some people Professor, but some of us understand what is really going on.

For anyone who may be interesting in educating themselves, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" (http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289113352&sr=8-1) forensically & meticulously documents the history on how we all became owned & indebted to the global banking cartel, a series of private entities. Professor, I suggest you get a copy.

jibba_jabba
24th Nov 2010, 01:16
great article!

Red Jet
24th Nov 2010, 01:49
I think you will find that SQ doesn’t operate with S/O’s.Yeah right, do you seriously think that the graduates from the Singapore Airlines Flying College here in Australia, go back to Singapore with only a couple of hundred hours under their belt, so that they can build experience doing bank-runs between Seletar and Changi, before getting into one of SQ's aircraft?:}

They also place cadets directly into wide body aircraft too.Yes Professor, - they most certainly do, - just not straight into a flying position as primary crew. They work for several years in the back of the cockpit whenever the aircraft is below 10.000' and are not certified to occupy a flying seat during critical phases of flight (ie do take-offs and landings). They will slowly BUILD their experience through osmosis and frequent Simulator sessions (where they GET to handle the aircraft). Don't worry though - having a PhD, you WILL eventually get it, just don't give up:ok:

Do you think long haul flying requires some special expertise that one can only “progress” to?Yes, I most certainly do! You see Prof, the thing about long haul is that you have very limited opportunity to practise your craft of actually HANDLING the aircraft (and yes, - despite all the glorious automation in a modern aircraft you HAVE to have a handle on how to manipulate the controls on a dark and stormy night). 2-3 landings a month is about average if you do a roster of exclusive long haul, and UNLESS you already have extensive experience as a handling pilot of (jet) aircraft - you will never get the chance to develop the skills required to do your job safely. What I am saying is that the only way that the limited exposure offered in long-haul operation can ever be safe, is if you ALREADY have developed extensive experience to fall back upon.

“The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management”

Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?
My point is that a Cadet scheme is inherently less desirable than a more traditional experience gathering avenue (GA / military flying) and should ONLY be contemplated if the alternative isn't available to you. Jet* execs have stumbled upon Australia's outstanding safety record, accumulated through decades of commitment and hard work by QANTAS training department and others and unwittingly thinking that THIS will somehow continue regardless of what shortcuts they take to make sure their next bonuses are payed out. SUNFISH is absolutely right in that no short term bonus scheme should ever exist for people, tasked with making strategic decisions in safety critical industries.

So BA and LH have no option but to employ a crewing system that so far has yielded excellent results? How very odd.“…the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.”

Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought. BA and LH have a massive line-up of highly skilled young hopefuls with an ambition of joining what is (still) a worthwhile career path with respectable carriers. Jet* is having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find volunteers willing to partake in the [email protected]*t sandwich on offer. Different circumstances - different outcome.

one of these cadets successfully landed a powerless 777 recently.
John Coward was a SENIOR First Officer at the time of the BA038 accident at Heathrow, and most certainly not a Cadet. He may very well have BEEN a Cadet earlier in his career for all that I know, but that is besides the point. Being a Cadet is a valuable way to BUILD experience and a great many hugely experienced pilots will attest to that fact. You just have to build the experience before you can reasonably be expected to possess it.

oicur12.again
24th Nov 2010, 03:40
ahhhhh redjet, just to clarify,

SQ do not have second officers.

Kids with several hundred hours go straight to a window seat on a wide body.

AnQrKa
24th Nov 2010, 03:49
"just not straight into a flying position as primary crew."

some do indeed.

Red Jet
24th Nov 2010, 03:49
Kids with several hundred hours go straight to a window seat on a wide body.Yes, they do indeed have a line of graduates who after finishing at the college get the benefit of building hands on jet experience by flying around with an experienced instructor for a few months in their fleet of Learjet trainers. Those graduates do indeed get a window seat, but note that SQ has recognised the need for jet handling experience before getting into the flying seat of one of their wide bodies.
Needless to say, there are positively no jet training aircraft planned as part of the Jet* Cadet scheme, and the fact that SQ are spending a very large amount of dollars operating a fleet of jet training aircraft for some of their graduates, doesn't change the premise of the point I am making.

Captain Nomad
24th Nov 2010, 04:01
Ahhh, some of the Captains who fly with fresh cadets as F/O's also have varying thoughts on the situation. Buzz words such as 'cockpit gradient,' 'situational awareness,' 'real world experience' all come to mind... Just because it happens doesn't mean it is automatically 'world's best practice.' There is more than one way to skin a cat but are there some ways that are better than others?! :suspect:

KRUSTY 34
25th Nov 2010, 07:32
Evening Professor.

The debate over Experience vs Training etc... has raged for years, and will probably do so untill aviation no longer exists! People use statistics and their own brand of logic to put forward their opinions, and depending what side of the debate you're on usually determines that opinion.

But here's where the real issue lies, and Sunfish and Redjet have hit the nail on the head. The destruction (or inexorable dismantleing) by unscrupulous airline managements of a viable long term career path for their professional pilots is, IMHO the greatest threat to air safety that has ever occured in the modern era! Have a read of the Colgan tapes (if you're game) and if you can see past your beancounter arrogance, ask yourself why didn't those pilots have their minds on their job? and why, when the shit hit the fan, didn't they react in a proper and decisive manner? The combined incomes of those poor pilots (pun intended) and their terms and conditions of employment were significantly less than the wage of the Kitchen hand at most Australian mine sites! If the Bruce Buchanans of this world have their way, Australian pilots will become the new working class poor, just like their counterparts in the U.S.

The American Senate has taken a blunt stick to the issue. Much the same as the Reserve bank does on interest rates. You can relate to that right? There is no point trying to tweak training, add an extra few sessions in the Sim, or refine scrutiny at the interview stage. The real issue lies elsewhere. The Americans have realised that the primary reason for the situation they are now in, is the destruction of the profession of Airline Pilot! By mandating minimum experience requirements for all Airline Pilots, They have made pilots valuable again. The average punter may have to pay a few dollars more, but what do you think the victims of the Colgan crash would say to that (if they could).

Let's say we follow the path that Jetstar have embarked upon. A path that will flood the pilot market with Gen Y wannabees that would otherwise not have bothered. What sort of professional pilots will these people ultimately become? Flying an A320 with nearly 200 fare paying passengers in the back, whilst earning $42K P/A, saddled with massive debt, and locked into the most draconian terms and conditions. What sort of stability of life will these people ultimately have? What sort of attitude will they posess when the novelty wears off and the grim realisation of their situation becomes apparent? All this so Bruce and his mates can crow about extra profit, pocket obscene bonuses, and as a sweetener, put it up those "Experienced" pilots who are over-rated anyway. What sort of people are we going to have occupying the flight-decks of our domestic jet airliners?

ARE YOU INSANE!!! :rolleyes:

PLovett
25th Nov 2010, 12:06
KRUSTY, an interesting post much of which I agree with, especially in regard to the destruction of terms and conditions which is destroying the profession of airline pilot.

The US experience is very informative in this regard as their environment is very similar to Australia; a large GA sector feeding into the airlines. However, following deregulation and the rapid expansion of regional carriers and cutback of legacy airlines there was a demand for pilots which could not be met through the traditional means and this led to the growth of airline schools where training was to a price and not necessarily a standard. At the same time terms and conditions were drastically eroded in the legacy carriers and regionals paid a pittance. This set the scene for a number of crashes and incidents in the US which can be attributed to a lack of professionalism for want of a better word.

In contrast Europe has followed the school path of training airline pilots for a long time. By that I mean all of their training has been directed at the single purpose of flying multi-crew transport category aircraft. Many of those cadets who started in the right hand seat of single aisle jets and turbo-props with hours that cause heart palpitations in Australia have now progressed successfully to commands and this is in an environment that is far harsher than Australia. I suggest that this is because their training is more rigorous than either similar schools in the US or Australia.

I believe the approach that Jetstar have embarked upon is wrong. Not that a cadetship won't work but the training regime they want for their cadets is the same that would be applied for a pilot coming out of GA. It is the lowest cost approach and it won't work with ab-initio cadets. It only works where the candidates have a generous background experience level. Incidentally, I don't think Jetstar will attract masses of Gen Y candidates as the lure of being an "Airline Pilot" is much tarnished these days and not desirable in the way it was for past generations.

The US 1,500 hour minimum is a very broad approach (incidentally I believe the legislation also contains provisions to reduce that minimum where training has been conducted at approved schools). It might, as you suggest, make pilots with the required experience levels more valuable and raise salary levels but I expect that it will only make certain schools far more attractive for students.

I believe that there is going to be a shortage of suitable pilots in Australia in the not too distant future. I know this is contentious but for those who argue that there will always be a surplus I suggest that they are looking at their own experience in the past rather than the present day situation.

In the light of a future shortage the airlines are going to require some way of gaining their numbers more quickly than the traditional GA route and they will increasingly turn to cadetships. I suggest that the Australian Senate inquiry could do far worse than to mandate more rigorous training standards rather than the blunt axe approach of minimum hours which is still no guarantee of adequate skill.

KRUSTY 34
25th Nov 2010, 18:10
Thanks PLovett.

As long as professional Airline Pilots are remunerated and given the respect by their employers to a level commensurate with their skill and responsibility, I certainly do not have a problem with the model you suggest.

My issue of course is that the "Bruce's" of this world are so disengaged from their pilots, and have so little grasp of the ramifications of a social/economic underclass in the cockpit, that Hell will probably freeze over before we see any of that happen! :(

sierra5913
26th Nov 2010, 04:07
Jetstar accuses whistleblower of lying

myZOO (http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/238622/jetstar-accuses-whistleblower-of-lying.html)

Nov 26, 2010 1:02pm
http://www.optuszoo.com.au/s3/f569fc9dc9ac9a9fecd5b74cc06502c1f8cf85b6

AIRLINE says pilot who publicly raised safety concerns misled the public with numerous untruths.

First Officer Joe Eakins, 31, was fired after criticising the airline’s plan to hire air crews based in Singapore "on wages well below their Australian-based colleagues" and what effect this would have on passenger safety.

His concerns were outlined in an article published last month and he was sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline.

"I am shocked and saddened they have chosen to react this way," he told the Herald Sun.

"I've been a good employee and I'm shocked any company would sack an employee for raising their concerns about safety and industrial issues, especially in the airline industry."

However Jetstar has hit back at his claims, saying they are “untrue”.

"The employee chose to publicly make incorrect accusations on multiple and separate occasions against Jetstar with the effect of misleading the travelling public," the airline said in a statement.

The budget carrier said it sought to resolve the issue with Mr Eakins "on numerous occasions but there was no engagement, nor acknowledgement, than an issued existed".
Jetstar Australia and New Zealand Chief Executive Officer David Hall said the airline has a healthy culture across its which encourages all employees to report and discuss any issues and concerns in relation to safety.

“We will never, nor have, taken action against any employee for raising safety concerns - we welcome genuine engagement regarding safety from any part of our workforce - without fear or favour,” Mr Hall said.
“In the past, and moving forward, our pilots based in Singapore achieve better take home pay in comparison to our Australian pilots.

“Assertions of a 50 per cent discrepancy in pilot pay between Australia and Singapore or circumvention of existing industrial law are patently false.

Mr Eakins has been contacted for comment regarding Jetstar's allegations.

The Australian and International Pilots Association says it is prepared to take the case to the High Court and has not ruled out pursuing industrial action.

Association president Barry Jackson described Mr Eakins as a whistleblower and hero to the Australian aviation community.

"The Australian aviation sector is at a crossroads," Mr Eakins had said in the article.

"Not only are the dreams of the youngsters who look skyward at risk, but the institutions that created our reputation for safety through well trained experienced pilots is under threat, which is bad news for all Australians."

Earlier this month a Jetstar training captain also questioned the airline's training methods and resources.

Geoff Klouth, a Jetstar pilot for four years and commercial pilot since 1987, outlined his concerns at a senate inquiry into aviation training and standards.

He said that as a result some flight attendants have been completed their training without having operated on the airline’s A321 aircraft, leaving them unsure how to “arm” the doors.

''They have been unable to 'arm' doors. Arming the doors is necessary to allow for the automatic deployment of the emergency escape slide if the aircraft has to be evacuated,'' he said in his submission.

Klouth also raised concern about the increasing number of flight attendants who are based in Singapore and Bangkok yet operate domestically on international flights.

“The foreign based crew all speak English but the ability to be understood in an emergency is an aspect of their training that is not effectively assessed.”

He said the increasing pressure airlines are under to cut costs may threaten air safety.

“The CEO of Jetstar requires a ten percent reduction in the airline costs per year. In a safety sensitive industry this will result in a reduction of the safety margins that have contributed to Australia’s aviation safety record.

onezeroonethree
26th Nov 2010, 08:21
Not that a cadetship won't work but the training regime they want for their cadets is the same that would be applied for a pilot coming out of GA

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard through a very credible source that the first round of J* cadets went through a lot more training and sim sessions than traditional entry pilots?

Can someone explain to me exactly why the cadet pool for legacy carriers in europe have "high quality cadets" to choose from and J* is scraping the bottom of the barrel? A few people said this and it doesn't make sense to me. I dont see the difference between a pool of fresh CPL's in europe entering a cadetship versus a pool of fresh CPLs in australia entering a cadetship?

I think both sides of the argument raise good points and this topic could be done to death but it would be good to see some accurate figures of low hour cadets in airlines in Europe for example. The differences in training. First Officer versus Second Officer positions. Crash/incident statistics etc. Also how they rank in comparison to more experienced pilots when it comes to check flights or sim sessions etc.

Chronic Snoozer
26th Nov 2010, 10:21
Whilst Jetstar might like to claim that JE was 'untruthful' they haven't exactly addressed the issues.

The employee chose to publicly make incorrect accusations on multiple and separate occasions against Jetstar with the effect of misleading the travelling public

What scenario would cause an employee to do this?
If management ended up 'misleading the travelling public' its invariably a mistake, an oversight or beyond its control. Is anyone sacked for this?

We will never, nor have, taken action against any employee for raising safety concerns

Unless of course they do it publicly.

In the past, and moving forward, our pilots based in Singapore achieve better take home pay in comparison to our Australian pilots. Assertions of a 50 per cent discrepancy in pilot pay between Australia and Singapore or circumvention of existing industrial law are patently false.


Then why base pilots in Singapore?

he was sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline.

This of course applies if someone speaks highly of the airline then does it? Why bother claiming its all untrue when really, the fact that its allegedly untrue has little to do with the actual reason for JE's dismissal.

Geoff Klouth, a Jetstar pilot for four years and commercial pilot since 1987, outlined his concerns at a senate inquiry into aviation training and standards.

Oh no, this is now public, does this pilot get sacked too?

Ichiban
26th Nov 2010, 10:29
2UE Radio interview with Joe Eakins

http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/261110pilot.mp3

Ndicho Moja
26th Nov 2010, 13:03
I am glad to help. Sorry our industry has come to this sad state of affairs. Good luck to you.

Jabiman
26th Nov 2010, 14:25
“We will never, nor have, taken action against any employee for raising safety concerns - we welcome genuine engagement regarding safety from any part of our workforce - without fear or favour,” Mr Hall said.
Apparently doens't apply to QF LAME's either.

Jabiman
26th Nov 2010, 14:55
I think both sides of the argument raise good points and this topic could be done to death but it would be good to see some accurate figures of low hour cadets in airlines in Europe for example. The differences in training. First Officer versus Second Officer positions. Crash/incident statistics etc. Also how they rank in comparison to more experienced pilots when it comes to check flights or sim sessions etc.
I think the Teamsters union sums it up the best https://www.local357.org/

To be clear; we have the highest respect for anyone who completes a course of higher education. The fact is that a four year degree has no relationship to an individual’s skills as a pilot. The simple truth is, regardless of the classroom situations and lessons learned in that environment, there is no acceptable substitute for the experience of actual flight hours in aircraft.
We realize that technology has evolved to a much higher level in this industry, allowing us the luxury of fully automated cockpits and aircraft that can operate in almost any environment imaginable. Technology is however, subject to failure and it is when that failure occurs that the skills of a pilot are tested. It is at this point that a pilot’s experience becomes critical and is a matter of life or death for everyone involved. A pilot is unable to draw upon a college degree to ensure a successful outcome; they must instead they must draw upon those hours and years of experience to avoid a disaster.
We fully understand the industry’s desire to have lower standards as it will allow them to use relative inexperience as an excuse to lower pay rates as was noted in the hearings on the Colgan 3407 crash.
For too many decades, aviation safety has been based upon the lowest bidder or the odds of something happening compared to the cost of fixing a problem. FAA Administrator Babbitt, himself a former airline pilot knows of this firsthand, when he experienced these same problems in the 1980’s when he and his fellow pilots uncovered thousands of maintenance lapses at Eastern Airlines.
We have seen too many tragic results of this short sighted approach over the years. The 1500 hour requirement with specific experience must be the minimum acceptable standard. The American public deserves no less.
We remain committed with CAPA, the families of Colgan 3407 and Congress in calling for Administrator Babbitt to accept nothing less than a 1500 hour minimum with specific experience for any pilot operating passenger airliners,” Bourne concluded.

KRUSTY 34
26th Nov 2010, 20:50
My Point Exactly!

Red Jet
26th Nov 2010, 22:33
Thanks Jabiman, for posting that quote. Very succinct and eloquent, and like Krusty - it summarises my thoughts better than could have put in myself.:D

onetrack
27th Nov 2010, 02:01
I find it unbelievable that any company could write into an employment agreement, that personal illness is enough reason for dismissal. This is the most outright evil clause, that I could ever imagine being introduced into an employment contract, and harks back to the mid-19th century.
One could well imagine, of course ,that a similar condition is drawn up for any CEO employment contract! :suspect:

#1AHRS
27th Nov 2010, 03:36
Once upon a time young men aspired to join the merchant navy, long and fairly well paid careers were had and their position in society was fairly well respected. Take a look at any merchant vessel now days with one of the big brands painted on the side. Its port of registry is Panama and the greasey looking crew are from Taiwan and I doubt that shipping costs have significantly declined as a result. There are one or two plumb type VIP jobs out there, but mostly its now a low paid job that few aspire to. I'm not sure of the safety stats in shipping, but it seems the bean counters have won that one.
They call it reflagging and that is what is happening to our aviation industry right now and it is all still heading south for us pilots.

I'm not sure that we can stop the inevitable, our coastwatch boys are staring down the barrel of UAV's and aerial war is being waged remotely from warehouses. However we should do our best to mitigate the impact on our profession before it is eroded from a profession to nothing more than barely skilled labour.

Jabiman
27th Nov 2010, 04:32
Let us reduce what is happening in the airline industry to its lowest common denominator (the KISS principle):

FACT- Cadet programs are a useful way for the airlines to save money by using pilots with minimal experience.
FACT – When promoting or filling command positions, the airlines will again try to save money by using the cheapest possible pilot.
FACT – This erosion of T&C’s will lead to a lower quality of pilot as talented individuals will just go elsewhere.

SOLUTION – There is only one which will reverse this race to the bottom while being sensible, simple and fair: implementation of the 1500 hour rule.

Frank Burden
27th Nov 2010, 10:16
Jabiman, I wished I lived in your simplicity world. So, let's stick with the KISS principle:

FACT: Cadet programs are one way for airlines to recruit pilots
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
FACT: The days when pilots were recruited because the industry was high risk and alpha males full of 'derring do' were happy to accept well above average salaries to accept the challenge finished along with making ice cream at home.

SOLUTION: If you feel so strongly that you are under appreciated because you don't get the big bucks then I would suggest you work hard to change your attitude and/or work situation.

Alternatively, you take the advice of Uncle Chopper and 'toughen the f..k up!'.:)

The Professor
27th Nov 2010, 18:44
BBurrito,

“If it were a true free market the bank would go bust”

I totally agree. I am fully supportive of letting SOME banks fail. Propping them up does nothing more than reward poor performance and will pave the way for bigger problems later.

“I am also a believer in the free market, but there hasn't been a free market for nearly a 100 years.”

Again, we are on the same page. The airline industry, in Australia especially, has never been subject to a free market, not even close. I have never suggested that it has.

I have suggested, however, that the collapse of Ansett, amongst other things, removed MOST of the artificial barriers put in place within the labor market. Not all, but most and now the market is no longer a closed shop. The comment I made before regarding salaries at Jetstar, especially regarding pilots, is that they are now subject to market forces in COMPARISON to the salaries at QF.

“BA and LH have a massive line-up of highly skilled young hopefuls with an ambition of joining what is (still) a worthwhile career path with respectable carriers.”

This is not the case and in fact BA often fall short on cadet intake numbers during buyout times.

“Jet* is having to scrape the bottom of the barrel….”

And your evidence is…..?

“… didn't they react in a proper and decisive manner?”

It will soon become evident that fatigue was the principal factor in the accident in Buffalo, in addition to poor training standards.

“The Americans have realised that the primary reason for the situation they are now in….”

Can you explain what “situation” they are now in?

breakfastburrito
27th Nov 2010, 20:11
Professor, did you comprehend my post that you quote from? There is no free market. We live in a Centrally Planned political economy. We live in a fascist society where the profits accrue to the top 0.1% of the population, yet the costs are passed to the rest of the poulation, in the form of a hidden tax, otherwise known as inflation. This inflation process is through money & credit creation out of thin air. You are arguing within the system, I am arguing about the system itself. Perhaps you should research "debt as money". You did know that the paper currency in your wallet is actually a debt instrument? It came into existence as a loan, it is your asset, but someone else's liability. It is a claim on future labour. Note I choose the word claim, not obligation carefully, as it may not be accepted in the future in exchange for someone else's labour.

As the masses are slowly coming to realise in the US & Europe, the elites have harvested the masses and are about to ride off into the sunset with their & future generations lifetimes entire labour output via the debt based monetary system.

The Professor
27th Nov 2010, 20:27
"There is no free market."

Again, I agree. A free market is an ideology, perhaps a religion to some.

I use the term free as a measure of relativity.

It exists in isolated form, but NO economy is truly subject to free market forces.

However, were we to be living in a “Centrally Planned political economy”, as you suggest, we would NOT be conversing via high speed broadband internet as we presently are.

breakfastburrito
27th Nov 2010, 21:00
However, were we to be living in a “Centrally Planned political economy”, as you suggest, we would NOT be conversing via high speed broadband internet as we presently are.
On what basis do you make your claim? My claims are based on documentation of the Federal Reserve itself Modern Money Mechanics (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics) is a booklet produced and distributed free by the Public Information Center of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

b_sta
27th Nov 2010, 21:24
breakfastburrito, I do agree with some of the things you're saying, but you should consider taking a tertiary course or three in macroeconomics rather than deriving your education from conspiracy theorists, as your understanding of the underpinnings of the economy and the catalysts of inflation is lacking.

noip
27th Nov 2010, 23:55
"Professor"

two words for you - "Turing Test".

Sorry,

Fail.

(the "Turing Test" involves a computer program engaging someone in conversation using keyboard and screen and convincing them they are chatting with a real person).


n

Xcel
28th Nov 2010, 01:27
#1AHRS

u couldn't have missed the mark further if u tried...

Look at shipping... Exactly look at it...

To be technical crew on ANY ship operating in Australian waters -disregarding cargo - you MUST have an Aussie licence and MUST be a member of THE union - yeap just the one.

To operate larger ships in a higher position limitations are made based on your experience on a given tonnage and days in that position. No shortcut cadets here. Only path is do the hard yards do exams and be a member of the union. There is a massive shortage of drivers recently and the only way to rectify it is to hire or advance highly experienced personnel. Not cheapest cadet they can find or bypassing unions with foreign crews.

I only wish aviation could one day get to the level that shipping is at.

Thanks for bringing that up 1ahrs but u couldn't be more
wrong about shipping in Australia...

Captain Sand Dune
28th Nov 2010, 05:58
Interesting to see the ACTU's response - zip, as far as I'm aware. I wonder if that would be the case if it were a train driver or a wharfie that had been sacked. I guess there are unions, and then there are unions. As I recall, airline pilots got a similar response from the ACTU and the Labour government 21 years ago.

Jabiman
28th Nov 2010, 10:02
FB,
My world is not simplistic but in my experience reducing an argument to its lowest common denominators is the most effective way to dissect a complicated problem (which is something that mathematicians also do). Your counter facts were mostly irrelevant to the point I was trying to make though one does require some further discussion.
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.
I must stress that this is only a solution for those nations that have a strong GA industry of which Australia certainly is one, so why go the route of cadetships which are used by places which have little other alternative. On reflection though, I can see that the 1500 hour rule has little chance of being introduced due to these vested special interest groups. So I have thought of another effective alternative which requires no legislative changes and would be a certain vote winner for any government which introduces it.
When I get into a taxi, I can question the driver, examine his licence, ensure he knows the route, etc and I have the option of taking another if I am unsatisfied. But when I get onto a airplane there is no such opportunity and my loved ones and I are consigned to a lottery which is increasingly becoming stacked against us. Yet when I booked the flight, I was able to choose where I sat, what entertainment I have, which meals I eat….so why not the experience of the pilot?
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:
Does the FO have greater or less than 1500 hours.
Does the captain have greater or less than 5000 hours.
In this way, the travelling public has the right to decide and airlines will actually gain a competitive advantage by employing experienced pilots.
A simple but effective way to reverse the race to the bottom me thinks.

Skynews
28th Nov 2010, 10:13
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:

I can see it now, $20 for an emergency exit or front row seat, $100 extra for a Captain with over $10,000 hrs.
I would also be interested in the experience of the crew if I am a pax.

PLovett
28th Nov 2010, 12:00
Quote:
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.

WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”

Jabiman, when talking to a QANTAS C & T pilot, I asked him why QANTAS had lower experience levels for entry than other airlines in Australia. He replied that QANTAS wanted to get them before they had developed too many bad habits from GA as it was very expensive to fix. :(

Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship.

A very massive assumption and if bushy ever reads it I am sure he will tell you in no uncertain terms what he thinks of pilots using GA only as a stepping stone to airlines. :rolleyes:

Propjet88
28th Nov 2010, 12:12
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.

Some very big assumptions here my friend with opinions being stated as fact.

Fly safe
PJ

Jabiman
28th Nov 2010, 12:38
Not my assumptions, please see the original article which started this thread:
Fasten your seatbelts (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/fasten-your-seatbelts-20101119-1817t.html)
Whose concluding paragraph was:
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.''
I am merely restating and offering a solution.

IFOT
28th Nov 2010, 14:08
What is the motivation of the pilots forcing the point that cadet pilots are unsafe?

Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?

Altruism or Greed??

FlexibleResponse
28th Nov 2010, 14:20
What is the motivation of the pilots forcing the point that cadet pilots are unsafe?

Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?

Altruism or Greed??

IFOT,

If you really are looking for answers (as opposed to pushing your own wheelbarrow), this might be a good place to start your research:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/434916-expressions-interest-urinals-installed-737-cockpits.html

clark y
28th Nov 2010, 21:16
IFOT,

Cadets need a nurturing workplace environment. The current environment is more an intimidating/punitive one.

Clark y.

oicur12.again
28th Nov 2010, 21:23
Flexible response,

Please tell me you are not attempting to link the Jetstar cadet scheme to a problematic airline training culture in India.

Does India’s high road toll also prove that Australians should fear the automobile on Australian roads?

Most airlines the world over, with few exception’s such as North America and Australia, have made cadet pilots the staple cockpit crew member for decades without problems.

It is disingenuous to suggest that airlines have safety problems as a result by using selective examples such as AIExpress.

I suspect that CASA will provide training oversight to cadets employed by Jetstar, not the DGCA. Can you see the difference?

This is a financial argument thinly disguised as concern for the travelling public.

Frank Burden
28th Nov 2010, 21:40
Jabiman,

I really do enjoy a rational debate. Unfortunately, some people believe emotion is 'FACT' and it is difficult to have a satisfying discussion. Unfortunately, you fall into this category.

Let us just examine one point that flight hours and safety are inextricably linked. I refer you to the NTSB Report on the Colgan Air accident at Buffalo on Feb 12, 2009. This is the link:



The Captain had 3,379 hours and the copilot 2,244 hours. Given that accidents are not caused by any single factor (although the actual accident may have occurred as a result of the last defence having been breached), I wonder if the accident would [U]have not occurred if the Captain had 5,000+ hours given that this is your attainment point for a safe pilot.

I found it interesting that you attached the attainment point of 5,000 hours with what could be a marketable asset for pilots. I would also like to include ATPL test scores, recency, night landings, emergencies already handled efficiently, skin colour, sperm count (if applicable), bra size (if applicable), etc to ensure that I am getting value for money. After that we will tell the customers the experience and annual performance of the bag tossers.

I believe it inappropriate that I use the word simplistic twice in 24 hours but then again .... if the shoe fits.

Ducky, you are making Franky so cranky.

Jabiman
28th Nov 2010, 23:54
FB,
Not sure which of my arguments are emotive as such would be easily disproved.
I do not intend to debate the merits of pilot training here as this is a subject for another thread and may be easily researched here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm [/url)
In regards to these submissions I do find it interesting though that the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.
Since I am being accused of being emotive, then how about this:
Neither the PIC’s nor the copilot’s training or experience, when coupled with the unexpected distractions and workload during the event, enabled them to quickly diagnose the situation during the early part of the first missed approach. For a period of approximately 48 seconds, they were uncertain as to what the automated flight control system of the aircraft was doing, or why.
Is this another report about Air India? No, this is from an ATSB report about a Jetstar crew.
For more info regarding this incident:Jetstar, Joyce and the Senate inquiry – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/28/jetstar-joyce-and-the-senate-inquiry/)

PLovett
29th Nov 2010, 01:09
Is this another report about Air India? No, this is from an ATSB report about a Jetstar crew.

Jabiman, I am surprised that you quote this incident in support of your views as the crew of that particular flight in 2007 would have come through the traditional routes to an airline seat, either military or GA.

If you read that ATSB report and Ben Sandilands blog you will note that the main criticism is that Jetstar changed the go-around procedures without being able to show any safety benefits and that the endorsement training was deficient.

The main point I have been arguing is that airline training is being downgraded for a cost benefit reason. This is irrespective of whether the training candidate is from a GA background or cadetship. It is the quality of training that must be addressed if Australia is to maintain its airline standards at a time when pilots will not get the generous background in GA that occurred in the past when pilots could expect to spend many years honing skills before getting a call from the airlines.

Frank Burden
29th Nov 2010, 01:44
Dear Jabiman,

In your post #81 you quoted my words:

FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.

You then said 'WRONG' but now you are saying you don't want to discuss pilot training pathways! Fascinating!

I am not sure what you mean by making reference to the VH-VQT A320 incident at Melbourne Airport on Jul 2, 2007. There is certainly some interesting points to consider in the ATSB Report. Well worth a darn good read. However, the PIC had 6,500 hours of which 1,580 were on type and the CP had 5,000 hours of which 500 were on type.

The report does not indicate if they were cadet entrants to the industry or came through the traditional pathway which you recommend. This is appropriate as it has nothing to do with the incident. In this case, two very experienced pilots dealing with an issue brought about by a wide range of factors some which related to the pilots themselves.

I fully agree that we need to continue to build pilot training and performance standards in Australia. Possibly, the first step is the experienced assisting these less experienced for the greater good. I am sure that's what most are doing as to do otherwise would be unforgiveable.

Your discussion on training has now moved to the topic about who pays for it.

the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.

I am not too sure what you mean as even an 'experienced aviator' may incur individual cost in gaining a position in some airlines. You would need to do a cost analysis (including social and opportunity costs) to see if someone working in a single pilot, single engine, VFR aircraft beyond the black stump is more economically effective than someone taking the more contemporary pathway. However, is it really a 'contemporary pathway' as many airlines including Qantas have had cadet schemes off and on for many years. Either way, your point is valid that the airlines want someone who is trained and doesn't want to pay for it. The Air Force used to be good to plunder but in most cases they earn too much these days so companies like Rex are an excellent resource pool.

Meanwhile, Jabiman enjoy the old folks home and your memories of the days of glory and importance long since past in an industry that continues to evolve to something that looks so much different to 'the good old days'.:(

Frank x x x

Jabiman
29th Nov 2010, 07:06
Hi FB,
Good to see you are no longer so cranky.
Your reference though to the experience of the pilots in A320 incident is disingenuous. Since the incident took place in 2007, most flights would have had experienced crews as the Jetstar cadet program had yet to even begin. And to say that the pilots were either GA or military is also disingenuous as this would have applied to most crews. But the point is that since this could happen to even an experienced crew, what would happen to an inexperienced one?

Even the recent Qantas A380 incident would have no doubt resulted in disaster if it had a less experienced crew. What we should be trying to avoid is the attempt by the airlines to crew planes with pilots who have the lowest regulated experience and on the lowest T & C’s that they can negotiate. I wont even mention off shoring of maintenance as this is a whole other debate suffice it to say that pilots MAY have to shoulder the effects of more cost cutting.

I also disagree that this Brave New World that you advocate is inevitable or even desirable. Australia is lucky to be one of the most extensive GA industries in the world, second only to the USA. We should be nurturing and making use of it rather than becoming just like everybody else.

Be under no illusion that the perception of the general public is that pilots are a highly paid profession and the airlines are using this to great effect in their campaign against them. Since CASA is effectively neutral in these matters then it would appear that the senate enquiry may not result in anything concrete and no one outside of the industry will really care.

What I advocate though is something which consumer groups and the general public would support since it is effectively empowering them. By forcing airlines to disclose the experience level of the crews on their rostered flights, it gives the travelling public a choice to pay more for an experienced pilot if they choose. It also gives the airlines an incentive to hire experienced pilots rather than just the ones merely willing to work for the lowest T&C’s.

Frank Burden
29th Nov 2010, 11:16
Dearest Jabiman,

It is so hard to remain cranky with someone who argues one point and then changes the argument in the next breathe.

I suspect that you masquerade as an opportune poster on PPRuNe but you have strong allegiances to another acronym that starts with A and finishes with A because they wanted to copy AOPA but had to make a small change not to infringe their copyright.

You need to realise that GA rather than being a breeding ground for future high capacity airline pilots is fast becoming a swamp of under qualified and under educated but dedicated young and energetic Australians.

I have no argument with you that professional aviators should be remunerated appropriately. The Nov 5, 2010 QF32 pilots deserve much more that the Qantas CEO will get in the next decade. However, the reality is much different as like in World War 2 only the people with the power (the pilots then but now the CEOs and CFOs) get the gongs.

With regard your views on airlines using the experience of the flight crew as a selling point, all I can say is that the supper in the old folks home of hot chocolate and SAO biscuits and cheese will be along shortly.

Rest peacefully my dear man and don't give any thought to the fact that you are yesterday's man.:zzz:

But I must say once again, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

max1
29th Nov 2010, 21:59
I suspect that CASA will provide training oversight to cadets employed by Jetstar, not the DGCA. Can you see the difference?

Is this supposed to reassure me?

Roller Merlin
29th Nov 2010, 22:20
Rang the Senate Enquiry line the other day. They 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!

Jabiman
29th Nov 2010, 22:40
Hi Frank,
When i read your post I laughed so hard that my false teeth almost fell out!
I have set up a thread about this in the SLF section of the forums to guage the thoughts of the travelling public.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/435308-pilot-experience-passenger-choice.html#post6091905

Crew rest.
3rd Dec 2010, 03:43
This is a few years old, but interesting none the less:

YouTube - Australia's Pilot Shortage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlNjUwhU76c&feature=related)

Jabiman
3rd Dec 2010, 09:14
I tried to argue the point about experienced GA pilots being better than novice cadet pilots on the 'passengers and slf' section of the forums. Most of the respondants seemed to be European based but they were overwhelmingly convinced and argued that a trainee cadet pilot sitting in as FO was as good as a GA pilot with hundreds of hours in his logbook.
Despite the thread only running 3 days and me being able to counter every argument that they put forward, the thread was closed by the moderator.

I am now starting to think that we in Oz might be pushing sh*t uphill and cadet pilots in the RHS are the way of the future.

Roller Merlin
3rd Dec 2010, 12:55
Jabiman

Main differences between European and Australian operations that make cadets in the RHS of a LCC jet more risky in Oz:

Lack of Radar and ATC coverage in areas of operation (eg: Tassie, Ballina, Sunshine Coast ...etc)
Lack of ILS and approach procedures except major airports
Operations to short and thin runways
Poor regulations covering the issue

Cadet systems can obviously be made to work when operations use smaller regional turboprops that slow up quickly and need little energy management, or in Europe where there is full ATC/radar and using ILS everytime. But on more complex jets operating into smaller strips on visual approaches and NPAs a cadet program would need to be funded and supported with costly levels of high supervision and observing in higher risk Australian operations. Myself and most others I speak with believe that these risk mitigation measures will be viewed as expensive and many will ultimately fall by the wayside for JQ as a cost-cutting-focused LCC. Also Manila-based crewing is likely to eventually pair up crews regardless to make the schedule. Yet again the overloaded PIC will be left as the final defense in the accident chain. These are the the main points of concern.

scam sniffer
3rd Dec 2010, 15:01
Roller Merlin

I have sat on the sideline bemused for some time now. Your post really takes the cake.

Let me preface with the comment that I do not see an overwhelming need for a cadet system in Oz, given the considerable number of GA and military pilots available to the airlines.

That said, it is my view that the emphasis of the argument is in the wrong area. It is not a safety issue as much as it is a social equity issue. Australian airlines should be employing suitable pilots on Australian conditions to operate in Australia. If they wish to set up an overseas operation, fine. But they should be prohibited from using those overseas crew to man what are essentially domestic operations. The regulator is complicit if they allow this to happen.

Your assertion that Aus conditions are somehow more onerous than those experienced OS is just laughable. Try 350 hour ex cadets in the RHS of an MD80, F100, 737 or similar, running shorthaul in and out of military and civil aerodromes in weather you can only dream of. PAR and ASR approaches to minima on to 2000m (non grooved)runways in snow sleet and ice. Or perhaps the ARC to LLZ/DME approach (round dials not glass)to the minima passing over terrain that sets off the GPWS, and viz on the minima. 600ft circling approaches at night in hilly terrain and black holes. Use the hospital as a marker because you will lose sight of the runway end due to the big hill between you and the threshold.

I have the T shirt. The ex cadets did a really good job. Procedurally spot on, and most handled the aircraft well. A few initially had issues close to the ground, but just a few.

The people who kill passengers are invarialy relatively low time LHS, or those with "know it all" CRM issues.

The low time RHS be he GA, cadet or military, is not the problem. The problem is a lack of regulation that allows inappropriate pairing of crews.

I would much rather be down the back with a seasoned LHS taking a newbie RHS than to be behind a lowtime combination in the front.

In days gone by the 10-15 years spent in the RHS gave a great basis for a safe career. Sadly that does not still occur, and we are seeing the result. Low time wunderkind barely out of school in the LHS paired with a low time RHS. Disaster in the making.

If there is to be an hours limitation imposed, I suggest it would be more appropriate to apply something like a 6000 hour combined total time in a two pilot cockpit, and a supervised training certification for anyone sitting with a RHS less than 1000.

SS

Jabiman
5th Dec 2010, 10:05
Found this interesting website re US pilot issues:
The Ugly - The Truth About the Profession (http://thetruthabouttheprofession.weebly.com/the-ugly.html)


Flags of Convenience/Cabotage
This is one of the largest threats to the airline pilot profession in my opinion, and may ultimately relegate the U.S. airline industry to the fate of the U.S. cruise ship industry and merchant marine. If this were to happen- and make no mistake, the airline industry wants this to happen- there would be no point in pursuing an airline pilot career in the U.S.

Let me give you some background.....Have you ever been on a cruise? If you have, you most certainly would have noticed a few things. One, there weren't many Americans working on that ship and two, the ship you were on wasn't a U.S. flagged ship. Why, do you ask? The cruise lines are typically "American" companies, aren't they? Certainly they would be regulated by U.S. law and hire American employees? It's pretty simple. Why should major U.S. cruise lines deal with all those pesky U.S. laws concerning labor and maritime regulation when you can flag your ship in Liberia and deal with the much more friendly and less regulated Liberian government? And that's exactly what the cruise ship industry does- they flag their ships in countries of convenience and follow that country's much less restrictive labor and maritime laws. But what does this have to do with the U.S. airline industry?

Airline CEOs would want nothing more than to take their airlines, "flag" them in a 2nd or 3rd world nation, and hire foreign nationals from those countries (and others) to fly, operate, and maintain their airplanes. Certainly an Indonesian pilot could live on $20,000 a year......and probably less! Why pay a U.S. flight attendant $30,000/year when a Lithuanian flight attednant will work for $10,000/year? Why pay a U.S. A&P mechanic $60,000 a year when a Chinese one will work for $25,000 a year! See where I'm going with this?

Currently, there are laws concerning cabotage and foreign ownership that prevent this from happening. However, right now the airline industry is fighting to loosen foreign ownership of U.S. airlines and cabotage rules. This would be the beginning of the end to this industry as far as U.S. citizens are concerned, just like it was for the U.S. maritime industry. Yes, it will be great for consumers because airline tickets will be cheaper, but not so good if you hope to make a living as an airline pilot.

Narrow Profit Margins....and Labor is an Airline's Largest Controllable Cost!
The vast majority of companies that make up the U.S. airline industry are not like other "normal" companies in the U.S. Airlines operate on extremely, and I mean extremely, narrow profit margins. A net profit margin of 1% is a good year for most airlines, whereas healthy companies in other industries on average earn margins 5 times higher! The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this narrative, but the narrow margins that airlines earn, and the fact that the airline industry is extremely volatile due to these virtually nonexistent profits, means that the ills of the industry get taken out on you, the employee pilot.

Why you, the pilot? Well, because labor is an airline's highest controllable cost. And of the airline's labor costs, you, the pilot, as a highly trained professional, are their highest earning employees. So who do you think airline management goes to FIRST when it's time to tighten the airline's belt? You, the pilot!

So what does this mean to you? It means that every time the U.S. economy sneezes, the airlines catch a cold. It means that when your company does catch that cold, through no fault of your own, you as an airline employee pilot will be expected to "cough up" some dough to help your airline through it's difficult economic times- which will happen often, trust me. Airline management knows that you can't go anywhere (see "handcuffed" above), and they know that you know that you'll have to start over at another airline at the bottom rung, so you don't want your existing airline to fail. Therefore, it's likely your airline's management will come to visit the pilot group, hat in hand, first. And more than likely, you will give.

Another way this manifests itself is with new, domestic airlines. It's very difficult for a new airline to make it in this dog-eat-dog industry. The management teams at these upstart airlines know there even during good economic times, there is a persistent, large oversupply of pilots available for employment in the U.S. So when they start a new airline, what do they do? They take their largest controllable cost (labor) and cut it to the bone! They offer extremely low wages, sometimes 50% below the "going rate" in the industry. They then use those low wages to undercut the competition in an attempt to steal market share. This has a tendency to drag down wages at other airlines, and the downward spiral in airline pilot wages, benefits, and working conditions deteriorate. The advent of the "low cost airline" that we have seen over the past decade have been wonderful for consumers, as they have driven down average airfares. Unfortunately, they haven't been so good to the airline pilot profession. Decades of hard fought gains on behalf of the profession have eroded over the years, and with yet another new generation of "low cost carriers" starting operations in recent years, the downward pressure on wages, benefits, and quality of life will probably continue.

teresa green
5th Dec 2010, 10:44
Going thru my log book, as a [email protected] captain, I checked out 49 F/O's and 80 Captains. Does this give me some creadence? Give me every time a GA pilot or a RAAF pilot (providing he is not the ace of the base) Do NOT give me a cadet pilot whose daddy flew with Ansett. Yes, I come from the old school, yes I believe a pilot must earn their wings bush bashing, (and scaring the shi% out of themselves on more than one occasion,) do I believe in Airmanship, you betcha. Looking at the A380, what did we have? A PIC from the RAAF, a F/O and S/O from GA, (as I understood it) two [email protected] Captains Both GA, ( as I heard it) (please correct me if incorrect) five people who worked together, confronted with confusing information, a serious situation, and a shitload of problems. Experience, airmanship, and faith in each others ability, got her home safely, and a I cannot heap enough praise on these pilots. No Sim, is ever going to load this much crap on you, only experience will, and ALL of you will face at some time of your career, a potential disaster, regardless of which airline you fly. Twenty five thousand hours later, and to my very last flight, I never once trusted the bastards, and always remembered my old flying instructors advise, "dont be suprised when they don't take off, be surprised when they do" For my entire career, it kept me in good stead. For all of that, there is no better career for those who cannot think of doing anything else, getting paid for doing something you love, was always amazing to me, and probably to you, safe flying all of you.

scam sniffer
5th Dec 2010, 21:27
Teresa

I couldn't agree more.

The point I was attempting to make was that in this case, a social equity issue is being fought on fallacious safety grounds. Yes I too would prefer to have those guys you have mentioned. However in many parts of the world, as you well know, that supply of experienced guys is not available. The alternative is made to work, and it succeeds.

To fight this disgraceful behaviour, of the company, on grounds of safety is in my view inaccurate and is demonstrably so. It is only a matter of time before someone trots out statistics that will in all probability exonerate the inexperienced RHS, and place blame on inexperienced LHS coupled with poor training an AND a low time RHS. To base an argument on perceptions that may be demonstrated to be incorrect is fraught with danger.

Stick to what can be defended. This is more of a social/industrial issue than a safety issue. Australian jobs, Australian conditions, and immigration/industrial laws to protect Australian employees.

As one who has been checked by you, (F/O annual line check), I acknowledge your credibility. However I believe you are fighting with emotion rather than reason.

( And BTW I still think being critical of someones flight plan (because of a crossout and overwrite), is a bit rich from someone with your illegible handwriting. Thankgoodness for CFP's and wordprocessors);)

SS

atminimums
5th Dec 2010, 23:02
Amazingly well written article, a comprehensive summary of the trends of the industry within this country.

As a student with an education background in both aviation and business and intending to embark on a career behind the scenes within this dynamic industry, I dare say that an article like this is just as important as any lecture or tutorial.

Hopefully it is read by most of those who currently have a hand in airline management, although my feeling is that, by most, it will simply be skimmed over and put into the backlog.

mins :cool: