Jetstar pilots fatigued? [Archive]

Lookleft

19th Apr 2012, 13:45

To say the Captain left of his own accord is like saying Rudd stepped down because he thought Julia could do a better job than he could.
The Captain basically failed in his duty to monitor the other pilot who was PF. The report also states that the Captain's response to the aircraft not being stable was to put the gear down and apply forward pressure on the side stick! The F/Os reason for disconnecting the A/P was flawed and both pilots could have taken the opportunity for controlled rest on the way from DN if they were feeling tired. Blaming it on fatigue is a bit rich as they both agreed to fly it back to DN on what was the worst part of the duty, the BOC part.

The incident occurred because of a complete breakdown in crew co-ordination. Who is responsible for that? Ultimately its the bloke who is wearing the four bars. Some people like the paycheck without the responsibility. As it has been stated many times those who think CRM is a load of PC crap are the ones who need it most.

Certainly not one of Jetstar's finest hours but they have to work with what they inherited.

pakeha-boy

19th Apr 2012, 15:23

the checklists .......Before start Checklist...and the...Decent and Approach.....and...Landing Checklists...........will now include.......

Phones off.......PF/PNF......PHONE OFF-CHECKED

scrubba

19th Apr 2012, 16:55

Lookleft,

Certainly not one of Jetstar's finest hours but they have to work with what they inherited.

Spare me......

framer

19th Apr 2012, 20:23

What do you mean by "work with what they inherited"?

Keg

19th Apr 2012, 21:28

the checklists .......Before start Checklist...and the...Decent and Approach.....and...Landing Checklists...........will now include.......

Phones off.......PF/PNF......PHONE OFF-CHECKED

The grape vine suggests that Lufthansa has such an item in their before start check list. :ok:

trashie

19th Apr 2012, 22:26

Makes a mockery of telling the pax to turn off their mobile phones due to possible interference with the avionics. Do as I say not as I do!!!

What ever happened to the sterile cockpit policy during safety critical activities. Shouldn't we learn from accidents such as the Buffulo Dash 8?
:\

Lookleft

19th Apr 2012, 23:29

The Before Start Chx now include turning the mobile phone off. As to working with what they inherited I can see the hackles rising on those who are at the top end of the seniority list. The best of that group that I have worked with were the young guys who were enthusiastic and put a lot of effort into getting their command.

Then there are the people who only got to fly a jet because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. The pilots for whom wearing four bars only meant they got paid more and didn't have to put in any effort. Look at the report again and assess where were the command skills demonstrated during this incident.

If you look at the high profile Jetstar incidents look at the background of the Captains. Look at the pilots in the bottom 5% some of whom seem to where it as a badge of honour! Like I said its not the young pilots (although even the youngest of that group are now in their thirties) it tends to be the older one's.

framer

19th Apr 2012, 23:42

Sorry I'm still not sure what you mean. DO you mean that there was quick promotion to command a while back and as a result the company has inherited a group of poor performing Captains? I don't fly for Jetstar so I am not familiar with the demographics you speak of. I have just read the report and agree that there was very little "Command" of the flight during the approach phase.

The FO reported going to sleep at about 0130 on the morning of the occurrence and being woken by a phone call from housekeeping at about 0430. He had dozed until getting up at 0630 to go for a jog and did not get any other sleep prior to crew sign on at 1315.

So he got a call from housekeeping at 0430 resulting in an initial 3hrs of sleep uninterupted, then only dozed for 2 more hours prior to getting up. Five hours total sleep with two hours of that dozing. If that is not enough to then do a Singapore return duty, what options were open to the F/O as far as reporting not fit for duty? How would the company have dealt with it if he had reported unfit to fly due to not being able to get enough sleep during the rest period?

Both pilots reported having attended fatigue risk management training and felt satisfied that they were able to judge their own level of fatigue and fitness in respect of being able to perform their duties.

My bold there. With the wealth of research data available reporting that one of the effects of fatigue is an inability to judge your own level of fatigue, does the ATSB really sanction such statements?

CaptCloudbuster

19th Apr 2012, 23:57

Framer, why the histrionics? I see you are in SYD. Anyone in this game over the last 10 years know what "work with what they inherited" means.

Looks like you do too from your succinct summation:confused:

framer

20th Apr 2012, 00:11

I've had a wee look at the jetstar website for flight time and if we assume a one hour sign on period and a one hour turn around time in Singapore, then the F/O would have been awake for 18 hours when approaching to land in Darwin on the second sector. Nine of those hours would have been spent with a cabin altitude of about 7000ft, and 11.6 of those hours working (not including catching the crew bus to and from hotels).
Can we really expect sharp performance in an emergency situation after being awake for 18 hours after 5 hours of broken sleep? I'm not saying we can't, but I'd like to hear what other pilots think keeping in mind that this isn't an operation where the crew can retire to crew rest for a power nap.
Another thought; If 0630 is this guys standard rising time and he did that the day before as well, he would have had a total of five hours sleep in a period of 42 hours. 17.6 of those 42 hours would have been at work.
I think pilots should make every effort to manage their down time in order to be well rested, but if you haven't managed it (wife, kids, bank manager, next door neighbours etc etc etc), how is it recieved by the company if you call unfit for duty?

framer

20th Apr 2012, 00:24

Hi CCloudbuster,
Sadly, I had to look up the definition of histrionics:O The good news is that now I have a slightly better vocab than I did five minutes ago.
I'm not using exaggerated emotional behavior calculated for effect. Sorry if it came across that way. I am genuinely interested in how a lack of sleep affects a pilots ability to scan the instruments (personal experience) and also how it affects a pilots attitude to situations as they unfold (personal experience).
I am origionally from Sydney but am now in SE Asia (not Jetstar) and do spend quite a bit of time back in Sydney, but I don't know what is meant by "work with what they inherited" . Was I close to the mark?
Cheers, Framer

FYSTI

20th Apr 2012, 00:46

I think pilots should make every effort to manage their down time in order to be well rested, but if you haven't managed it (wife, kids, bank manager, next door neighbours etc etc etc), how is it recieved by the company if you call unfit for duty?

Framer, I think that's the point. Flight & Duty time limits appear to have absolutely no scientific basis to their construction & they assume the "perfect pilot" who can immediately walk in the door, hang up the uniform & gain 8 hours sleep & then be ready for duty.

However the real world is completely different. FRMS is now a "shared responsibility", where pilots may not have input into pattern & roster construction to minimise fatigue, yet have a joint responsibility to NOT operate when they may be fatigued. This sound like a whole heap of ass covering by management for "business as usual" until something goes wrong, because the ultimate responsibility rests with the pilot.

Shared responsibility is going to require shared input. Until that moment arrives it is just lip service. In answer to your question, fatigue is still a huge problem for this industry. As it currently stands, FRMS is a big free pass to management. When ever you allow someone to avoid losses, yet take claim the profit, ultimately they will abused it to (save)make a buck.

bigwatch

20th Apr 2012, 01:17

I don't post here much, but please, stop the BS. :ugh:

There are airlines around the world that have been doing back of the clock flying for decades and they manage to get it right. Sure, it may have been a factor, but let's not beat around the bush.

Playing with a phone on finals... elephant in the room.... who was flying and monitoring the aircraft?? :eek:

This is not general aviation we're talking about here. There are hundreds of people's lives at risk.

If you don't want to be a professional pilot and want to put someone's lives at risk go and fly a light aircraft without any passengers and get a job flipping burgers somewhere. Otherwise step up to the mark and take the responsibility that comes with the gig. :=

BW.

framer

20th Apr 2012, 01:33

Nice first post Big Watch.
Sure, it may have been a factor, but let's not beat around the bush.

I agree that the elephant in the room was the phone and the way that that distraction was
1/ allowed to happen
2/ dealt with when it did happen

But that doesn't mean we can't learn something from each other by diuscussing other things in the ATSB report;
ie

The first officer’s decision making was probably affected by fatigue

If we never went deeper than "The Captain played with his phone on finals, naughty boy....case closed" we would miss many oportunities to make the industry safer...don't you think?

Trevor the lover

20th Apr 2012, 01:39

Hey Scrubba, I feel you are being a bit naive concerning Lookleft's post.

Lookleft has basically stated that a Captain's responsibilities go beyond collecting the paycheck and aspects of that night's performance were severely flawed.

As pilots we cannot cite fatigue as a reason/excuse for a stuff up on sector 1, and then blast off and fly sector number 2. Doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

The caveat on that though is a VERY BIG caveat. We all know that in JQ, citing fatigue or insufficient rest does not go down well when pulling out of a duty. You may get away with it once or twice - but in the end, companys like this feel that their responsibility ends with "providing opportunity for adequate rest." ie CAO 48 approved rest times. What is ignored totally and what is not accepted, is the reality of disturbed rest or the reality of simply finding it difficult to adjust sleep patterns on rosters that do not consider circadian disrythmia and all the science of sleep studies.

Should never have flown that second sector (or probably even the first).

Jetstar management - start trusting your aircrews, if they say they are are not adequately rested or are fatigued, believe them and make provisions for still getting the passengers safely where they have paid to go. Cut the punitive and childish retribution against crews just trying to take their responsibilities seriously.

BD1959

20th Apr 2012, 01:40

This is not general aviation we're talking about here.

In my little Warrior, phones are OFF. Even on a 3ME, I will ask the Examining/Instructor if they've turned their phone off. I'm paying them to review my performance - I'm not paying them to distract me by texting on final.

Passengers are far easier to deal with than some "professionals".

Regards,

BD

Lookleft

20th Apr 2012, 01:50

Framer this sector had been operated many times by pilots who would have experienced similar disrupted sleep patterns yet managed to get to and from Singapore. This was not an emergency situation but a routine operation which became a problem when the PIC did not do his job or accept his responsibility. There is no mention of the PIC being fatigued. In fact if he was doing his job properly he would have been monitoring the F/Os performance throughout the flight. It was not suggested in the report that the F/O felt pressured to fly home but that he took two controlled rest breaks.

As to my statement regarding "what they inherited" you answered your own question earlier in the thread.

Ex Douglas Driver

20th Apr 2012, 01:52

There seems to be quite a disconnect between the ATSB's summary (and what is subsequently reported to the press), and the "contributing safety factors" within the report.

Summary
The aircraft was not in the correct landing configuration by 500 ft height above the aerodrome and, as required by the operator's procedures in the case of an unstable approach, the crew carried out a missed approach.

Report
The flight crew continued the approach despite not being able to satisfy the operator’s stabilised approach criteria prior to the stipulated 500 ft in visual meteorological conditions.

...commencement of the go-around, at 392 ft. Both crew stated that they were unaware of the minimum height reached before the aircraft climbed, but believed that they initiated the go-around just below 800 ft RADALT.

The summary and reporting in the press seems to suggest that they had sufficient situational awareness to realise that the approach was unstable and had anticipated the go around. It would seem to me that the trigger to initiate the missed approach was the GPWS warning.

bigwatch

20th Apr 2012, 02:15

Hi Framer - I'm glad you you liked my first post:}. I've been a lurker here for years, but have never bothered posting.

I understand the Reason Model/swiss cheese model, factors that occur in incidents/accidents, and all the other stuff that goes with it. I understand that we can make the industry safer by looking at the whole incident, company health, and commercial pressures. I understand threat and error management and risk assessment. I've spent long enough in this industry in a number of roles to have a pretty good understanding of all those things.

But that does not excuse poor airmanship or unprofessional behaviour. If I ever have a FO on my flight pull out a mobile phone on descent and use it then he'll be paxing the next sector home.

If, as a crewmember, you are fatigued, then part of our professional duty is to not go flying. Similarly, getting sufficient rest before you go flying is part of that responsibility.

Can we change systems to provide some form of protection against fatigue? Certainly, but the onus will always come back to a crewmembers decision to not go flying if they are fatigued as everyone has different ways of dealing with fatigue (there is not a one size fits all solution).

It is up to us as professional aviators to set the standards that we will accept and not accept, and that is an issue here that is often lost. We, as aircrew, are one of the final filters in the safety of flight, and there will always be unintentional errors made, with consequences that occur, but to shy away from the basic premise of flying the aircraft is and the responsibilities that entails is, to put it bluntly, a cop out.

BD: I did not mean to degrade general aviation, and I hope you did not take it that way. In many respects, it is a harder and more dangerous job than flying a RPT jet. My point was more to say, if you can't do the job professionally, then don't; or at least don't take up passengers that have placed their trust in you or paid for you to do your job. It is obvious from your post that you understand and accept the responsibility of holding a pilot's licence, but unfortunately it would seem that not everyone else does.

Cheers,
BW

framer

20th Apr 2012, 02:20

Framer this sector had been operated many times by pilots who would have experienced similar disrupted sleep patterns yet managed to get to and from Singapore.
The fact that many crews have done it before doesn't mean the next flight will also end well. It actually has no bearing on it whatsoever.
I'm not suggesting that the duty is inherently unsafe or fatiguing if the individuals operating it have success in managing their sleep leading up to the duty and on the overnight itself. I am more angling towards how the situation is dealt with by operations/management when someone isn't successful in getting the required sleep.
This was not an emergency situation
I understand that also, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was. What I was getting at is that by the time they were on approach into Darwin at the end of the second sector the F/O had been awake for 18 hours. If they had had an emergency at that stage (ie unreliable airspeed or engine fire or similar), would he have been in good enough shape to deal with it given that he had been up for 18 hours on 5 hours disrupted sleep?
An 11.6 hour duty can be very taxing, are we doing enough to ensure the pilots starting these duties will be ok at the end of them?

2p!ssed2drive

20th Apr 2012, 02:23

My take on it is that there is a stigma in the industry these days with the advent of the low cost carrier.
As what was already stated - I agree that nothing takes away the PIC's responsibility to the hundreds of pax sitting in the back (it could be my wife and kids?) - however.. In my time what I've seen is captains taking on the attitude that management has towards them, and applying it to their flying.
It shouldn't happen but it does

framer

20th Apr 2012, 02:35

It is up to us as professional aviators to set the standards that we will accept and not accept, and that is an issue here that is often lost.
Spot on Big W :) That is why I am asking questions of my fellow aviators such as are we doing enough to ensure the pilots starting these duties will be ok at the end of them? and
Can we really expect sharp performance in an emergency situation after being awake for 18 hours after 5 hours of broken sleep?
and
With the wealth of research data available reporting that one of the effects of fatigue is an inability to judge your own level of fatigue, does the ATSB really sanction such statements?

But that does not excuse poor airmanship or unprofessional behaviour. If I ever have a FO on my flight pull out a mobile phone on descent and use it then he'll be paxing the next sector home.

I agree. And I imagine that the command vacuum that existed during the last 3000ft of the incident flight wouldn't occur if you were in the left seat. However,just because there are salient causes doen't mean fatigue and rostering practices played no role. I can see the other causes clearly but that doesn't mean it is folly (or BS to use your terminology) to chip away publicly at the idea that FRMS is doing it's job.
Cheers.

theheadmaster

20th Apr 2012, 02:40

There are airlines around the world that have been doing back of the clock flying for decades and they manage to get it right. Sure, it may have been a factor, but let's not beat around the bush.

Would these be the 'legacy carriers', who's crew enjoy 'unsustainable conditions'? ;)

Mstr Caution

20th Apr 2012, 03:12

My kids in their early teens attend school, go to the movies & sit at the table for a meal & ensure their phones are off.

They don't need a checklist to alert them to common sense.

Very interesting the ATSB "FINAL" report, I'm sure the FO is relatively relieved it wasn't fully investigated "in house"

MC :}

FYSTI

20th Apr 2012, 03:22

Bingo Headmaster.

gerago

20th Apr 2012, 03:33

In fact if he was doing his job properly he would have been monitoring the F/Os performance throughout the flight. It was not suggested in the report that the F/O felt pressured to fly home but that he took two controlled rest breaks.

Australian F/Os are so so good that they don't need monitoring, PIC was so cocksure that he had a top notch ace in the right hand seat.

Makes a mockery of telling the pax to turn off their mobile phones due to possible interference with the avionics. Do as I say not as I do!!!

Hey, ATC communication in Asia can get quite bad, so the Captain might have been trying to communicate with SIN tower through the mobile, maybe using text messaging?

There are so many mitigating factors on top of the one regarding fatigue.

scardycap

20th Apr 2012, 03:47

Where's the landing gear indication in an A320? Report states the F/O scanned the cockpit knowing something wasn't right but couldn't identify the problem?

Mstr Caution

20th Apr 2012, 04:19

Jetstar report is reason to inquire into CASA and carrier | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/20/jetstar-report-is-reason-to-inquire-into-casa-and-carrier/?wpmp_switcher=mobile)

As usual. It seems Ben Sandilands is the only one in the media not duped by airline media releases.

Mstr Caution

20th Apr 2012, 04:37

Pilot 'texting during landing' | smh.com.au (http://m.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/pilot-texting-during-landing-20100611-y3l8.html)

In the initial response from Jetstar. The airline is quoted as saying both pilots are still flying.

In the interest of safety at the time & under the umbrella of a Just Culture. Wouldn't it have been prudent to withhold from service the pilots till an initial investigation was instigated?

It seems the comments by Jetstar at the time, mislead the traveling public to believe that there were no safety issues.

If I had £*~}Ed up. I would expect any descent safety management system would see me councelled, re trained, cleared, sacked or otherwise before allowing me to strap my backside to one of their jets again and launch.

bigwatch

20th Apr 2012, 05:34

Would these be the 'legacy carriers', who's crew enjoy 'unsustainable conditions'? ;)Most likely, as most non-legacy carriers have not been around for decades...;)

In any case there are many legacy (and non-legacy) carriers out there that have done back of the clock flying. Landing after a 16+ hour TOD and crossing multiple time zones, even with time off in the bunk and relief crews in good weather is tough. In my experience, long haul pilots are always fatigued to some extent, and it is simply a matter of managing it as best you can (and knowing your limits).

Perhaps this type of issue never happened in the past because mobile phones did not really come into play until the last decade :confused:... or maybe it was most guys up the front were doing what they were meant to... flying the aircraft - that would be called prioritizing.

What's that saying?

Aviate, navigate, communicate. Even if you consider the texting communicating he got it wrong...

There are a lot of issues in this incident, and fatigue was only a small part of it.

Let me ask you this - what would have happened if the Captain had been incapacitated in this incident and there had been other factors at play?? It would seem from an initial analysis that the FO was pretty much overloaded with a reasonably standard approach before he flew the return leg.

What if this had happened at the other end, on the return trip when fatigue had really set in??

You can start wherever you want, but situational awareness was lost here in fairly standard conditions. That flags possible training issues to me. How about following standard procedures - what about the sterile flight deck period - if you're going to break that rule, what other ones are you going be let slip through?

There are so many issues to talk about, and we are seeing it happen time and time again. The problem is it's going to take a royal commission before it gets fixed. And that is the real worry.

BW.

PPRuNeUser0198

20th Apr 2012, 05:56

Jetstar release here. (https://jen.jetstar.com/home/MediaReleases/120419-JetstarstatementJQ57.pdf)

Ollie Onion

20th Apr 2012, 06:41

They are both still flying, just not necessarily for Jetstar :eek:

hoofie

20th Apr 2012, 06:47

One small comment from a civvie who has a strong interest in Aviation Safety etc [don't we all ?]

This in one incident that really scares me - it really smacks of a serious lack of appropriate care and attention on the flightdeck. I would expect to read something like this regarding Indonesia or some other part of the world with questionably enforced standards of training and oversight but an Australian Aircraft flying for an Australian Airline with [I presume but could be wrong] Australian pilots ?

The media response from JetStar is media puffery at its finest, secure in the knowledge the proles won't pick up on this one.

To this relatively-uninformed observer the holes in the cheese are lining up more and more frequently and a lost-cost Australian carrier hull loss is inevitable, rather than just possible.

Yet another reason I insist myself and my family fly a full-service carrier but enough now I'm starting to doubt that one also.

Jack Ranga

20th Apr 2012, 07:43

My name is Jack..................... and I'm alright, you know why? Because my family and I don't fly low cost carriers either domestic or international.

It costs me a bit more (yes, it really is only a bit more), happy to pay it. Wont fly with carriers who treat their staff like sh!t either.

You take some chances in life, you can't eliminate all risk but these farkers wont be taking me out in Australia's first jet hull loss :cool:

Jack Ranga

20th Apr 2012, 07:46

This in one incident that really scares me

Hoofie, this ain't just one incident, there are many, many more just like it from this mob, tell ya friends, tell anybody who'll listen.

Ollie Onion

20th Apr 2012, 10:16

Good lord Jack, won't fly with low cost carriers OR airlines that treat their staff badly. In Australia that pretty much excludes everyone with the exception maybe of Virgin. As for the rest of the world it just about includes all airlines in this day and age.

Sonny Hammond

20th Apr 2012, 11:08

Is this really about fatigue? C'mon, no-ones buying that are they?

I'm not saying fatigue isn't an issue, it is for all airline pilots these days and as stated above, long haulers are constantly fatigued, it's part of our job and we are responsible to manage as we see fit. Whether management like it or not.

We can't, though, blame all our shortfalls on fatigue if we expect to maintain credibility.

These guys blew it big time and they aren't the only orange star guys to in recent times, a trend has developed.

V-Jet

20th Apr 2012, 12:00

These guys blew it big time and they aren't the only orange star guys to in recent times, a trend has developed.

Very true. When pilots screw up (Maybe the Cpt had the Co freq in the notes in his PDA/iPhone/BB?) it gets headlines.

When the idiots running the joint screw up they pass it off through their media arm as 'best practice' and haul in a massive bonus...

It is bull**** - the whole lot of it. Once again the idiotic management gets away.

And I am NO fan of Geoffstar. But these guys read like 'patsy' to me...

Jack Ranga

20th Apr 2012, 12:04

In Australia that pretty much excludes everyone with the exception maybe of Virgin

Well, there ya go...............;)

Beg Tibs

20th Apr 2012, 12:48

Toughen up princesses !

Sonny Hammond

20th Apr 2012, 13:19

True that.

It is all bull****, it's barely about flying aeroplanes at all anymore.
To top it off, the office muppets are seemly bulletproof.

You imagine this type of thing going on 30 years ago? What would the reaction of the management back then? Keep in mind that the CEO was probably a pilot back then.

No bull**** excuses accepted in those days.

2Plus

20th Apr 2012, 13:24

Toughen up princesses !

Can't believe that took 57 posts! :O

Toruk Macto

20th Apr 2012, 13:55

It will be on the before start checklist soon.

Mobile phone .................................. Off / flight mode

Mstr Caution

20th Apr 2012, 14:32

You imagine this type of thing going on 30 years ago? What would the reaction of the management back then?

Problem with aviation these days is it's all about PRICE.

All parties involved will have their own price.

Passengers want cheap fares & accept risk if the price is right.

Pilots want a job straight out of training & fast promotion into the left seat of a shiny jet & accept terms & conditions less than previous industry norms to get it. This fast tracking of pilots, bypasses the previous industry practice of 10 to 12 years in the right hand seat. During that time, almost by osmosis the FO inherits professionalism & discipline from those in the left seat. It's a long mentoring process that takes time, money & patience. The company also has the opportunity to assess an individuals potential for command prior to setting them loose on a dark stormy night after a long tour of duty with a brand new FO to an overseas port with hundreds of people on board.

HR managers trim entry level experience to ensure forecasted numbers for recruitment requirements are met. Didn't Bruce Buchanan say pilots with more experience was actually a "BAD" thing. Buchanan also went to the extent of selling the cadetship as the opportunity for everyone to be able to be a pilot. Does that come from the same school of thought that anyone should be able to run an airline?

Chief Pilots will also accept reduced entry standards to keep the show on the road. Mates from Ansett have told me that MR wouldn't accept direct entry FO's with less than 3000 hours total flight time (including turbo prop time). But 250 hours in a cadet program is now acceptable? As long as there flying with the most experienced of the airlines Captains! Not that long ago, both pilots had to be proficient & experienced. Now the First Officers learning the ropes on the job at 8 miles per minute.

Hell, doesn't Ryanair even want to get rid of First Officers. What would have happened in Changi if it was a single pilot operation?

Middle managers trim training costs to ensure more shiny jets can fly more people further. The training is sent to external providers, cause they can provide it cheaper. After all these new jets fly themselves these days.

Executive Management want to increase their already excessive salaries & ensure KPI bonus all round. The "beanthiefs" will continue to drive down costs in an airline. Directing pilots to carry less fuel, work longer & more arduous tours of duty. Transfer flying to lower costs entities to save money, labelling experience as expensive. It's all about GROWTH. Unless there's more growth (at any cost) there's no shareholder increased value & no more gravy train. CEO's will go to great lengths, including shutting down their own airline to ensure objectives are met.

The vicious cycle WILL turn full circle, evidence is also on posts in the European threads. They are also watching the clock.

It's only a matter of time.

Tick Tock.

Mstr Caution

20th Apr 2012, 15:01

It will be on the before start checklist soon.

Mobile phone .................................. Off / flight mode

Toruk Macto,

How has this come about, is it a recommendation from Airbus, CASA or the ATSB?

Will it be industry wide?

Or is it a band aid solution by a flight operations department as a result of an inconvenient investigation & they have to be seen to be doing the right thing?

It's been such an important aspect to flight safety that it's taken two years since the incident to promulgate it & it will be happening "soon".

What next from Jetstar, a heavy landing into a setting sun & the inclusion of:

Sunglasses...................ON / AS REQUIRED

into the landing checklist.

Geragau

20th Apr 2012, 18:52

Pilots want a job straight out of training & fast promotion into the left seat of a shiny jet & accept terms & conditions less than previous industry norms to get it. This fast tracking of pilots, bypasses the previous industry practice of 10 to 12 years in the right hand seat. During that time, almost by osmosis the FO inherits professionalism & discipline from those in the left seat. It's a long mentoring process that takes time, money & patience. The company also has the opportunity to assess an individuals potential for command prior to setting them loose on a dark stormy night after a long tour of duty with a brand new FO to an overseas port with hundreds of people on board.

MC has got it absolutely spot on.:D:D:D

Keg

20th Apr 2012, 21:20

... but to suggest their pilots would be dumb enough to answer an SMS on short-final

Interesting. Nice bit of verballing there. From my understanding the Captain was trying to turn the phone off, not as you assert, trying to 'answer an SMS'. A very different thing. Did you do that deliberately to make your point? :=

joblogs

20th Apr 2012, 22:45

Read another of many articles in the paper yesterday "Due to being fatigued the fo disconected the auto pilot earlier than normal to help him with his tiredness" Dont quote me on the exact wording but to that effect.. Not sure if this is true from the atsb report..Apparent fatigue is one thing but to disconect the a/p earlier cant help the work load.

Thats what she said

20th Apr 2012, 23:46

"This fast tracking of pilots, bypasses the previous industry practice of 10 to 12 years in the right hand seat. During that time, almost by osmosis the FO inherits professionalism & discipline from those in the left seat".

Don't know who posted this, but what a load of rubbish.

So unless an F/O does his time in the right hand seat, just like the good old days, there is no way he should be promoted. That is ostensibly what is being said here.

Absolute rubbish. This is old world thinking in the extreme - no consideration of competency, only time in seat.

"During that time, almost by osmosis the FO inherits professionalism & discipline from those in the left seat"

The biggest bit of rubbish. I spent 14 years in the right seat before my initial jet command and I can tell you that I had to force myself NOT to inherit a good number of the traits I was exposed to as an F/O.

What rubbish.... and on a "professional" site for aviator's no less.

".....accept terms & conditions less than previous industry norms to get it".

Now I think we are at the root of the post..... Let's blame the new guys for the current conditions the industry now offers. More rubbish. :ugh:

Mstr Caution

21st Apr 2012, 02:45

TWSS - What I'm saying is yes an FO should spend time in the right seat. How much time? Enough time to experience first hand operational events that, should they occur again in the future. When that individual is then sitting in the left seat, they have the necessary skills to deal with that event. Of course all events won't be replicated on the line. That's where simulation comes in. Sim cylics & endorsement training will expose pilots to appropriate handling of non normals. However I believe that no amount of sim flying can replace experience gained on the line. They compliment each other.

I'm not saying pilots shouldn't be without sufficient time in the right seat. Of course pilots need to be competent, but they also need to be disciplined , professional & mature.

As you stated, you spent 14 years in the right seat. I'm sure you saw your fair share of bad as well as a hell of a lot of good traits demonstrated by Captains in the left seat. But it's this on line operational experience over a period of time that has allowed you to pick the best of the good traits & be cautious to look for others that demonstrate the bad.

I've spent near 30 years flying aircraft with no accidents, incidents, tea & bickies or shoulder taps from CASA. Nor have I ever failed a cyclic or promotional training. This isnt to demonstrate how big my $-ck is but to highlight if that isn't professionalism then what is?

I turn my phone off before flight planning & don't read newspapers in the flight deck. Some may view this as old school, but my near 30 years experience has taught me we are more likely to f;(k up if the crews mind is not on the job.

And no I don't blame the new guys. It goes much higher than that. I blame the boards of companies who are devoid of airline operational experience. Who by board approval agreed to reduce pilot entry level experience. I blame CEO's who have now accepted this reduction in experience as the new norm. Who have trimmed training to save a buck & defer that cost to the employee.

The new guys are simply the pawns. But hey. What would I know.

Thats what she said

21st Apr 2012, 04:24

Thanks MC

Reading your words above, qualifying your intent within the post that I initially referred to, indicates we are on the same page. I can find no reason to disagree with your last.

Cheers.

clear to land

21st Apr 2012, 05:24

Have to agree with John Citizen-sitting in the cruise far less chance of missing a radio call if reading rather than talking. Training flights a classic example of this as -in our company at least- there are far more radio calls missed during training flights than normal line ops. Try doing nothing for a 10 hr BoC 2 pilot sector, primarily over the non-English speaking world-and then tell me what that does to your SA in an already fatigued state. Same school of thought that says at night the cockpit lights should be dim-despite all fatigue research recommending brightness reduces fatigue. 30 mins required for dark adaptation-which is not really necessary when flying to an airport equipped with Approach Lights, and we don't normally worry about the night fighters homing in on the glow from the cockpit these days....

DrPepz

21st Apr 2012, 06:47

Was this incident worse than the JQ57 one? This captain was suspended.

Jet Airways captain tried to land in Changi without clearance

Published on Apr 21, 2012

By Karamjit Kaur
A Jet Airways pilot who tried to land at Changi Airport without getting the all-clear from air traffic controllers has been suspended by India's civil aviation authority.

Captain R. Chaudhary was found out and suspended only recently for the incident, which happened on Nov 14 last year.

He was piloting an Airbus 330 aircraft, with more than 200 passengers, that was flying into Singapore from New Delhi.

Capt Chaudhary continued to fly for the privately-owned airline until the recent suspension of his licence by India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

The DGCA is continuing its investigations but in the meantime, disclosed that the plane descended to just about 70 feet, or about 20 metres, above the runway when Capt Chaudhary took it up again.

It eventually landed safely with no injuries to passengers or crew.

Instead of reporting the incident to the airline as is the standard procedure, the pilot kept mum.

The DGCA was alerted only when a mid-November routine technical check of the aircraft revealed that there was a recent aborted landing.

The pilot had initially claimed he took the aircraft up at 70 feet because he was uncomfortable about the landing.

Under normal circumstances, a captain has full authority to abort a take-off or landing; even divert the aircraft to another airport if he feels there are safety or other concerns.

In this case, it was discovered that the pilot had no approval to land in the first place.

Jet Airways, owned by Indian billionaire Naresh Goyal, who started out in the industry as a travel agent, began flying to Singapore in December 2005.

It operates from Changi Airport Terminal 3 to New Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai.

Mstr Caution

21st Apr 2012, 07:00

JC

Until such time the company amends it's policy & procedures manual I'll continue to follow the manual.

Would you read a newspaper with CASA inspector on board? How about on a route check with a senior check on board? The way I operate an aircraft is the same whether or not anyone else is looking over my shoulder.

I don't make the rules. Just follow them & I don't decide which part of policy I choose to adhere by & which ones I don't. So I choose to follow them all.

Would you allow a fellow crew member to take your photo whilst reading a newspaper in the cruise. It would be harmless if that photo ended up on a social networking site.

I find time to read the paper when I'm not at work.

If you can justify breaches of policy & are happy with that so be it. But I make no apologies for following procedures outlined by my employer.

Bigboeingboy

21st Apr 2012, 09:20

Who cares if Jetstar pilots are fatigued? They bought their ticket made their bed now they have to sleep in it. Nobody held a gun at their heads to sign up for the deal much like the Virgin guys that accepted third world conditions just to fly a jet.
I guess these blokes did what they did because otherwise they would never had made it into the airlines.
What a joke you blokes are.

Eastmoore

21st Apr 2012, 09:37

Bigboeingboy you're a legend mate, love the 12 year old thought process.

Sorry to all the 12 year old's out there.

There is no fatigue at Jetstar, just ask management.

Arnold E

21st Apr 2012, 09:42

Bigboingboy has a point, what part of what he says is incorrect??

No guns at heads was there??

Or was there??

(Last sentence was unnecessary)

rmcdonal

21st Apr 2012, 10:30

I am also eager to hear what was untruthful about Bigboingboy's comment?

theheadmaster

21st Apr 2012, 10:50

Who cares if Jetstar pilots are fatigued?

Anybody that has an interest in the safe conduct of airline operations.

Airlines are not simply vehicles for the paycheques and egos of pilots. Regardless of the conditions agreed to by crew accepting a job, there is a duty of care to provide a safe service to the public. Fatigue is a risk factor that affects the ability to provide the required safety. This is why it should be a regulatory safeguard independent of contractual arrangements (living in a dream world there I know...)

Mstr Caution

21st Apr 2012, 12:19

I would hope any newish pilot reading this thread can take on board the following:

If you are genuinely fatigued & you consider the fatigue (level) enough to affect the safety of the operation. Pull the pin & report UNFIT.

It may inconvenience the airline, the passengers & the schedule, but you'll survive (health or employment wise) to fly another day.

Schedules & commercial pressure will back you into the corner, however your the last line of defence in the swiss cheese model from an accident.

click.

Capt Claret

21st Apr 2012, 12:47

I've only ever called in fatigued once, about 2am, after tossing & turning in bed for hours. No questions asked, just told by Ops to call when I was up, and they'd pax me home. All very civilised I thought.

However, colleagues at the same company have told of feeling some to significant pressure to accept duty when they've made a similar call. I suspect it's a combination of how one notifies Ops and the sense of the Ops controller taking the call.

glekichi

21st Apr 2012, 16:41

What we (industry wide) need is some standard phone call that can be made. E.g. "I am not fit for duty". End of story, no questions asked.
We should not need to explain if it is a blocked sinus or an 18 month old baby screaming all night that has prevented sleep.
As it is, when sick, there is no requirement to disclose the nature of the illness, and this should be the same for fatigue. Should be illegal to question it whatsoever.

I've had ops guys arguing on the company frequency about subsequent sectors that I said I would not be fit to fly for. Not cool when already on an extended duty, flying straight at the rising sun.

Maisk Rotum

21st Apr 2012, 17:48

A Singaporean Airline some time ago, perhaps still, used to have on the before start checklist;

"Lap top power cords. CM1..on board..CM2.. on board"

Arghhh..

Why not put 'seat belt fastened" on that checklist and "shoulder straps fastened' for good measure.

This is right up there with "talking the instruments" on the ground in a glass cockpit.

Any change to the checklist normally has to be sanctioned by the manufacturer in the form of a no technical objection letter. Failure to due so risks liability in the event of an incident/accident.

A fairly new 744 Cargo Airline had a Chief Pilot who had only flown 737s. He decided that he would change the after takeoff checklist to "Flaps up.. no lights". When it was pointed out to him that it doesn't have 'lights' and that Boeing really likes you to talk to them before changing tha checklist he got all red faced.

Take a look at the Boeing standard before takeoff checklist for 744. "Flaps..."

Hard to fcuk that up. Have a look around the cockpit at everything that might suggest you have the correct flaps, pause meaningfully, and respond.

If you have left your mobile on, ignore it...

thorn bird

21st Apr 2012, 21:07

Rotum,
as with everything these departures from normal start somewhere.
Pity GA, it is a requirement these days by the FOI of the day to alter the manufacurers recommended procedures. You have to comply, otherwise you dont get a tick in the box, even if you dont agree with their "opinion".
Will they put their name to it???..not likely!!...if there is an incident you just know they will say "We accepted this change...we didnt approve it" part of the CASA "All care and no responsibility" approach. Why GA is required to rewrite the flight manual is beyond me.

shon7

21st Apr 2012, 21:58

What we (industry wide) need is some standard phone call that can be made. E.g. "I am not fit for duty". End of story, no questions asked.
We should not need to explain if it is a blocked sinus or an 18 month old baby screaming all night that has prevented sleep.
As it is, when sick, there is no requirement to disclose the nature of the illness, and this should be the same for fatigue. Should be illegal to question it whatsoever.

When your call about fatigue is genuine, you will not be bothered if it is questioned. Of course when this is abused it is a different story.

woodja51

21st Apr 2012, 22:28

Seceral years ago Emirates added mobile phones off to the before start cx as there was an incident where a Pilot had the fire warning bell as a ring tone.. So you can guess what happened. That caused the item to be inserted ... Problem solved .. Well not really.... Because as they also operate B777s one would think it would also be added to that checklist if considered important enough... However as it is an ECL that was too hard ( operators can mod the airbus cx as they are just paper),
so not entirely surprised this occurred however it could have just been ignored by the pilots.. As happens in a large number of flights every day most likely out there in pilot land when the left on fones come in range of the towers...

Wja

By George

21st Apr 2012, 22:59

Much of Jetstars Long Haul is North/South. This is as good as it gets, with only a few hours of time change. The real fatigue comes from East/West flying. They say "West is best" and for whatever reason I found this to be the case. SQ consider SYD-SIN a 'short sector' and use them for line-checks. DRW-SIN, is hardly worth ironing a shirt. If you are suffering fatique on a sector like that there is either something wrong with the roster or the way you're managing your own rest.

glekichi

22nd Apr 2012, 01:02

When your call about fatigue is genuine, you will not be bothered if it is questioned. Of course when this is abused it is a different story.

I couldn't disagree more.
If that is so, why are so many pilots so weary of mentioning fatigue?

If it is a prior to the start of a flight, the cause of being unfit for duty is irrelevant.

If it is an in- flight onset of fatigue, then obviously some kind of report will be needed so fatigue does need to be mentioned, but should never be questioned.

balance

22nd Apr 2012, 02:05

When your call about fatigue is genuine, you will not be bothered if it is questioned. Of course when this is abused it is a different story.

That comment goes to show the idiotic nonsense that "shon7" believes.

Are you actually a human being shon7, or are you some kind of a freak? Do you actually understand the way humans feel, or is it just a numbers game to you. Your comments on this and other threads truly disgust me, and apparently a lot of others too.

For what it is worth, and I doubt that you will listen and understand, but here goes anyway: anybody who is questioned about such a subjective issue WILL feel pressured. If they do feel pressured, they will be more likely to do the duty. That will and has lead to accidents.

Comprehend?

Jeez. *Shakes head and walks slowly away*:mad:

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2012, 02:25

Balance, you have completely misread shon7's post.

neville_nobody

22nd Apr 2012, 05:42

SQ consider SYD-SIN a 'short sector' and use them for line-checks.

So short that the crews I've seen have been a CPT/FO/SO. :suspect:

I suggest you read the report as these guys had been woken by a fire drill at the hotel and were on a 12 hour layover. How many of those do they do at Singapore?

Mstr Caution

22nd Apr 2012, 09:19

glekichi -

What we (industry wide) need is some standard phone call that can be made.

An airline with a mature FRMS will have this, as required by ICAO & as required by the airlines SMS audited by CASA.

If that is so, why are so many pilots so weary of mentioning fatigue?

If it's not working either the process is still in it's infancy, it was incorrectly applied or their is mis trust in the organisation. Crew will be gun shy to report fatigued if management has previously made examples of other crew.

If it is a prior to the start of a flight, the cause of being unfit for duty is irrelevant.

Unless of course the cause of fatigue was induced by the company, poor rostering, insufficient rest, accumulated fatigue, poor quality hotel. A company can't wash it's hands of it's responsibilities when their actions have not allowed crew to present fit for duty.

If it is an in- flight onset of fatigue, then obviously some kind of report will be needed so fatigue does need to be mentioned....

Umm, have a look at CASA & ICAO recomendations, I'll think you'll find a report is required and Fatigue will need to be mentioned. There are also a few regs that will outline when & what sort of reports are required.

MC

DutchRoll

22nd Apr 2012, 10:59

If it's not working either the process is still in it's infancy, it was incorrectly applied or their is mis trust in the organisation. Crew will be gun shy to report fatigued if management has previously made examples of other crew.
My only example of calling in too tired to operate a couple of years ago (due to serious hotel issues for which a formal complaint and report were submitted) for a major iconic Australian airline with a marsupial painted on its tail, was an unpleasant experience for several days afterwards. Fortunately it was eventually sorted out by some very blunt phone calls from one of our pilot association scheduling reps.

Regrettably you can't stop d*ckheads from floating into positions of managerial power.

greybeard

23rd Apr 2012, 03:30

SIA had a 12hour min rest at Singapore, 10 hours at night stops for the so called "short haul", sleep was always an option at BKK on that one.
So called "Long Haul" had other limits due crew numbers and duty times etc.

Retirement is so much better, "Nana Naps" when tired after lunch, sometimes even with Nana bless her.

Fatigue management is a lousy cop out, just means you are legally tired, which you can't be as you have had minimum rest!!!

:*

Oxidant

23rd Apr 2012, 03:37

Greybeard,

"Fatigue management is a lousy cop out, just means you are legally tired....."

One of the most profound statements ever posted.:ok:

framer

23rd Apr 2012, 05:25

SQ consider SYD-SIN a 'short sector' and use them for line-checks. DRW-SIN, is hardly worth ironing a shirt. If you are suffering fatique on a sector like that there is either something wrong with the roster or the way you're managing your own rest.
Well you must be made of stronger stuff than me....either that or you're comparing apples with oranges. ie An aircraft where one can retire to crew rest v's an aircraft where one is stuck in the same seat for the entire duty.There is a big difference. Every person is different but for me, a 13 hour trip to LAX is less tiring than a DRW-SIN-DRW, even though it is a shorter duty time.

Kharon

23rd Apr 2012, 06:12

Plane Talking - Ben Sandilands - Jetstar (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/23/jetstar-acts-over-unsafe-landing-approaches/)

The document could be read as confirmation of strong safety action by the airline, yet also as confirmation that it has for years been less safe than desirable, and, by inference, inadequately overseen by CASA, the body that grounded its smaller competitor Tiger, as an imminent risk to public safety.
Ministerial selective vision and hearing, Senate meek acceptance of 'expert' opinion, Airline executive pony pooh, CASA spin polished arse cover, ATSB weak sister platitude or fit aircrew bleating about being tired can not be used any longer as an excuse.

Someone's going to get hurt.

By George

23rd Apr 2012, 09:27

Framer, I'm not trying to be 'Tougher' than anybody else. I think fatigue is the biggest issue for Long Haul flying and is greatly underestimated. I am guilty of flying when too fatiqued. Making best use of rest time is not easy in Hotel rooms. I don't really have any answers except to take it seriously and rest when ever you can. Incidently, when three crew with SQ, ie one Capt and two F/O's the Capt cannot leave his seat and is only allowed 'controlled rest' in the cockpit. SIN-AKL is an example, 10 hrs in the chair back-of-the-clock. They don't use Second Officers like Qantas do, it's a pilot under training rank.
During my Domestic years a layover was 'party-time' this is not possible on Long-Haul, at least not these days. Long-Haul is fatigue management, simple as that. I have one friend who flew with EVA and just couldn't hack it and gave it away. I managed 15 years of Long-Haul, with difficulty, and would never go back. I've seen pax in economy to Europe, min rest and crew back.

gobbledock

23rd Apr 2012, 11:50

Could be a coincidence but both Tiger and JQ receive oversight from CASA's Melbourne Field Office. Could we be seeing a pattern emerging of inadequate and ****e oversight? Perhaps a brooming or a regulator enema is required?
It is unbelievable the amount of operator issues down south that are raising a very ugly head.
Most of the publicized issues could be placed in three categories;
1) Poor airline management,
2) Failure of the SMS and
3) Dysfunctional and/or a lack of regulatory oversight. Either way all 3 agenda items do fit within the regulators oversight domain.

These would be the primary issues with an absolute plethora of related issues.
Tick tock

LHLisa

23rd Apr 2012, 12:18

The lovely young girl who works at my local chemist has a dad who works shift work in manufacturing. She has explained to me that if he is too tired for his night shift duty all he has to is ring in and say he is tired. No questions asked whatsoever . No 4 page form including a statement on his mental health or lack of. That sounds like a company with values including "progressive" and " forward thinking" to me.

It is only 12 months since my area changed fatigue from a psychological issue to a physiological issue.

Angle of Attack

23rd Apr 2012, 13:16

What is the issue you call in and say you are unfit for duty, if they demand an explanation refer it to your union rep or your doctor who will provide the certificate, think of it this way no doctor is going to refuse to give you a medical certificate and no company is going to challenge the doctors opinions, it is easier than Grade 1 boys and girls... why the tissues for this issue?

Capn Bloggs

23rd Apr 2012, 13:43

your doctor who will provide the certificate,
Have you actually done this AoA?? It costs money! Or do you have a cushy arrangement with yours for freebees whenever you want them?

Angle of Attack

23rd Apr 2012, 13:57

Have you actually done this AoA?

Umm, yeah probably several times per year, best place to head is Chinatown doctors where they will provide you with bulk billed certificates still, but I just go to my local doctor non bulk billed but only out of pocket is around $32, then you can claim it on tax as it is an employer requirement to get the certificate and its another 30-40% off. So yeah I guess it costs money at worst $20 or so.

Angle of Attack

23rd Apr 2012, 14:04

Sorry I should correct i was talking about normal medical certificates not fatigue related ones, I have on a few occasions got certificates for fatigue but not many, however the jet* pilots get all the crappy back of the clock flying these days I guess.

Flying Spag Monster

23rd Apr 2012, 16:29

EX 380 get some time up...EK had it in the airbus checklist but gone now for a few years... The trap with flying for an outfit that consistently rosters tiring patterns is that it feels normal after a while. You wake up stuffed, go to work stuffed and to you it becomes normal. Can't ring in and claim fatigue, everyone feels the same right ? ... it's another working day (night).

shon7

23rd Apr 2012, 18:29

anybody who is questioned about such a subjective issue WILL feel pressured. If they do feel pressured, they will be more likely to do the duty. That will and has lead to accidents

Not accurate. Only guys wanting to abuse it feel the way you do.
If the call is genuine no one is bothered is they are questioned. Of course if you are wanting to attend a high school reunion, or a parade or get back at the company by calling in fatigued it should be questioned and action taken.

shake your head or leg or whatever you want.

balance

24th Apr 2012, 00:38

Not accurate. Only guys wanting to abuse it feel the way you do.
If the call is genuine no one is bothered is they are questioned. Of course if you are wanting to attend a high school reunion, or a parade or get back at the company by calling in fatigued it should be questioned and action taken.

You still reckon I've misread his post, Bloggs? Somehow, I don't think so.

I was going to respond with how stupid this fella is, but I can see it is rather pointless. All I can hope for is that this bloke never gets a job with an airline, be it on the ground or in the air.

framer

24th Apr 2012, 00:50

Not accurate. Only guys wanting to abuse it feel the way you do.

Absolute rubbish.
Having grown up on a farm working long hours while still at school and having it instilled in me that doing so is a sign of strength, competence and a good work ethic, I feel terrible calling in fatigued even if I'm so stuffed that I am stumbling over my own words. Everyone has been brought up differently and to say Only guys wanting to abuse it feel the way you do.
is moronic.

TheWholeEnchilada

24th Apr 2012, 01:15

Framer, a quote from the bottom of every PPRuNe page:

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

It is just here to yank peoples chain. Feed the troll at your own peril.

airline management positions
8th Mar 2002, 12:59
had posted this in another forum but I am hoping to get some more feedback here. . .. .What is the best way to get into an airline management position- specifically route planning/ development, fleet management etc. What is my best bet? Getting an MBA first or just getting any position with the airline and working my way up.
airline management positions (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/48287-airline-management-positions.html#post448562)

25th Oct 2004, 14:11
Concordia University Aviation MBA
Can anyone give me any information on the Aviation MBA at Concordia in Montreal specific or general.

Have you heard of the program at all?
How is Concordia Ranked as a school?
How is Montreal, Quebec as a place to live and work?
Why do they tout Montreal as the aviation capital of the world?

Any other information that would be helpful.

Thanks,

Shon
Concordia University Aviation MBA (http://www.pprune.org/canada/149618-concordia-university-aviation-mba.html#post1577222)

Management/ non-line flying jobs in Flight Operations after getting CPL

23rd Jun 2010, 05:20
What kind of management jobs or non-line flying jobs (but still in flight operations) can one try for after a CPL?

Ones I could come up with are

Training
Compliance
Operations Analysis/ FOQA
Management/ non-line flying jobs in Flight Operations after getting CPL (http://www.pprune.org/questions/418982-management-non-line-flying-jobs-flight-operations-after-getting-cpl.html#post5768506)

MBA recruitment at Singapore, Thai
26th Oct 2010, 02:54
Does anyone know if Singapore Airlines or Thai Airways have MBA recruitment programs for graduates out of business school?
MBA recruitment at Singapore, Thai (http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/431723-mba-recruitment-singapore-thai.html#post6016865)

framer

24th Apr 2012, 01:47

Ha very interesting...........did you make it into airline management Shon7?

Icarus2001

24th Apr 2012, 10:01

Have you actually done this AoA?? It costs money! You miserable bugger. A couple of times a year? How much? What is your mental health worth to you?

Maybe remember that as you guys negotiate the new ECA/EBA/:eek:

Hempy

24th Apr 2012, 10:41

Jetstar pilots fatigued?

Jetstar pilots can join the club..

shon7

24th Apr 2012, 14:46

Having grown up on a farm working long hours while still at school and having it instilled in me that doing so is a sign of strength, competence and a good work ethic, I feel terrible calling in fatigued even if I'm so stuffed that I am stumbling over my own words.

yeah so all pilots should be given carte blanche because of your little sob story on the farm. If you're not mature enough to make a decision to call in fatigued and to stand by that decision when questioned, you should not be flying.

mcgrath50

24th Apr 2012, 15:17

The whole strength of a Fatigue Risk Management System, is that if a pilot feels fatigued he can call in and be removed from duty, no questions asked, no pressure applied.

If that doesn't happen then, we are in a situation that IS dangerous and goes against the intent of FRMS.

HF3000

24th Apr 2012, 15:25

So,

What does JQ say to you when you report fatigued?

Stalins ugly Brother

24th Apr 2012, 16:21

shon7 is the short name for the 7 inch shlong that hangs from his forehead. :}

He is a management stooge, please ignore. :ugh:

shon7

24th Apr 2012, 18:06

oh the games people play when they are unable to deal with reality.
Don't worry. It will sink in. Slowly and gradually.

In the meantime - if you're not mature enough to make a decision to call in fatigued and to stand by that decision when questioned, you should not be flying.

Ollie Onion

24th Apr 2012, 21:32

I've had:

'Your'e not fatigued, your roster pattern doesn't 'score' as fatiguing so you are just tired'

And, more of a worry, from a CRM instructor:

'You can still fly when you are fatigued as long as it doesn't impact the safety of the operation'

When pushed if you could make this judgement when fatigued, he replied:

'well you are meant to be a professional' :ugh:

I would love to live on a planet where you can ring up when actually fatigued (which I have) and feel no pressure or influence to change you mind because you are just tired. Fact of the matter is though that there will always be skepticism from crewing officers etc as they have been told to keep the show on the road at any cost.

As for the Muppet who complained about paying to see the doctor, are you really saying you would go to work when not fit so as to avoid a $30 doctors bill. Now that is a worry.

Conductor

24th Apr 2012, 21:35

Shon7, I think after Enchilada's post above, the rest of us have a handle on your calibre.

If I may borrow from Adhemar: You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Next.

Capn Bloggs

25th Apr 2012, 00:06

As for the Muppet who complained about paying to see the doctor, are you really saying you would go to work when not fit so as to avoid a $30 doctors bill. Now that is a worry.
My point was why should I have to go through that rigmarole just to prove that I was fatigued, especially when I will obviously get a sick certificate anyway? It's not as though the doctor is going to say "You're not fatigued! Gimme $80, and claim it back on tax you malingerer!" Get with the program. :cool:

maui

25th Apr 2012, 00:23

For goodness sake people, why all the hand wringing.

"I cannot undertake my rostered duty as I am fatigued, it would be unsafe and unlawful for me to do so."

(choose any one) "you are not fatigued" "you are malingering" you've just had the minimum requied rest, so what's your problem" etc. etc.

"Just to clarify and so I get my Air Safety Report correct, your name is ......., your position is........... I have just advised you that I am unfit for duty and you are advising me that I must operate unfit. Is that correct."

If Yes: "I advise you I will not sign on for this duty, this conversation is now ended."

The solution is in your hands. If they pressure you to do unsafe things you are better off not being there. If they dismiss you, you will get heaps on a wrongful dismissal.

What is the problem girls.

Maui

waren9

25th Apr 2012, 01:13

Trouble is, however you deal with it, there is no allowance for fatigue days in the JQ EBA. To agree to, or allow the use of fatigue days is implicit acknowledgement that fatigue can occur with normal rostering.

If you want to still be paid, you must still apply for and use your own sick leave to cover what could ostensibly be caused by your employers rostering practices.

If I am unfit, I never say why.

Capt Kremin

25th Apr 2012, 02:21

Shon7,

You have been outed. No-one is interested in the opinions of a post pubescent, low-time vagabond troll with delusions of management grandeur.

Go ask Mummy and Daddy to pay for something unrelated to this industry... You are not wanted.

Mstr Caution

25th Apr 2012, 12:58

http://www2.icao.int/en/FatigueManagement/Fatigue%20Management%20Docs/FM_Annex%206%20Pt1.pdf

Shon 7

Maybe just maybe it might be because management say they have an active FRMS, but have yet to fully adopt the "International Standards & Recommended practices" from ICAO.

Kangaroo Court

25th Apr 2012, 18:50

The problem is Pay-For-Training.

If we didn't have it in out industry, those that had earned the right to work in our occupation would have already proved their mettle, or been washed out for lack of same.

shon7

25th Apr 2012, 21:55

hey Kremin - if my opinion is so irrelevant what is getting you so worked up.
You're just a loser who cant come to terms with the fact that your little entitlement mentality is being challenged. You should be thanking your lucky stars your JQ colleagues are providing revenues that pays your salary.

shon7

25th Apr 2012, 21:59

Maybe just maybe it might be because management say they have an active FRMS, but have yet to fully adopt the "International Standards & Recommended practices" from ICAO.

They are "recommended." If they are so critical they should be written into law but that is not the case.

No one is disputing that an active FRMS is a good thing but giving carte blance is a bad idea. Too much potential for abuse. And it will be the likes of Kremin that abuse it since they feel the company has done them wrong or are upset because they can't wear a silly tie to work or some other moronic reason.

Mstr Caution

25th Apr 2012, 22:34

Shon 7

BB told the senate inquiry that Jetstar had an active FRMS.

That would mean that JQ had "adopted" the "recommended" practices contained within the ICAO guidelines.

Hearing JQ crew state they are unaware of Fatigue definitions, working groups, fatigue policy, reporting processes & procedures and specific crew & management training on the subject leads me to believe BB comments were lip service.

Adopting ICAO recommendations is an expensive exercise well before the first crew member ever reports unfit.

The Qantas Group has adopted an FRMS under the groups SMS.

allthecoolnamesarego

25th Apr 2012, 23:06

Shon,

Your assumption that there is 'too much potential' for abuse is ridiculous. Of course, as with ANY work practice in ANY workforce/industry, systems can be abused; but not to have a system that can SAVE LIVES because it MIGHT be abused, is simply fallacious.

Generally, pilots are a highly professional and conscientious group of people. As a group we have been selected EXACTLY because we are similar - we have been through batteries of tests that confirm our personality types (search 'pilot personality traits'). There are always a 'few' who will abuse the system, but the majority will use it wisely.

Fatigue management is a vital component of aviation safety, and anyone who doubts it's necessity is simply un-educated in the field.

Simply because you can't always 'see' fatigue, does not mean it isn't there.

Keg

25th Apr 2012, 23:15

Lol. The fraud that is Shon7 is put under the spotlight and his only defence is to accuse a Qantas pilot he's never met of abusing a J* fatigue system that J* contributors indicate is flawed.

Almost better than the Comedy Store. :D :E

Mstr Caution

25th Apr 2012, 23:39

Grounded Tiger Airways faces ban until August | Inquirer Business (http://business.inquirer.net/6167/grounded-tiger-airways-faces-ban-until-august)

Shon 7

I little more history as to what happens if an airline fails to manage fatigue.

balance

26th Apr 2012, 00:34

Ummmm, I'm as guilty of "feeding the troll" as anyone else, but these quotes regarding shon7 spring to mind:

You have been outed. No-one is interested in the opinions of a post pubescent, low-time vagabond troll with delusions of management grandeur.

Go ask Mummy and Daddy to pay for something unrelated to this industry... You are not wanted.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

shon7 is the short name for the 7 inch shlong that hangs from his forehead.

He is a management stooge, please ignore.

Just ignore the idiot.

waren9

26th Apr 2012, 04:30

Hearing JQ crew state they are unaware of Fatigue definitions, working groups, fatigue policy, reporting processes & procedures and specific crew & management training on the subject leads me to believe BB comments were lip service.

The F word comes up regularly in the CRM refreshers. Its my understanding that if fatigue is a concern then your proposed roster or recent roster history can be put in to some software that was originally developed for truck drivers and it is awarded a score. Never heard of anyones roster being changed due to that score.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that they claim to use this software in the roster build process. Whether they do or not, I don't know.

Sometimes I get some shockers, but for the most part you can see a bit of thought goes in to giving you something liveable, previous JPA pilot reps selling out conditions for personal gain notwithstanding, but thats a whole 'nother thread.

Mstr Caution

26th Apr 2012, 04:52

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/aoc/fatigue/fatigue_modelling.pdf

Waren9

Part 5 refers to mathematical modeling.

It's but one part of the process & modeling alone won't mitigate fatigue risk.

Keg

26th Apr 2012, 05:09

The other point is that just because you've had more than the minimum rest period according to the law, doesn't mean that you actually got sufficient rest. Many factors can impact on that- some of which are within the control of the airline, some of them not. EG: I know that my ability to sleep improves if I've been able to exercise that day- something difficult to do when the phone goes off at 0630 and you get back to the hotel at 1800 with an 0420 call scheduled the next day.

So I couldn't give a fig what the computer model determines to be a 'fatiguing roster', it comes down to how the crew on the day(s) of that roster feel as to whether they're fatigued or not.

waren9

26th Apr 2012, 05:28

Agree entirely with MstrCaution and Keg.

In no way was I trying to defend it!

framer

26th Apr 2012, 05:44

One day someone is going to make ten million bucks by patenting a way of determining a persons current performance capabilities, and comparing it to their historical average.
I don't know if it will be an app that sits on the work computer desktop, or similar to a sony virtual reality headset gizmo, or a thumb prick like when a diabetic tests for glucose levels, or what form it will take. But when it is invented it will cover fatigue, drugs, alcahol, the flu, you name it, if you can't perform within cooee of your normal ability it will ping. If that ocurrs at the start of the roster you won't be allowed to sign on, if it ocurrs at sign off you'l be stood down for 24 hours.
I don't fully believe that this will happen in my lifetime but if it did, (never say never)I'd wager the decrease in accidents would compare to the advent of EGPWS.

Mstr Caution

26th Apr 2012, 06:04

http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~qji/Fatigue/siemens_talk.pdf

It's quite possible in our careers, inbuilt aircraft systems will monitor pupil & head movement & alert the pilots to the onset of fatigue or should they nod off to sleep.

It may be a graduated alert response, much like the existing "PILOT RESPONSE".

MC

Sonny Hammond

26th Apr 2012, 06:35

This link goes to the header for a soon to be released study that we'll find interesting.

Health News - Crew Schedules, Sleep Deprivation, and Aviation Performance (http://www.healthcanal.com/mental-health-behavior/28713-Crew-Schedules-Sleep-Deprivation-and-Aviation-Performance.html)

Super Cecil

26th Apr 2012, 08:03

Forgive me for my ignorance, I have heard it's OK for pilots (With two pilot operation) to "Nap" while flying, if this is true what are the guidelines of pilots "Napping" while flying?

Ollie Onion

26th Apr 2012, 08:09

Most airlines will allow 'controlled rest'. This basically means that you inform the cabin crew that you are taking controlled rest, you then take turns to have a rest for a maximum of 30 minutes each.

Super Cecil

26th Apr 2012, 09:24

This basically means that you inform the cabin crew that you are taking controlled rest, you then take turns to have a rest for a maximum of 30 minutes each.

I recon they should have to inform pax as well as crew, I'm sure that would go down well in cattle class. :8 Or even better when buying tickets, it should be stipulated on the back of tickets something like "One of the two pilots might be asleep during the flight, it's OK though because the other pilot will wake them up before he/she goes to sleep". :hmm:

Ollie Onion

26th Apr 2012, 10:04

Would you rather two pilots who on final approach can't keep their eyes open because they are so exhausted. :ugh::ugh:

When you are driving a car and get the 'nodding dog' effect and scare yourself sh*tless when you fall asleep for a second or two do you pull over and have a few minutes sleep or do you push on regardless.

It is actually the safe thing to do when you are over the middle of the ocean in the pitch dark with no-one to talk to except for a radio call every hour or so to use the time to have a few micro naps so that when you are expected to land the aircraft with 300 people down the back at 05:30 you at least are awake to do it.

Lookleft

26th Apr 2012, 10:20

Or they could print:

Flight and Duty Limits, which are there to ensure that your crew do not have to operate fatigued, are viewed by this airline as targets and as such the crew who are with you today will be operating to the maximum allowed by the rules. So the Princesses we employ are not that tired that they could make a fatal mistake whilst on approach to your destination, we do allow them to have controlled rest for a period of 30 minutes on the flight"

Why we can't dock them that 30 minutes is currently being worked on in EBA negotiations

3 Holer

26th Apr 2012, 10:26

Would you rather two pilots who on final approach can't keep their eyes open because they are so exhausted

NO!

I would rather the Airlines roster appropriate duty and rest periods so that the crews can do a days work without needing "controlled" rest periods.

Ollie Onion

26th Apr 2012, 11:13

Sorry, but that is just not realistic. The roster that I always used to struggle with was a late night check in to fly from Heathrow to JFK. I can't remember the exact report time but it was around 18:30pm with a departure at just after 20:00. Scheduled block was around 8 hours which put you landing into a very busy JFK environment often in crappy weather at around 04:00 body time.

Now, this was a two crew operation so no chance for inflight rest in the bunks and often would be the first duty on the roster after days off. I don't care who you are but it is almost impossible to prepare for a duty like this so that you can do the whole sector without feeling bloody shattered at some point during the night given that you have probably only had 2-3 days at home after potentially just come back from somewhere East. Controlled rest was and is the only sensible solution.

We are digressing a little bit here as controlled rest is NOT a tool for fatigue, it is a tool to use to combat tiredness that occurs when you are flying while your body is saying sleep. If you are fatigued you should NOT be at work, if you are tired you should grab the opportunity to rest whenever you have the opportunity as allowed by you company SOP's. This tiredness will happen in any job where you are expected to work through the night, the only way that FTL's could get rid of this kind of tiredness would be to BAN all flying between the hours of 23:00 and 0600. It ain't going to happen.

Sonny Hammond

26th Apr 2012, 12:41

A salient point made by Ollie Onion.

"We are digressing a little bit here as controlled rest is NOT a tool for fatigue, it is a tool to use to combat tiredness that occurs when you are flying while your body is saying sleep. If you are fatigued you should NOT be at work, if you are tired you should grab the opportunity to rest whenever you have the opportunity as allowed by you company SOP's. This tiredness will happen in any job where you are expected to work through the night, the only way that FTL's could get rid of this kind of tiredness would be to BAN all flying between the hours of 23:00 and 0600. It ain't going to happen."

Keg

26th Apr 2012, 13:14

From my understanding, ICAO are now using the word 'fatigue' when referring to what Ollie calls 'tired'. IE. there is no difference. Happy to be corrected on that.

However , the point is hat controlled rest actually is a tool to address fatigue. It won't do a zot against cumulative fatigue though.

mcgrath50

26th Apr 2012, 16:36

controlled rest actually is a tool to address fatigue. It won't do a zot against cumulative fatigue though

Shon what are you disputing there?

That controlled rest does help fatigue, that it won't help cumulative fatigue or that fatigue doesn't exist at all in modern airline schedules?

All three are regularly proven, peer-reviewed, facts!

Capt Kremin

26th Apr 2012, 20:36

Shon, unlike yourself, Keg knows what he is talking about.

So what is the deal with you now? After being outed as a juvenile, frustrated wannabe, you are turning to pointless and ill-considered trolling to get your attention fix?

:hmm:

Mstr Caution

26th Apr 2012, 21:18

Shon 7

Are you disputing the results of fatigue & controlled rest studies conducted by NASA?

:ugh:

Keg

26th Apr 2012, 22:51

Now go serve coffee or whatever else you do while claiming to be a pilot.

BWAHAHAHAHA. That's gold. That's almost as good as the 'I know you are but what am I' response that my boy used once..... when he was 5. :D

Livs Hairdresser

26th Apr 2012, 23:27

Now hang on a sec fellas, maybe we should listen to what shon7 has to say about fatigue, considering his vast longhaul operational experience.

shon7 15th Aug 2011, 01:45

Any suggestions on a good school/FBO for an accelerated Commercial license in a one month timeframe (Nov or Dec) for someone who already has an IFR and 240 odd hours

LOL.

CaptCloudbuster

26th Apr 2012, 23:51

Sh@t 7, the reasoning behind your last post directed at Keg was unintelligible.

IsDon

27th Apr 2012, 01:20

go serve coffee or whatever else you do while claiming to be a pilot.
Moron.

The fact is that I fly with Keg. If he's not a pilot then maybe I shouldn't take controlled rest when I fly with him.

Of course that could just be a figment of my imagination.

Shon7 you really are a twit. ;)

Super Cecil

27th Apr 2012, 02:14

If it makes you feel any better people don't believe I'm a pilot either.
It could be because of your youthful good looks wobbert :8 What you need to do is grow a mustache, should only take you a year or two then yool get treated with the respekt you deserve :}

rmcdonal

27th Apr 2012, 03:21

You sound a bit jealous Cec. The trick is sunscreen :ok:
I Think I may go out and buy a few more Gold Bars to wear around down town, that should foo....I mean convince them. :E

bdcer

27th Apr 2012, 03:46

What's wrong with serving coffee anyway? (assuming the post was used as a taunt). I love my coffee & am always grateful for a free cup!! It's fun to see if you can make a decent cup with the galley brewer (debatable!!).

Controlled rest is like a spare tyre....if you have a flat on a drive, you're going to use it....but you shouldn't be driving around with it on all the time. It should be kept in reserve whilst you look after the normal tyres.

Ken Borough

27th Apr 2012, 04:27

2 pilots, midnight departure - Seoul - Dubai- 9hr 40 flight time

Are you serious??

point76

27th Apr 2012, 04:29

The key to the way both CASA and Airline management look at fatigue is the statement that" the organisational aspects of fatigue management did not appear to materially contribute to the issue of fatigue ".Basically the report is saying the Crew were given 'adequate opportunity' for rest and didn't use it. None of this of course takes in to account the time of day,body rhythms, disruptions to sleep etc. All comes back to the crew because they /he 'didn't avail himself fully of the rest opportunity'.This is a big grey area for crews and a big out for Airline management."Hey the guy was too tired,he should have told us.We gave him 12 hours off "
Unfortunately in this incident have to agree with LookLeft. For a Captain to state that passing 1000ft AGL ( and getting an auto-call out of same ) he noticed that the Gear was still up and Flaps at Config.2 ( Flaps 3 and Flaps Full still to go ! ) but chose to do nothing about it does sort of beg belief regardless if you're tired or not !
From my understanding, J* only allowed the crew to continue their duty because the Captain had reported the go-around as a routine event and the true story only came out later.

Tony the Tiler

27th Apr 2012, 05:01

It would appear that fatigue management is an oxymoron at Jetstar. Either they have found a way to mitigate against fatigue that is superior to all other domestic airlines, or their pilots are fatigued. Why is Jetstar the only airline to conduct BOC operations that no other airline does?

The SYD-PER-SYD (JQ988 JQ989) pattern has a flight time of 9:25. The maximum flight deck duty as allowed by the CAO48 Exemption that Jetstar operate to is 9:30. That is a 5 minute difference between the rostered FLIGHT TIME and the maximum FLIGHT DECK DUTY. Maybe the Jetstar pilots could shed some light on how they do 2 cockpit setups and post flight shut downs in 5 min. It must be worlds’ best practice!!

For reference, the CAO48 Exemption is a public document on the CASA website. It contains the following definition of Flight Deck Duty:

“The total time a flight crewmember is on duty on the flight deck in a flight duty period.”

teresa green

27th Apr 2012, 07:05

I have been on a flight deck when the entire crew were close to pushing a few zzzzzzz out, but were brought to attention very smartly when a cockroach of mammoth proportions ran up my trouser leg. I have always been fast to get the dacs off, but never at the speed I did that night. Naturally the buggers rang for the CSM who was female, and there I am in the reg grundies, trying to bash the thing to death with my shoe. Certainly brightened us all up, including the CSM who politely pointed out that my red speedo's were not standard uniform, and she would have to make a note and pass onto the company!:{

Keg

27th Apr 2012, 07:44

“The total time a flight crewmember is on duty on the flight deck in a flight duty period.”

It appears that J* do what Qantas do and don't include pre flight as part of the flight deck duty time. I don't think it's legal but apparently CASA have been happy with it since 1989.

waren9

27th Apr 2012, 07:45

The SYD-PER-SYD (JQ988 JQ989) pattern has a flight time of 9:25. The maximum flight deck duty as allowed by the CAO48 Exemption that Jetstar operate to is 9:30. That is a 5 minute difference between the rostered FLIGHT TIME and the maximum FLIGHT DECK DUTY. Maybe the Jetstar pilots could shed some light on how they do 2 cockpit setups and post flight shut downs in 5 min. It must be worlds’ best practice!!

There are 1 or 2 differences between the CAO48 exemption and Jetstar's "cut and paste" copy of it in OM1. The definition of flight deck duty might be one of them. The pilots have raised it, the company insists flight deck duty=scheduled flight time, and CASA has been aware of it for some time. Trouble is, the CASA guy that signed the CAO48 exemption is now.....drum roll please....Jetstar's head of Safety.

atlas12

27th Apr 2012, 10:16

Honestly, who wants to work for J* anyway? I withdrew my application the second I heard about part time contracts. There are better airlines out there!!

stainedpantystealer

27th Apr 2012, 10:56

Welcome to JQ A330 2 crew standouts (all local departure/arrival times)...

BKK/MEL 2215/1020 9hrs 5min.
NRT/OOL 2025/0625 9hrs.
KIX/OOL 2050/0655 9hrs 5min.
HKT/SYD 2020/1025 9hrs 5min.

Mstr Caution

27th Apr 2012, 12:16

LT Selfridge

27th Apr 2012, 12:31

Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick

Mstr Caution

27th Apr 2012, 12:36

Either they have found a way to mitigate against fatigue that is superior to all other domestic airlines, or their pilots are fatigued. Why is Jetstar the only airline to conduct BOC operations that no other airline does?

Its a bit like Perth - Jakarta - Perth back of the clock (as an example only)

If one Australian Airline determines that a particular pairing is fatiguing & no longer schedules crew to fly that pairing.

They should then advise CASA of such evidence & facts behind the reasoning.

If it's something like a serious incident, increases in error rates, or large proportion of crew reporting fatigued. But it must be evidence based.

CASA should then make a determination as to whether it should be an industry standard or not.

If you believe BB in the senate inquiry, because another airline flies a different aircraft type, the fatigue levels are different.

clark y

27th Apr 2012, 22:00

For a bit of light reading, for those that are interested, have a look at "The impacts of Australian Transcontinental 'Back of the Clock' operations on sleep and performance in Commercial Aviation Flight Crew"
ATSB publication number- 50171, published March 2007.

Clark y.

catonahottinroof

28th Apr 2012, 04:23

CCrew have to see a company aviation dr if they use more than 3 fatigue days a year. If cc take more than 1 day of fatigue leave - eg 2 consecutive days- they have to see a company dr. It's a bit of a farce. Crew ****e themselves whenever they are told they need to see a company chosen aviation dr. A lot of Cc have had really bad experiences after seeing them.

Sony Hammond thank you for the link to that research article. Thank f$&k someone cares about this issue.

TheWholeEnchilada

28th Apr 2012, 04:47

Its all been done before, no need to re-invent the wheel:
House of Representatives Committees: Beyond the Midnight Oil: Managing Fatigue in Transport (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=cita/manfatigue/mfcontents.htm) final report.

In addition there are a myriad of submissions (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=cita/manfatigue/mfsub.htm)that should provide the determined with a goldmine of information and data.

Normasars

28th Apr 2012, 07:26

All this carry on goes with the shyte sandwich that is JQ. You know what you are getting into when you sell your souls to the devil. Stop whining about it.
The Regionals do "real" min rest overnights ie 9 hrs off after doing 5 sector days each side of the rest. In at 8.45pm and out at 0600. That's sign ON/OFF. They're in the cab at 0530 after getting to bed @ 2130. As we all know, multiple sector days are far more fatiguing than S&L for 8 hours.

As a previous poster said, this has been going on for years, and short of parking a/c on the ground between 11pm and 6am it aint ever gunna change. So I say suck it up and get on with it, or p1ss off and do something else. It goes with the territory!:ugh:

Normasars

28th Apr 2012, 07:27

All this carry on goes with the shyte sandwich that is JQ. You know what you are getting into when you sell your souls to the devil. Stop whining about it.
The Regionals do "real" min rest overnights ie 9 hrs off after doing 5 sector days each side of the "rest". In at 8.45pm and out at 0600. That's sign ON/OFF. They're in the cab at 0530 after getting to bed @ 2130. As we all know, multiple sector days are far more fatiguing than S&L for 8 hours.

As a previous poster said, this has been going on for years, and short of parking a/c on the ground between 11pm and 6am it aint ever gunna change. So I say suck it up and get on with it, or p1ss off and do something else. It goes with the territory!:ugh:

Di_Vosh

28th Apr 2012, 07:44

The Regionals do "real" min rest overnights ie 9 hrs off after doing 5 sector days each side of the "rest". In at 8.45pm and out at 0600. That's sign ON/OFF. They're in the cab at 0530 after getting to bed @ 2130. As we all know, multiple sector days are far more fatiguing than S&L for 8 hours.

G'day mate! How's things out west?

Not sure when I got my head down as early as 2130 on an overnight but yes, up at 0500 the next morning, as you'd well remember!

There have been changes: We can put in fatigue reports now! :D

Now, if only the company will do something about them...:ouch:

DIVOSH!

Hugh Jarse

28th Apr 2012, 07:54

Yeah, we did that for eons, Norma. (I don't think it was right, and whenever I felt fatigued, removed myself from duty). But the thing is that regardless of the employer and agreements under which these guys work - fatigue is a serious issue affecting flight safety, which nobody seems to wish to address.

Just because they work for xyz doesn't mean they deserve to be rostered fatigued. This is an industry-wide problem.... But you know that ;)

Biggles78

28th Apr 2012, 13:08

This is the original link (emphasis formatting is mine). Posted the text below in case the link stops working. Long rail shifts too risky, says union (http://www.theage.com.au/national/long-rail-shifts-too-risky-says-union-20120426-1xo0y.html)

Long rail shifts too risky, says union

April 27, 2012

LIVES will be put at risk if train drivers are forced to work shifts of more than 12 hours, the railway workers union says.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union has called on the National Transport Commission to dump a recommendation that fatigue standards for train drivers in New South Wales be relaxed - currently there is a 12-hour cap on work - to improve flexibility and reduce regulation. The current NSW cap is unique, but Rail, Tram and Bus union national secretary Bob Nanva said it should be extended nationwide as part of the move to have a single national rail regulator.

''Our concern is that uniform legislation across Australia should raise standards across Australia rather than reducing them to the lowest common denominator,'' he told the ABC.

In December 2009, federal and state governments agreed to implement a national rail regulator, which included fatigue risk management.

Ministers will discuss recommendations from the commission on May 18.

The union has cited a Monash and Sydney university analysis that found removing shift limits was ''potentially dangerous''.

Maybe some duty time lessons can be learnt from another union.

LHLisa

29th Apr 2012, 01:59

The people who say shut up and put up with it, it's just the industry?

Seriously! If a member of your family is on an aircraft when there is an incident related to fatigue it may lead you to alter your view point. I sincerely hope that never occurs, but do people need to be directly impacted by something to have empathy and a desire to do things better ? I thought that was what separated us from animals. But no, most animal species do exhibit empathy on various levels

Lookleft

29th Apr 2012, 06:47

This incident has very little to do with fatigue and a lot to do with command of the flight, situational awareness and basic professionalism none of which was being exhibited by the PIC.

2Plus

29th Apr 2012, 07:05

This incident has very little to do with fatigue and a lot to do with command of the flight, situational awareness and basic professionalism none of which was being exhibited by the PIC.

Hear, hear! :D

Lookleft

29th Apr 2012, 08:52

Another off topic post:ugh:

theheadmaster

29th Apr 2012, 11:26

I think the point they are trying to make is that if you go and take up a job with an operator who you know is going to flog you, then don't complain to everyone else about your decision when you get flogged. Plenty of people have pulled their applications to certain airlines due to the crap rostering practices, you don't have to take the job just because its in a shiny jet.

Perhaps a valid argument if you are talking about pay or conditions generally, but when you are talking about the safety aspects of fatigue, this argument has no place. As a professional, you have an obligation to speak out about safety related issues, regardless of airline. I would argue that if you have identified a safety issue and do not stand up and say something about it, you do more damage to the profession than accepting substandard terms and conditions.

Normasars

30th Apr 2012, 07:32

Eastmoore

30th Apr 2012, 10:56

Ill bet my left one that Normasars and rmcdonal have just transferred to Jet Star under the MOU. And have winged from day one about there conditions.

Di_Vosh

30th Apr 2012, 11:32

Eastmoore

Ill bet my left one that Normasars and rmcdonal have just transferred to Jet Star under the MOU. And have winged from day one about there conditions.

ROFLMAO! :}:}:}

That is the funniest thing I've read here for a long time!

I know both of these guys and you couldn't be more wrong.

DIVOSH!

FJ44

30th Apr 2012, 11:38

Eastmoore
Quote:
Ill bet my left one that Normasars and rmcdonal have just transferred to Jet Star under the MOU. And have winged from day one about there conditions.

Lucky you only bet the left one!

theheadmaster

30th Apr 2012, 12:26

Headmaster,

using your logic then, I suppose there is no place for carriers like JQ , as these types of issues are the domain of that type of outfit.

RMCDONAL is nothing but a consummate professional btw.

Not quite sure what you think my logic is.

My comment was directed at the argument that rmcdonal was clarifying. I was trying to distinguish between the argument that 'you knew what you were getting in to - so don't whinge', with my point that fatigue is a safety issue that has an impact on the travelling public.

A 'profession' is generally a vocation the consists of a set of skills and/or knowledge that is combined with a service to the public. A fatigued crew is a danger to the passengers, crew and anybody else impacted by the burning wreckage. Pay and other conditions are a related, but separate argument.

I too have issues with the lowering of standards and conditions in the industry, in part caused by pilots undercutting each other. I have no problem with those same pilots raising concerns that are flight-safety related, in fact I see it as a requirement of being a professional.

LHLisa

1st May 2012, 14:02

We all have a responsibility to ourselves, our employer , each other and our familis and the travelling public, to speak up about any safety threats/ hazards in our work place. Fatigue is a safety hazard.

Legally we are required to speak up about it.

Criticising colleagues within the industry who needed to accept lessened weakened conditions so they could pay their mortgage seems a little mean spirited.

balance

2nd May 2012, 00:27

LHLisa, I'm not sure I understand your post.

You say, quite rightly, that we have an obligation to speak up if safety is compromised, and fatigue certainly fits into this category.

Yet in your next sentence, you suggest that it is improper to critisize those who would disregard your first comment, simply so that they can pay their mortgages.

Your two comments there seem a little incongrouous, but inadvertantly, I think you have nailed the major issue here.

That is, these guys have signed on "to pay their mortgage"; but the question is: "at what cost is their mortgage"?

I understand that everyone needs to feed their kids, but I find it unacceptable that they might "pay their mortgage" and risk their passengers and other crew by doing so.

I also find it unacceptable to be told that it is "mean spirited" to critisize those who would pay their mortgages without due regard to safety.

No mortgage is worth this compromise. I would find it "mean spirited" to tell a next of kin that their loved one has died because no-one spoke up, when we know full well there is a big issue here.

We need to speak up. Jetstar pilots need to grow a set of cojones and stand up to Buchanan, Joyce and Clifford.

Please forgive me LHLisa if I've misunderstood your post, but I think the point that I make is valid.

waren9

2nd May 2012, 01:35

Jetstar pilots need to grow a set of cojones and stand up to Buchanan, Joyce and Clifford.

Bollocks.

CASA wrote the CAO48 exemption. WTF have those 3 got to do with it?

theheadmaster

2nd May 2012, 01:42

If CASA wrote it in a vacuum, then nothing...

If, on the other hand, there is industry input (pressure), then the statement about standing up to the company applying that pressure is valid.

balance

2nd May 2012, 01:47

If you don't think that they are a massive part of the problem warren, then I suspect that you don't understand the problem.

waren9

2nd May 2012, 05:55

I think I understand quite well.

shon7

4th May 2012, 16:37

Let my reiterate/emphasize for you shon boy - Just because something is in some ops manual, in no way shape of form, means that it is safe out on the line.

I see. And can you let us know what exactly you have done at your outfit to address that issue. (posting on pprune doesn't count!)

As for the personal attacks - typical tactic. If you dont agree with an opinion attack the character. You dont know me. You never will. I know its hard for you to imagine that there could be a different opinion on things and to fathom that one could be in the same community and think this way. Doesn't bother me one bit. This is not even a debate at this point of time. Yawn.

Sarcs

4th May 2012, 21:27

Don't tell me...all this chest beating, "I can stay awake longer than you", Senator X's..." Toughen up Princesses" and other insider e-mails at Senate estimates, inquiries etc...etc may have had an affect....http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/nprm1202os.pdf :D Or is it a strategic ploy by the regulator just prior to the next estimates?? :ugh: "This will put that pesky Senator X back in his box"!:E

Livs Hairdresser

4th May 2012, 21:28

I know its hard for you to imagine that there could be a different opinion on things and to fathom that one could be in the same community and think this way.

Which 'community' might that be?

I know it's not the community I live in, because you live in India. And it's not the community of professional airline pilots, because you have a PPL and 240 hrs. Well, it's definitely not the community of people trying to make aviation safer.

shon7

4th May 2012, 22:06

Hairdresser - you still can't even get over the grounding of the airline. Once you're able to deal with reality I'll engage in a debate with you. Yawn.

IsDon

4th May 2012, 22:55

Don't engage with Shon guys.

He's a wannabe that will neverbe.

The closest he will ever get to the airline industry is where he is now. Sitting in the bedroom of his parents house tapping away on his computer. Getting his rocks off by making contentious statements about things he knows absolutely nothing about.

The best thing we can do for the spoilt little Gen Y brat that clearly he, is to take his toys away and don't even give him a reply.

For me this pitiful little insignificant no longer exists.

Keg

5th May 2012, 01:11

Folks, it's eminently simple.

This message is hidden because shon7 is on your ignore list.

User CP -> Under settings and options, Edit ignore list -> Add shon7 in the respective box. Voila!

Capt Kremin

5th May 2012, 02:12

Done. Shon, you "NewPiper" and "aircraft" talk amongst yourselves.

IsDon

5th May 2012, 02:19

How easy was that.

Thanks Keg!

Bye forever Shon.

:D

Tidbinbilla

5th May 2012, 08:32

Shon7,

I don't normally engage trolls in public, however you are this month's "special case". I banned you for your objectionable behaviour (in this, and other threads) for a period, but you don't seem to have picked up the ball during your time in the naughty corner.

With your "level" of experience (sic), I have serious doubts that you have ever worked in an organisation using FMRS. Let alone understand what it's about. That leaves you ill-qualified to write about the matter.

Most of your posts seem to be deliberately aimed at incensing people that DO work within an FMRS organisation (once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of the concept). Always taking the opposing view without any facts to back you up, nonetheless. Opposing views against those people that actually have the experience and professional intestinal fortitude to report on shortcomings within their respective companies.

I considered banning you once again - permanently, this time. However, you have one last chance to prove yourself as a man (or woman) of substance, and back yourself up with fact, not bile and childish remarks.

You will be judged by your peers on this occasion.

Over to you :8

And the audience. Please be gentle, people :}

TID, your sensitive mod.

balance

5th May 2012, 09:51

It occurs to me that Shon7, who seems to disagree with generally everyone on this forum, should use Keg's technique, and "ignore" all other users. That way he won't have any more problems....

Sorry, was that insensitive, Tidbinbilla?

indamiddle

7th May 2012, 09:35

and now with bated breath we all await the new prognostications of shon7. probably filling his superman undies as we type.
my bated breath smells of beer and popcorn, a lot better than the smell from my undies.
go shon7.

Eastmoore

7th May 2012, 10:52

Get on with the debate.

But wait. What where we debating.

LHLisa

7th May 2012, 12:51

A friend has reported safety issues to an avenue outside of management, as this friend was concerned management was "possibly" ignoring the issue.

Anyway this external organisation has told my friend to report the issue to Casa, stating that Casa will take care of it if the said issue exists.

And we all know how good Casa are at fixing stuff .

Balance thanking for confirming what I suspected , I know what I am trying to say but nobody else does. Back to proper English classes for me I guess

Sarcs

8th May 2012, 05:38

Ben is still banging away on his keyboard...

Australian aviation is more lucky than safe | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/05/07/australian-aviation-is-more-lucky-than-safe/)

....but alas no-one is listening or maybe no-one can hear over the noise coming from the trough or the two little piggies rutting next door, TICK TOCK indeed!:ugh:

"Nothing to see here move along!":cool:

Looks like Ben may have disrupted a least one snout from the trough....

CASA responds to Jetstar txting incident criticism | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/05/08/casa-responds-to-jetstar-txting-incident-criticism/)

....bit of a bristly retort from Albo's circus

Mstr Caution

8th May 2012, 11:00

Sarcs,

I'd say no serious investigative journalist is listening or in fact typing in fear of sitting in economy & failing to secure an "upgrade" on their next booked service on whichever carrier they may chose to fly in the future.

Having been around aviation for near thirty years may I suggest the holes in the swiss cheese are aligning. I have regurgitated the old "tick tock" comment in the past, but James Reason & the latent deficiencies may be the only opportunity the industry has in stopping those holes aligning.

In no way do I cast I wide net amongst the professional airmen & women amongst us, whether it be mainline, subsidiary or otherwise. But I truly believe airline management practices & new "worlds best practice" principles have edged us as an aviation community closer to the unimaginable.

Why?

Ask yourselves, why were the crew on the service to Singapore there?

Not, what lead a crew to find themselves in that situation. But how has an industry, have we allowed or pushed ourselves to find us in this current predicament?

The crew were there in Singapore on that night, not configured, unstable & unaware, because the current direction of airline management allowed it to happen.

IT IS NOT THE CREWS FAULT, IT IS A FAULT BY MANAGEMENT.

Looking at Reasons model of latent deficiencies, lets look at how we got to the current state. This is directed at an industry at large rather than at individuals.

Recruitment:

* There are no Educational requirements as far as attaining a HSC to be an airline pilot.

* The entry requirements to becoming an Airline Pilot have been "dumbed down". Read Bruce Buchanan's comments that "everybody" should have the "opportunity" to be an Airline Pilot.

* There is NO recognition of experience. In days gone by, entry to airlines as direct entry First Officers would require 2500 to 3000 hours of flight time. Now, Airline CEO's actually state that experience is a negative thing. :ugh:

* Airline employment & entry is not entirely MERIT based. Under a Merit based system, where airlines would recruit the best & brightest then pay for that individuals training. The calibre of entrants would be at the high water mark.

* A non MERIT based system & pay for your own training allows a "small proportion" of people to be in the seat of an airliner that should never had been there!

* Industry rumours have circulated that the entry standard required in the past is not the current required standard. If we look at behavioural markers like Situational Awareness, Decision Making & Leadership. It makes sense that if we are recruiting to a lower standard the product we are experiencing is a lower standard.

Training

* There is a lack of focus on real world previous aviation experience.

* No amount of time in a simulator or accelerated course can replace the real world experience attained in real life commercial operations.

* Airlines should never transfer the responsibility of aircrew training to third party providers. The standard, or latent deficiencies will surface at some unexpected time perhaps years in the future.

* Airlines introduce artificial limitations on aircrew to mitigate against lack of experience. In my opinion all checked to line First Officers should be capable of landing an aircraft to the manufacturers crosswind limitations. If they can't they shouldn't be sitting in the right hand seat. Introducing a lower crosswind limit of say 15kts & stating it's an insurance requirement doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's because the FO only has 250 hours that the insurer wont cover them to land in a crosswind greater than 15 kts.

Fatigue:

* If an airline has created an environment, where crew feel pressured or coerced to continue a duty once it is evident fatigue related errors have occurred. That airline has failed to meet the responsibilities of an AOC holder.

* Conversely, if a crew have experienced fatigue related errors (and have discussions of such an occurrence postflight) Then continuing an operation on another sector without holding themselves from service. For whatever reason, they have exposed an operation to a risk & one must question the decision making process of that crew & what commercial pressures have been placed on that crew to get the job done.

* If an airline does have a user friendly FRMS policy, then such policy & management support would allow a crew to with hold themselves from service in order to obtain adequate rest before launching with fare paying passengers again.

Reporting:

* I will be brief here, but a have reservations as to how "open" reporting cultures are within airlines. Management expectations & crew professionalism would dictate that reports are factual and accurate. If a "punitive" management culture is evident crew may be gun shy to report the facts.

Investigation:

How the f&*k could it take two years to investigate a go round? Delaying or introducing new safety based outcomes as a result of such an investigation.

MC

Capt Kremin

8th May 2012, 11:36

Great Post!

Sarcs

8th May 2012, 11:53

Yes great post Captain K!:D:D Sums it up nicely, so why do you think.......How the f&*k could it take two years to investigate a go round? Delaying or introducing new safety based outcomes as a result of such an investigation.........it took that long and where was the regulator's 'duty of care' in all that time if, as PG (minus the i ) says in his reply to Ben, "We are a proactive regulator?":=

Mstr Caution

8th May 2012, 12:18

CASA statement:

Jetstar responded appropriately to the May 2010 incident by undertaking their own investigation, identifying areas for improvement and developing 16 action items. They learnt lessons.

This is what CASA expects from an airline – a proactive response and a plan of action to incidents and unplanned events.

CASA has carefully reviewed the Jetstar investigation and the actions taken. We believe they were an appropriate response. CASA continues to monitor these issues to make sure the improvements have been put in place and are effective.

CASA takes action against an airline when responses to incidents or events are not appropriate – especially when there is evidence an airline’s safety systems are not working effectively.

The CASA response is both predictable & underwhelming.

As pilots we are all use to the "Challenge & Response" philosophy.

It seems CASA aren't challenging airlines to ensure the highest level of safety, but only respond to their deficiencies.

CASA should not be spoon feeding poorly performing entities.

How could an airline holding an Australian AOC identify 16 "action items" as a result of an unstable approach and go around?How could they have not discovered these deficiencies earlier?

Could they elaborate on what these 16 deficiencies were?

Why weren't any of these deficiencies identified earlier by either internal audit or CASA oversight?

"They learnt lessons" is a cop out !

Where is the proactive management of safety by either party. After an event, we can look back in hindsight & identify areas for concern. However hindsight may be too little too late.

If this isn't another example of an "airlines safety management system not working efficiently" could CASA please tell us what the hell is?

Mstr Caution

8th May 2012, 14:35

Sarcs,

I have concern as to the CASA logic here.

The Jetstar text messages & go around event at Singapore was in May 2010.

The Tiger Airlines go around event at Avalon happened on 30th Jun 2011.

Using CASA's logic & I quote their response:

Comparing Jetstar to Tiger is like apples and oranges – Tiger did not respond proactively to issues identified over a period of time and the safety systems were not effective.

Reading CASA's response, one would (incorrectly) believe the grounding of Tiger Airlines was BEFORE the Jetstar event in Singapore.

My issue remains with the statement "the safety systems were not effective"

Four issues remain outstanding:

1. At the time of the Jetstar go around in Singapore, the Tiger go around in Avalon was not to occur until another some 13 months later.

2.If CASA identified 16 Jetstar safety deficiencies, wouldn't this be considered as "safety systems were not effective" as they found in Tiger 13 months later.

3. Is the sticking point with CASA the "proactive response" component?

Can you commit unsafe acts & continue to operate as long as the later response is proactive?

4. At the time of Tiger Airlines grounding, CASA's quoted Tiger as not having adequate Fatigue Management.

Tiger Airways Grounded | CASA lost confidence in airline (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/aviation-watchdog-lost-confidence-in-troubled-tiger-20110702-1gvse.html)

Quote: "The authority imposed a number of conditions on Tiger air operator certificate, requiring actions to improve pilot proficiency and training and checking processes as well as changes to fatigue management".

If Jetstar had exhibited the same deficiencies in pilot proficiencies & fatigue management 13 months earlier, why the "apples & oranges response to Tiger 13 months later?

MC

balance

8th May 2012, 19:39

Go get 'em, MC. Your analysis is spot on. Give it to Ben, and Senator X. They are the only ones outside the Pprune forums (and of course those in the industry...) that are listening.

Lets get your message out there, hopefully before Jetstar lose an aircraft.

Sarcs

8th May 2012, 20:52

MC absolutely spot on mate!:ok: I agree with balance's sentiment too, go get them Tiger....ahh MC!:D

Could this also constitute a breach (or two) of the Model Litigant rules Appendix B:
From Appendix B
The obligation:
(1) Consistently with the Attorney-General’s responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards in litigation, the Commonwealth and its agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.
Nature of the obligation:
(2) The obligation to act as a model litigant requires that the Commonwealth and its agencies act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation brought by or against the Commonwealth or an agency by:
(a) dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation
(aa) making an early assessment of:
(i) the Commonwealth’s prospects of success in legal proceedings that may be brought against the Commonwealth; and
(ii) the Commonwealth’s potential liability in claims against the Commonwealth
(b) paying legitimate claims without litigation, including making partial settlements of claims or interim payments, where it is clear that liability is at least as much as the amount to be paid
(c) acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation
(d) endeavouring to avoid, prevent and limit the scope of legal proceedings wherever possible, including by giving consideration in all cases to alternative dispute resolution before initiating legal proceedings and by participating in alternative dispute resolution processes where appropriate
(e) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by:
(i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true
(ii) not contesting liability if the Commonwealth or the agency knows that the dispute is really about quantum (iii) monitoring the progress of the litigation and using methods that it considers appropriate to resolve the litigation, including settlement offers, payments into court or alternative dispute resolution, and (iv) ensuring that arrangements are made so that a person participating in any settlement negotiations on behalf of the Commonwealth or an agency can enter into a settlement of the claim or legal proceedings in the course of the negotiations (f) not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim (g) not relying on technical defences unless the Commonwealth’s or the agency’s interests would be prejudiced by the failure to comply with a particular requirement (h) not undertaking and pursuing appeals unless the Commonwealth or the agency believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest, and (i) apologising where the Commonwealth or the agency is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.

Legal Services Directions 2005 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00320)

Sunfish

8th May 2012, 20:54

Never mind the excellent analysis of the facts on the ground, what we are talking here is CORPORATE CULTURE.

I am sure that Jetstar has miles of glossy manuals regarding the procedures and systems that guarantee (on paper) that its operations are worlds best practice regarding safety.

However if the corporate culture is to selectively apply and interpret those procedures for its own profit, then they are worse than useless.

That leaves the Crew in the classic "Double Bind" dilemma. - a formal legal requirement to apply company fatigue procedures and standards to their operations - but an informal management practice (or even threatened practice) of penalising or discriminating against anyone who avails themselves of the personal protections of the formal system

I had this one tried on me by Exxon as a young engineer in charge of Twenty one million litres of petrol and avtur - with Two feet thick of manuals that I was supposed to follow, but without sufficient money or staff to allow me to comply. Complaint simply resulted in a query about whether I was a "company man" and did I want to keep working here? The choice was obvious, shut up and remain personally exposed until my next promotion or leave. I left after that. The Longford gas plant explosion subsequently showed Exxon's procedure at its finest - the blamed the dead for "not following company procedures" and it took a royal commission to sheet home the blame to Exxon and exonerate its overworked and undertrained victims.

I don't expect CASA to hold Jetstar to account. It would take balls of steel, and exceptionally ironclad committment to safety, from the top of CASA all the way down to effectively face off Jetstar, stand up to them and say "Yes, I know what your procedures SAY Mother*&*er, but I can tell that this is what your managers are really doing!". There are no public servants in Australia anymore who could or would do that.

What will happen is highly predictable. There will be a fatigue or maintenance related accident and Jetstar will blame the pilots for "not following company procedures" even though those procedures are now honoured in the breach.

Mstr Caution

8th May 2012, 21:16

Sunfish

I agree entirely with your "double bind dilemma".

Think Colgan Airlines. Training, procedures, remuneration & fatigue.

Kharon

8th May 2012, 21:34

.
MC- I have concern as to the CASA logic here. Oh ho, just a bit of it – spot on posting.
SF - It would take balls of steel, and exceptionally ironclad commitment to safety, from the top of CASA all the way down to effectively face off Jetstar, stand up to them and say "Yes, I know what your procedures SAY Mother*&*er, but I can tell that this is what your managers are really doing!".
Don't know about J* but corporate aviation is currently suffering from severe AOCM policyitis. That is 'go along to get along'; some of the SOP bollocks being inflicted, by stealth not written directive should be a subject for Senate enquiry as soon as possible. (i.e. before rather than after).

CAR 138 is clear, specific and should be the end of any discussion related to SOP or home made modification of procedure. If this procedural ethos has been foisted onto J*, it will be more than a fatigue or maintenance issue, add clear breech of the AFM combined with risible SOP. The risk of unwritten "in real life SOP" operating in conflict with the CAA fairy story version is real, measurable and poses a significant, sinister threat.

The micro management crap will be crystal clear, but completely deniable.
Arses covered – you bet.