View Full Version : Air NZ A320 + Mr Bloxham

23rd Dec 2002, 04:01
The Dominion Post 22 DEC 2002

"Embattled Air New Zealand - already under fire over a string of safety scares - wants to forgo required pilot training for its new Airbus aircraft.

The airline is buying 15 A320 aircraft to replace some of its Boeing 737s and 767s, and has asked aviation safety bosses for an exemption to certain pilot training rules.

Air New Zealand's safety practices are under scrutiny after six major incidents since May last year, including three in the past four months in which aircraft have lost parts during flights.

In the most serious incident, this month an engine on a Boeing 767 exploded soon after the plane took off from Brisbane for Auckland.

In a petition to the Civil Aviation Authority, Air New Zealand is seeking an exemption from rules which state Boeing pilots should complete 100 hours of flight time or 75 "operating cycles" before moving to the Airbus.

Air New Zealand believes its own training regime for the pilots will be adequate, but aviation expert Les Bloxham says the airline will have a "hard sell" trying to convince the CAA to bend its rules.

Bloxham said the flying technology between the Boeing and the Airbus was different.

"I don't know how civil aviation will view those differences. It's different from going from the 737 to a 767 for example, or traditional types of Boeing controls.

"I'm not sure how long it might take for the pilot to adjust to the differences."

However, Air New Zealand spokeswoman Shannon Huse said it was common international practice for airlines to seek exemptions from these sorts of rules, given the circumstances.

The airline was not "cutting corners" and was working closely with the authority to introduce a new set of rules for the Airbus planes.

The exemption had strict controls and would be in conjunction with other training which had already started.

Huse said eight Air New Zealand pilots were in France training with a representative from the authority. From there the pilots would go to Hong Kong for a further month or two of flying.

In May, a flight simulator would be operating in New Zealand for further training.

The exemption is sought for captains with at least 15 years' flying experience with Air New Zealand and at least three years in the standards and training role, and for captains and first officers with at least two years' experience on their aircraft type and in their rank.

In the petition, Air New Zealand highlighted the experience of the pilots, Airbus recommendations and Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) requirements.

It proposed pilots would undergo an approved Airbus ground course, A320 rating, transition training and proficiency checks.

The petition was put out for public consultation and submissions closed last week.

The Civil Aviation Authority said the submissions still had to be assessed. A decision would not be made for some time.

Air New Zealand is spending $826 million on the 162-seat planes. The first of the aircraft - which will be flown on Pacific and trans-Tasman routes - is due in October. "

23rd Dec 2002, 08:29
Here we go again , another Indian Airlines ,Air France, Gulf Air ,all put A320,s in due to Pilot error.( Lack of good training)My family and I will not fly with these guys if they are going to cut corners. Imagine if Qantas asked to cut corners with the A330.It is the first new generation airbus for them as well.It would probably be the last straw for Air NZ if they had a major incident , so they sould just stick to the standard training and stop trying to cut corners.

Buster Hyman
23rd Dec 2002, 11:00
One. Why doesn't CASA step in here, just like they did for AN? Surely they have the authority to protect Australian interests when travelling on foreign carriers? They just need to place a ban on all ANZ 767 & 747 types entering Australian airspace until they are sufficiently satisfied that safety standards & maintenance practices are being kept.

Two. I'd like to know if they even contemplated using the AN A320 sims? TNO, perhaps you could get in touch with your mates & see if any overtures were made by ANZ to the administrators for sim time? Surely, as sympathetic people that they are, the ANZ board would do anything they can in order to help their former employees.... :rolleyes:

Merry Christmas!

24th Dec 2002, 06:14
Are you guys for real ?????

This article is the most unmitigated tripe I've seen in the Sunday SS yet.

The fact that it even gets a mention from ppruners amazes me.

Only a moron journo or one eyed anti Air NZ Aussies could see a story here.

How can you get from air NZ's intro of the A320 to banning Air NZ 767's and 747's in Aust.... Buster??... Idiot??

24th Dec 2002, 10:58
Like Logan, I can't believe you guys are for real. Why don't you make a few inquiries and find out what happens in the real world. After 10,000 hrs on Boeings I converted to the minibus. At Toulouse I did the required ground school and sim. I and others with the full range of experience then returned to the line and did 25 hours and a minimum of 8 sectors with Airbus Training Captains before being let loose.

One Question was how long it would take to get familiar with the different controls - about 30 seconds if that. It is so natural and straight forward. The aircraft itself is very simple and easy to fly. The only thing one needs to work on is the different philosophy. The airbus way is different to the Boeing way.

I have subsequently built up some 8000 hours on 320 & 340 mostly in the training role. I must say this having trained on many aircraft since 1970 that the airbus have proved to be straight forward for pilots to come to grips with. The Key we discovered was in having very good SOP's for the pilots to follow for the various flight phases.

Boeing and Airbus both produce good aircraft. It is only their operating philosophy and technology that stands them apart. There in no big bogey man out there, just good sim/line training makes the difference between airlines that have accidents and those that don't.

Have a nice day

Buster Hyman
24th Dec 2002, 13:53
Air New Zealand's safety practices are under scrutiny after six major incidents since May last year, including three in the past four months in which aircraft have lost parts during flights.

Why don't you look up the word, irony , then have a long think about your second post!

BTW, it's rude to call people "idiot"...DlCKHEAD!:D

24th Dec 2002, 17:08
Buster, perhaps you should post a definition of Irony.

Kwaj mate
24th Dec 2002, 22:21
I also agree with Logan.
There is some one-eyed logic running lose here.
Instead of banning NZ planes into OZ, what about that HoS AN12 that I recently saw running out of BNE.
It looks like they have tried to start a dump in the Solomons with their carcases.
Now tell me your logic.

Buster Hyman
25th Dec 2002, 11:31
i·ro·ny Audio pronunciation of irony ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.


25th Dec 2002, 19:13
What?? - It beggars belief that you 1. take a Newspaper article at face value, 2. especially where Mr Bloxham is involved. ANZ is following the NZCAA Part 121 process to the letter, and in this case Part 121.517 (b) 2, under which the Director is specifically in the instance of introduction of a new type, authorised to give relief from some of the initial line training hour/sector requirements. ANZ is in fact, in suport of its application in this case, significantly exceeding the requirements of the Rules in other aspects of the training, including doing as QF did a la the A330, and placing some of the initial crews with another A320 operator. As for 'banning" of aircrfat which have technical incidents, that would see QF 747's banned from entering Australia, (recent Engine failure on the Tasman inbound to Australia) - Thailand - we need not elaborate - Rome - wheel assembly collapsed - etc etc - QF B737's banned form operations within NZ - ran off taxyways at CHC and AKL - ........ - grow up!

26th Dec 2002, 19:53
Great to see that, especially in the season of Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All, relations between Dunnunda and Godzone are so pleasant, NOT......... ;) :rolleyes: :eek:

IF Air NZ are doing the right thing, good. :D

IF they are not, then they deserve much criticism. :(

27th Dec 2002, 07:36
I agree with Rabbit

I spent years flying the 727 and the 747/400 before converting to the 320.
I was very in the " If it's not Boeing I'm not going " philosophy. Very wrong of me.
The aircraft is a piece of cake to fly and I wonder how I could spent so many years with that control column wondering how on earth I could strech my legs.
I'm not too found of their FMC however, I found the Boeing one much more user friendly but they're being upgraded.
This aircraft offers a lot more safety in windshear and ground collision avoidance. All you have to do is yank the stick backward, the throttle foward and the aircraft takes care of the rest in a much better way than I would ever be able to.
You'll find it very nice to use on short turn around, unlike the 737 the flightdeck offers a lot of room and that's important and buying the new generation the noise problems are sorted out.
You'll definitly enjoy it.

Sharfted Groundhog
27th Dec 2002, 23:38
I have to agree with the majority here...... how many times has that newspaper written inflamitory remarks or only half the truth just to fill it's pages?!?! How many times to we have to remark on it before we learn to get the whole picture first????

Do you really think that an airline - who is still in the financial poop and is being scrutinised closely due to a couple of incidents quite close together - would go and put their punters and staff at risk with the introduction of a new aircraft type? I don't think so. It wouldn't be worth their skins......

Another point to look at is that although the NZ CAA is (by enlarge) a bunch of old sandle-and-sock wearers, do you think the GM of Airlines would allow something dodgy to happen while he was in charge? Again, I think not.

This has nothing to do with Ansett Australia or CASA, for that matter. Maybe it's time for a few people to move on and get on with their lives. Management don't care if you all get ulcers from the bile you keep regurgitating - only you! I'm sure most of the guys who lost their jobs when QF Australia didn't bail out their NZ counterparts have moved on - or at least you hear them bitching less!

Just wait and see what happens, is my advice. Go and enjoy xmas and have a drink or three. I would of thought those who have been stung lately would WANT Air NZ to succeed - less unemployed pilots on the market all looking at the same few jobs..... just another thought...

Buster Hyman
28th Dec 2002, 10:05
Geez, you Kiwis are far too touchy these days! Too many Tolkien films I think!:rolleyes: :D

29th Dec 2002, 00:55
wallabie, weird innit? Honeywell make the FMCs for both the boeing and the airbus so you'd think they could make just one good one. Ya copy the active and you lose the secondary on the 'bus but on the criple 7 going direct to is a 6 million button pushing exercise vs 3 for the bus. etc etc:D

29th Dec 2002, 03:10
Must try harder to be constructive W