G/A groundhog day?

[ccy sam]

A question to G/A pilots. Having been in the airlines for quite a fews years I wonder if G/A has changed for the better since I was there on the mid 80s. Are there still the cut price 'shonky' operaters out there ripping of pilots and forcing them to fly unairworthy aircraft or has CASA finally run them out of town?

[Mr. Hat]

ccy sam

I'm not sure what GA was like in the eighties but from what I've heard its pretty much the same as it is now...it could possibly be worse.

The aeroplanes are the same a/c you would have flown back then - so you can imagine how tired a lot of them are looking now. From what I can see its an industry in decline - no new a/c and very few new companies.

It seems to me that the companies that do everything right by their staff struggle to survive. Yes, this is very sad.

Another thing that springs to mind is the introduction of fees for IFR flights. Back then I suppose if you could go IFR you would. Now you are going to have some explaining to do if you fly around IFR in VMC. Its economics to the operators and thats fair enough. For pilots it means less exposure to instrument flying and also an extra decision and hidden pressure when the time to upgrade comes.

Obviously as time passes the community shares and learns more from mistakes of others and I suppose pilots nowadays are increasing their human factors / human error awarness as opposed to the eighties.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this as I've not flown in the eighties.

As for CASA, like everything there are the good and the bad. I've met a few chaps that are really trying hard to help. They are limited by their resources I suppose. I have also seen some very very worrying things. Big issues ignored and silly little things getting followed up.

CASA running shonks out of town? I think fear of litigation ties their hands really.

If in the eighties GA Pilots had to fight tooth and nail to maintain safety and raise their standard of living then nothing has changed. Fact is, hardly anyone would consider a career in GA because of the way it is and hence they couldn't be bothered trying to change it. Its just a vicious circle.

Its important to remember though that there are good people and operators out there it just takes a bit of finding :D .

I'm off for a beer now. Enjoy the airlines.
;) ;)

[8 8th's Blue]

I smell a potential wind up!!:D :} :=

[QNIM]

c s
the short answer is yes. :mad:

[Mr. Hat]

ccy sam

Let me put the question to you - How has the airline buisness changed since you have joined? Apart from the obvious what are some of the smaller things that have changed?

Are the perks getting better or worse?

From your perspective is it better or worse now?

Is it as good as it looks from the other side of the fence?

[ccy sam]

There use to be an old joke that if you didn't break the rules in G/A [fly over weight, operate slightly unairworthy aircraft,never pen any defect etc] you lost your job, while in airlines if you DID break the rules you lost your job. So everyone was willing to sell thier left kidney to get an airline job. Essentially this is still true however CASA, economic pressures and airlines only meeting the minimum CASA requirements mean the airline operations are sinking standard wise toward G/a. For example, MELs on aircraft are now used to keep it flying for many days instead of just getting it back to a maintainance base. CASA no longer require a licenced engineer to sign off an aircraft for every sector it flies, I could go on. While airline still expect the crews to not break the rules, there is increasing pressure on the crews to walk in the 'grey zone' when assessing whether a defect is a no go item. "If you don't go we don't have engineering coverage and it will take 5 hours to get an engineer from another base". While all this may sound like dreamland stuff to a G/A driver it is a real issue, people pay for and airline ticket thinking it was as safe as the 1970s, on the surface it may appear that way but most of the 'safety fat' has been cut away. Respect for the captain has been eroded to the point where he/she has no more authority than the baggage loader.
All this may sound like a big whinge[it is] but the point is the its not the same job it use to be.Still if G/A is still a bad as I remember it then airlines are still worth going after, pay is better too, though the job security is very G/A, just ask the Ansett boys.

[luna landing]

What exactly is it? I've never understood the expression.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Originally, Groundhog Day referred to the 2nd of February in the United States. On this day, legend had it, the groundhog would emerge from his burrow. If he saw his shadow, he would be frightened back into his burrow, signalling six more weeks of winter. If, on the other hand, he did not see his shadow, he would emerge from his burrow, and an early spring was on the cards.

More modern usage is based upon a movie of the same name, and set on groundhog day. For some reason, the main character (played by Bill Murray - I think) is doomed to repeat the same day, over and over. Each time, only he is aware that the day is being repeated, while all those around him are experiencing it for the 'first' time.

Hence, its modern meaning of "deja vu all over again "

[Mr. Hat]

Interesting. I suppose its a huge decision when the time comes to writing up an aircraft with 100-400 pob, you certainly don't see it happen often. If you write something up in the airlines do you get flack or questioned about it at a later date or do they just fix it and thats that?

What are the big machines like? Are there things forever breaking in them like in the old bugsmashers?

Are you ever having arguments about fuel/payload or is just so cut and dry that its never questioned?

What about hotels/staff travel/allowances/perks all in decline?

Luna - Its a movie that I think many can relate to. You know how you seem to sometimes do exactly the same things at exactly the same time every single day? To the point where you can predict exactly what people are going to do or say. Worth hiring, its good for a laugh.

One more question ccy (sorry I know you started the thread and I hijacked ;) ). Of all the guys you trained with or flew with did the ones that stuck at it eventually get that jet job or are some still in GA?

:confused:

[prospector]

CCY Sam, It is really quite simple, 40 years ago only the wealthy could afford to fly, they expected, and got a very good service, experienced crew, a captain that really had the experience to deserve the title, first officers that had at least 5 years in the right seat to learn their trade,before they could even contemplate a command, hostesses really had to be the pick of the bunch to get a job, but now,,, the airlines are running what is effectively cattle class, charge the minimum, give the minimum service, and hire crews, in the new world scenario, with the minimum experience possible, and of course to keep it all viable pay the minimum wages. This is progress supposedly, the one thing that makes it possible is that aircraft design has progressed so far that they virtually fly themselves, and in a few more years they will.

Prospector

[Hugh Jarse]

In your last post, never a truer word has been spoken. Particularly with respect to MEL's being used for many days, rather than as a "get you home to get it fixed".

I remember when I could get on an aircraft and there would be no deferred defects. If we had a problem it would be fixed.

Nowadays, it seems that the first thing that happens when you report a defect to Ops is to see if it can be deferred under the MEL, rather than attend the aircraft and fix it. More responsibility for the crew.

It's not the LAME's fault, but the system that the Company makes them operate under.

Of course, we do on occasion have to make the call and REQUIRE the aircraft to be fixed, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Nobody wants to delay the punters, but sometimes you have to draw the line because nobody else will :mad:

______________________________

It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.... P. Garrett circa 1982.

[Sheep Guts]

Thats the way Arse write it up, and make them fix it.

Well the thing where I am at the moment, we expat Engineers and the locals. The locals are not happy with pay. I usually would tell the expat engs at the end of the day the problem and they would write it up and fix and put in the CORRECT corrective action. It was a trust and good working relationship. Well one day I did that between scheduled services and told the engineers first the problem. I walked away from the Aircrafty thinking it was all in hand . Hey presto I came back around 30 MINUTES BEFORE DOORS AND NOTHING TOUCHED! Well I wrote it up then and now they can fix the dam thing. Ofcourse there reason was not written up. Well I learned my lesson.

ALLWAYS write it up. Is what I do here, but It would be diffferent in other countries and Oz.

Regards
Sheep
:p

[ccy sam]

Mr Hat, sorry about the delay in this reply, been away on a trip.
Airline jets are very reliable, they rarely break down in the sense that they cannot fly, especially if they are new. The issue is usually if something breaks, can you continue to operate with whats left. This is where the MEL comes in[minimum equipment list], say the number one VHF nav reciever fails, can you still go, what weather conditions are allowable, will you have to do an approach at the destination, will it be night or day. All these things and many more may be required to be considered before a go/nogo decision is made. Somewhere in the ops manaul it will say that the Captain is responseable for considering all the implications of a defect. The problem is that operations people will assume that because a defect is MEL-able, the aircraft can keep going especially if the aircraft has already been flying with that MEL. The new captain taking over the aircraft is then under pressure to take the aircraft as it is. Thats part of the burden of command. Problem is that in todays brave new world anyone from the baggage handler to the operations staff feel quite happy to challenge the captain decision. In my experience this usually just makes the captain say 'no' louder, but its stress he/she doesn't need. I suppose its why we use to get paid the big bucks.
You mention fuel loads. The bean counters have run amuck in this area, decreeing that we should all fly round on minimum fuel[less fuel, less a/c weight, less fuel burned to carry the extra fuel ETC] All well and good until the met. man stuffs it up and you don't have the holding fuel for the TEMPO that suddenly appears. I don't know any line captain that flies with min fuel, only a few management pilot heros who do.
Last and most important question. Its been my experience that those who PERSIST WILL SUCCEED. All my peers that kept at it are flying for airlines, here or overseas. Its still worth the effort to fly the jets if that what you want, don't be put off by old whingers like me. And lastly if you get knocked back by an airline as I did keep trying else where, the world is a big place and the G/A experience you get in OZ is valuable for the rest of your carreer.
End of sermon

[Mr. Hat]

Thank you ccy sam - very insightful.

I was particularly interested in what you were saying about fuel.

[Mile High Society]

I read your intitial reply and I have to say you hit the nail on the head. Good on you. I wish more people could be as honest about how it all works as you were. Maybe we might be able to change the system after all.

[Mr. Hat]

Not a problem MHS. I do fear sometimes an earbashing for my honesty at times. Have not received one so I'll keep it up! Perhaps a lot of people agree with the approach:confused: ?:ooh: