Jetstars First Day- Any Feedback???
the driving is done by the Captain.
The powerpush unit attaches to the gear and simply pushes the aeroplane. The pilot steers in accordance with instructions issued by the ground person on the headset - they have not fitted the optional reversing mirrors and the "beep beep" thingie as far as I know!
the engineers tell me that they are gentler on the aeroplane than tugs.
The powerpush unit attaches to the gear and simply pushes the aeroplane. The pilot steers in accordance with instructions issued by the ground person on the headset - they have not fitted the optional reversing mirrors and the "beep beep" thingie as far as I know!
the engineers tell me that they are gentler on the aeroplane than tugs.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
To the best of my knowledge, 3 Bars, there is no legal jurisdiction requiring the airline`s customers to have their seat belts fastened whilst seated, additionally QANTAS don`t advise their customers that this is a REQUIREMENT.
The people usually injured in these encounters are the F/A`s and pax who are NOT seated, but rather standing, or moving around the cabin.
1). It is NOT a "requirement", and
2). It comes across as unnecessary, control-freak , type behaviour.
How many times have you heard of passengers being injured in unforecast turbulence? How many of these people have probably not been wearing their seatbelts while seated?
Surely you are not suggesting that this REQUIREMENT is just preempted by the cabin crew (storm troopers) in a fit of pique aimed at discomforting the passengers?
2). It comes across as unnecessary, control-freak , type behaviour.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditzy - here is a link to the new pushback tractor:
http://www.schopf-gse.com/productrange/prppinhalt.html
http://www.schopf-gse.com/productrange/prppinhalt.html
Simple really
Seat belt sign on - must remain in seat with belt fastened.
Seat belt sign off - may move around cabin but if seated recommend seat belt be fastened.
What's the fuss.
Seat belt sign on - must remain in seat with belt fastened.
Seat belt sign off - may move around cabin but if seated recommend seat belt be fastened.
What's the fuss.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptain -
Actually I would have to disagree.
*It is mentioned in the demonstration video
"Having your seatbelt done up low and tight is absolutely essential during takeoff, landing and turbulence. It is a Qantas requirement you keep it on at other times."
*The manual demo
"Keeping it on is a requirement to prevent injury if we encounter turbulence."
*It is mentioned in the After Take Off PA
"The seatbelt sign has now been switched off, however for your safety throughout the flight, you are required to keep your seatbelt fastened whenever you are seated."
*The inflight magazine
"Seatbelts must be fastened during takeoff, landing and when you are seated in case your aircraft encounters turbulence."
Next you'll be telling us a 737-300 has more than six exits! *ducks for cover* Sorry just being cheeky!
As cabin crew I will only enforce this rule if;
- we are in light turbulance and the seat belt sign is still off. Even then I just suggest it - I don't force people.
- I have UMs I make them keep their seatbelt on when seated.
I am not aware of any cabin crew who enforce this rule unless the seatbelt sign is on.
... additionally Qantas don't advise customers this is a REQUIREMENT.
*It is mentioned in the demonstration video
"Having your seatbelt done up low and tight is absolutely essential during takeoff, landing and turbulence. It is a Qantas requirement you keep it on at other times."
*The manual demo
"Keeping it on is a requirement to prevent injury if we encounter turbulence."
*It is mentioned in the After Take Off PA
"The seatbelt sign has now been switched off, however for your safety throughout the flight, you are required to keep your seatbelt fastened whenever you are seated."
*The inflight magazine
"Seatbelts must be fastened during takeoff, landing and when you are seated in case your aircraft encounters turbulence."
Next you'll be telling us a 737-300 has more than six exits! *ducks for cover* Sorry just being cheeky!
As cabin crew I will only enforce this rule if;
- we are in light turbulance and the seat belt sign is still off. Even then I just suggest it - I don't force people.
- I have UMs I make them keep their seatbelt on when seated.
I am not aware of any cabin crew who enforce this rule unless the seatbelt sign is on.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Among others things LAME when refueling with pax onboard apart from having sear belts undone it is also a requirement that the F/A's remain in the vicinity of the emergency exits AND that the "dolly birds" arn't in the John rearranging their corsets. 
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True.
Also several other parts of CAO 20.9 they broke that day.
To try to expedite the departure they had removed the rear (mobile) stairs and only had the aerobridge. This is also a breach of regulations as the remaining doors were not armed.
Also with a full load as it was that day, they should have had a fire tender standing by at the aircraft.
As long as Airlines worry about only being on time and saving money, instead of following regulations, these things will happen.
Also several other parts of CAO 20.9 they broke that day.
To try to expedite the departure they had removed the rear (mobile) stairs and only had the aerobridge. This is also a breach of regulations as the remaining doors were not armed.
Also with a full load as it was that day, they should have had a fire tender standing by at the aircraft.
As long as Airlines worry about only being on time and saving money, instead of following regulations, these things will happen.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lame you are exactly right about the incident you described. It is quite clear that the correct procedures were not followed.
Did you utilise your CRM skills and manage upwards to alert the crew to the problem at hand?
Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek.
SG
PS. How do you know the doors were not armed?
Did you utilise your CRM skills and manage upwards to alert the crew to the problem at hand?
Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek.
SG
PS. How do you know the doors were not armed?
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF you read the posts, assuming you can read, you will see I was actually defending Jetstar about the cabin seating. 
It was Ansett that the seating/refuelling problems were on.
It is true that I have no time for Jetstar at present, because of the way they are treating their pax, and grave safety concerns I have about them for not using LAMEs for preflights.
It was Ansett that the seating/refuelling problems were on.
It is true that I have no time for Jetstar at present, because of the way they are treating their pax, and grave safety concerns I have about them for not using LAMEs for preflights.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: caprica
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I commend Jetstar for no longer accepting the crap excuses for people turning up to flights late. It would great if Qantas and VB follow suit. HOw many times. Come on everyone. How many times have you been delayed and had to off load bags for people not turning up to flights even after check in. Great to see they have the balls to do it. IT is not a friggin bus service. These a/c are worth 10's of millions of dollars. The Oz public should be rapped they are not flying around in 727's or DC8's. If Jetstar can squeeze extra sectors by not delaying flights good luck to them. I believe however Jetstar should give the option to pax and charge a flight time change fee for those who miss the flight. When you pay less than $100 come on i mean at least you can turn up on time. You know the terns and conditions.
Australia must wake up move forward with the times. It's the bloody 21st century. Who knows Australia might even have the balls and pride to become a republic. BUt I doubt it at least not this century.
Australia must wake up move forward with the times. It's the bloody 21st century. Who knows Australia might even have the balls and pride to become a republic. BUt I doubt it at least not this century.
Anyone got any clues as to why they have changed the rules about having boarding equipment in place etc when refuelling?
nowdays you can refuel with pax on board if you have a ladder and a stepstool to get off the aeroplane...
I notice that the last amendment to 20.9 was 02, but the rules about boarding equipment were gone well before that.
nowdays you can refuel with pax on board if you have a ladder and a stepstool to get off the aeroplane...
I notice that the last amendment to 20.9 was 02, but the rules about boarding equipment were gone well before that.
lame,
arc up a bit did we?
from your post:
from your subsequent post:
...well what about:
1.REX
2.SKYWEST
3.AUSTRALIAN
4.EASTERN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES
5.SUNSTATE
6.NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS
7.MA**AIR
8.AIRNORTH
9.SUNSHINE EXPRESS
(All transport category, most high capacity AOCs.)
.......or don't you consider these operators airlines?
My original question remains.
arc up a bit did we?
from your post:
You will NOT win over the average Joe Public by leaving people behind and refusing them a refund, or by having lower safety standards (although legal) than the other Airlines.
IF comparing Jetstar to other similar Australian operators, there is only Qantas and Virgin Blue, so how can I can I refer to several others?
1.REX
2.SKYWEST
3.AUSTRALIAN
4.EASTERN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES
5.SUNSTATE
6.NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS
7.MA**AIR
8.AIRNORTH
9.SUNSHINE EXPRESS
(All transport category, most high capacity AOCs.)
.......or don't you consider these operators airlines?
My original question remains.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sick of trying to explain this to people who obviously either know nothing about it, or are just so one eyed it is a waste of time.
And YES, I do not consider any of them to be REAL Airlines, except Australian, but they are just part of Qantas.
And YES, I do not consider any of them to be REAL Airlines, except Australian, but they are just part of Qantas.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lame -
What is it you are concerned about? The tech crew doing the preflight inspection at ports where there is no engineering (HTI, PPP and MCY)?
They have been doing that since 2000. (Sorry if you knew that already.)
Or is there something else to your arguement / concern?
Josh -
Please remember to respect other people around here - especially those with more experience in the industry than you may have. (one week?)
What is it you are concerned about? The tech crew doing the preflight inspection at ports where there is no engineering (HTI, PPP and MCY)?
They have been doing that since 2000. (Sorry if you knew that already.)
Or is there something else to your arguement / concern?
Josh -
Please remember to respect other people around here - especially those with more experience in the industry than you may have. (one week?)
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, in my 41 years in the Industry, 36 years as an LAME, I have sadly seen many things missed by Pilots, some almost with disastrous consequences.
I am also sure that there have sadly been things that some LAMEs have missed.
That is why the system we have had for 41 years that I personally know of, even longer than that actually, is the ideal.
That is where BOTH one of the Pilots AND an LAME carry out independent preflight inspections.
And before someone says I am just worried about saving MY job, NOT true as I have recently retired.
I am just honestly concerned about the safety of these flights.
I am also sure that there have sadly been things that some LAMEs have missed.
That is why the system we have had for 41 years that I personally know of, even longer than that actually, is the ideal.
That is where BOTH one of the Pilots AND an LAME carry out independent preflight inspections.
And before someone says I am just worried about saving MY job, NOT true as I have recently retired.
I am just honestly concerned about the safety of these flights.
Poor lame,
now you are displaying the classic trait of "resignation", a common characteristic where a person is unable to cope with the task.
Well, on behalf of all the others that work for "fake" airlines.....
I thereby confirm that the statement you made is flawed....as is your credibility.
As I am sure all pilots do, I also agree with your opinion regarding pre-flights by both - its all about safety.
Finally, in response to your personal attack, I hold licences in AF 1,3, ENG 1,3 and on two Group 20 types but I dont work for one of your 'REAL' airlines.
now you are displaying the classic trait of "resignation", a common characteristic where a person is unable to cope with the task.
I am sick of trying to explain this to people who obviously either know nothing about it, or are just so one eyed it is a waste of time.
I thereby confirm that the statement you made is flawed....as is your credibility.
As I am sure all pilots do, I also agree with your opinion regarding pre-flights by both - its all about safety.
Finally, in response to your personal attack, I hold licences in AF 1,3, ENG 1,3 and on two Group 20 types but I dont work for one of your 'REAL' airlines.