Question to JetStar pilots

[TANUA]

GB
Regarding your comment on CX simulator instructors-
I have a mate working there on the B747-400 -simulator-who is on 8th year pay and with Bonus- he is just making $140 K OZ.
They are screaming for guys and have just increased the numbers for this fleet from 14 to 20 ( simulator Insructors) so you can imagine how hard these people work. Things are not always as they seem in this Industry?
cheers

[GenAvman]

The only way to stop these threads is to vote for some power in the workplace then get all pilots in the QF group on the same agreement not a worse one.
Divide and conquer that's managements strategy and it's working.

Easy to get T and C down when a new hire is sat in any office handed a contract and told if they don't sign there is no Job and it's back to the even lower T and C in their current Job. So what do they do they sign. Lets face it guys who are in the postion to negotiate for the right T and C never had a problem before and contracts with better than award or EBA conditions occasionally happened for those positions.

What needs to happen is some communication between groups to organise how this is going to happen. As for Pilot training every professional Pilot should be pushing for higher standards wherever and for whoever they work for same said for maintenance at the end of th day it's our arse on the line. But with things like the Multi Crew Licence on the way and offshore maintenance allready happening it doesn't look good industry wide.

As far a comparing our profession to the medical profession there is one major difference besides the type of work we do. That is the AMA regulates the number of doctors in training (supply) to ensure there is always adequate demand ensuring good terms and conditions. But our industry makes a profit training pilots so they can often be unemployed with a large debt to pay scratching around worldwide to find somewhere they can work to pay the debt off.

Anyway thats my two cents worth.

[fatigueflyer]

With regards to minimising human error, training, pay, experience and company culture needs to be altered. Firstly, are the guys happy? If not, then why? If so, how do you better the deal for them. I have worked in a previous airline where we had CPL holders earning in excess of AUD$250,000 tax free. Yes they were financially doing well but they all failed their commands several times and still substandard. My philosophy is not rocket science so here goes:
1) Are the guys happy at work.
2) Are the trainers well liked and respected?
3) Is training really training or checking?
4) Days off?
5) Leave allocation?
6) Family quality of life adequate or not?
7) Does management manage or dictate?

If the above was achievable, I am certain many guys will work for a lot less and stay longer.

Good luck.

[The Librarian]

Max Auto,
You really are an embarasment to QF pilots, Dont presume for a second that they are any more highly trained or better skilled than any VB or J* pilot. They just have longer to think they are when they are filling in time crossing the pacific. Ive experienced the training systems of other airlines and believe me QF are not doing it any better.

Whilst I agree with you that management should take a portion of the blame for the BKK incident when it comes down to it the Capt was the one who made the major error in cancelling his decision to Go around, in those circumstances you make your decision and stick to it and donīt tell me management are to blame for that.

Time to pull your head in Max

[Going Boeing]

Tanua

GB
Regarding your comment on CX simulator instructors-

I can't verify its accuracy, but I did a sim recently and two sim instructors were talking about $300,000+ on offer from CX. One of them was considering the move.

[blueloo]

You twits who keep quoting BKK keep forgetting that 1 major accident/incident in nearly 50 odd years of operating Jet aircraft, whilst not perfect is nevertheless a fantastic record, especially when you compare it to nearly every other airline around. Lets touch wood and hope no carriers, let alone the rat have any prangs at all.

[International Trader]

Max Auto Brakes

Quote:
"-The flight crew didn't use an adequate risk management stategy for the approach and landing, the error was primarily due to the absence of appropriate company procedures and training.
-Company-published information, Deficient.
-Procedures and training of crew ,Deficient in numberous areas.
-processes to manage development,introduction and evaluation of changes to operations, Deficient.
-Management culture over-reliant on personal experience and did not place adequate emphisis on structured processes"

Correct me if I am wrong but, apart from these nebulous "deficiencies" that are created by beaurocratic agencies in order to dance around cold hard facts and not directly blame anyone, is it not true that:

-The Pilot Flying was hand flying an approach when "experience" would have dictated the use of automation in poor weather.I heard that the man was demonstrating his abilities for someone in the cockpit ( after 911 though,I wonder if observers were allowed in).
- The Flying pilot (rightly) went around when he became unstuck.
- The "Commander" took over control and attempted another landing after the go-around was commenced.
- They landed half way down the runway.
- They only used idle reverse thrust
- Were the auto brakes used?

Seems like a few "deficiences" in judgement,airmanship and safety if you ask me. Relying on "experience and not on structured processes"? One would think that a "world's best practice" company would have a highly refined management process to induct inexperienced crew and give them "structures" to use until they gained the "experience" to use the company "processes" to achieve safety as well as performance.
What "standard" was that you were talking about?No use talking about more or less Sim sessions and the cost of it.That won't solve this problem.

It goes to prove that anyone can F-up but the problem with the "Gods" is that they actually believe that they are better than everyone else because of this wonderfull system with a "long history and proud culture " that has produced them.
If it is the case, that this system has created this belief of being better than all others, then, that in its self is a "deficiency" in safety.Even if I am completely wrong and you just go on the ATSB report items that you included (my info may be wrong and I am often wrong) , it would be a wonderful CRM lesson for the company.I ask you, is it being used as an example in QF training?
I'll bet it isn't. I'll bet it has been buried,hasn't it?

In light of this and the recent maintenance issues surfacing ( several instances of bits of 767 falling off in flight and the latest events), one wonders what skeletons are in the cupboard.

Seems to me the "proud culture" has a touch of mold on it.

Blue Loo;

"Fantastic record"......mmmm ,well that's the public record.I wonder what the truth is. Wake up and smell the roses...ahh, I mean...the "proud culture "
( peeeeuuuu)


I prefer to believe that on a good day, I am average at best and luckily by the grace of god.......

[Keg]

I don't want to get into the specifics of max's comments. He's phrased the concerns in a very different manner to that which I would have chosen. He does however have a point about whether all of QF's additional costs in training are required if J* can do it so much more cheaply. It can't be that QF drivers are worse than others and therefore require additional training to make the grade because according to all posters to this thread, everyone is about the same standard.

International Trader, if you're not going to bother reading the report then don't try and draw assumptions. I'll give you a couple of examples.

Originally Posted by International Trader

The Pilot Flying was hand flying an approach when "experience" would have dictated the use of automation in poor weather. I heard that the man was demonstrating his abilities for someone in the cockpit

Reported wx conditions were above those required for the F/O to fly the approach. At the time the F/Os were required to disconnect at 1000' HAT when flying an ILS approach- don't ask me why, I always thought it was a daft policy but that in itself is a good example of poor policy and not accepting feedback by some quarters in QF management.

Originally Posted by International Trader

( after 911 though,I wonder if observers were allowed in).

You do realise that the prang was in September '99? Families on the flight deck were no problem back then. I don't recall entirely but I think it was the S/Os missus (or the Captains?) and not the F/Os so that could possibly blow your 'showing off' theory out of the water not with standing my previous comments on extant policy of the time. Personally, having had my family on the flight deck in previous times has made me more conservative, not less.. (I don't want to get engaged in a discussion about whether becoming more conservative posts it's own CRM problems, I'm a big boy and understand the issues here).

Originally Posted by International Trader

- The "Commander" took over control and attempted another landing after the go-around was commenced.

'Another' landing'? Not correct. Whilst the decision to cancel the go around was always one of the most significant errors in all of this, your comments imply that the aircraft was airborne again or that it never landed to start off with and the decision to not go around resulted in the long landing. It was not. The aircrafttouched down once only and that was as the thrust levers were moving forward to go around thrust.

Originally Posted by International Trader

- Were the auto brakes used?

These had disconnected when the aircraft touched down thrust levers in a position that caused the logic to disconnect them.

The other one you didn't mention was that the speed brakes were not up. This was due to one of the thrust levers not being caught by the crew and still being forward of idle to the extent that the spoilers did not rise.

it would be a wonderful CRM lesson for the company.I ask you, is it being used as an example in QF training?
I'll bet it isn't. I'll bet it has been buried,hasn't it?

As a bloke who I have a lot of respect for said recently on another forum:

Originally Posted by Good bloke

It's better to keep one's mouth closed and have people think you're a fool, rather than open it and confirm the fact....

QF1 @ BKK appeared in the QF CRM program over a couple of years for a few different reasons. It still gets a mention now and then these days although I haven't been involved in the CRM program at QF now for nearly two years. Buried? Hardly. Have the crews who were around at the time taken the lessons to heart? My estimation is that they have. Did those crew who joined since then who were part of the CRM courses that I facilitated also take the lessons to heart- most of them did although a few fail to see the organisational factors in the prang and see it simply as the one poor decision right at the end. Still, even they take THAT particular lesson from it.

About the only thing I agree with is your last statement. That being the case though, why are we happy to endorse an organisation in the group that does 'less' training than all the rest. This is the double standard that I don't get from many contributors to this forum. We're all too happy to say 'no one is better than anyone else' but no one wants to advocate that additional training makes us better (the prang rates can show this). People like IT are more than happy to point to the cock ups at QF as testimony to the fact that training doesn't help- or at least it didn't in QFs case- but don't actually contribute to the discussion on what level of training is appropriate.

DJ had a rumoured 50% failure rate for command training recently. Many contributors to various forums cited inadequate experience and inadequate training. QF had an equally horrendous rate in the mid '90s. Do we still think that 'we're all equal' or maybe, just maybe does the amount of training have something to do with it.

So, pissing contest aside between 'sky-gods' (what a highly offensive term) and others, what is an adequate training program for upgrade? Is QF over training by believing (stupidly) that the increased training gives a better product or is J* on a winner here by doing less training but still getting the required numbers? Is there pressure (inadvertent or otherwise) on the trainers at carriers where less training is done to get the people through? Is the standard being assessed the same or is there a difference?

The reality is that none of us know the answer to that with any degree of surety although I suspect there are a few in QF and probably J* who do through having been involved in both training regimes- HC is across at J* isn't he GB? I'd bet money that none of them actually post here on PPRUNE though.

[I'm Driving]

Alright people. Get over it.

Jetstar did not even exist (and impulse did not operate jets), when BKK happened. So if Jetstar pilots want to use it as an excuse as to why they are better than Qantas pilots. Get your hand off it.

Since Jetstar (or impulse) started operations, both company's have had a good safety record.

And carrying on in the spirit of this thread. My D*** is bigger than yours.

Please.

[What The]

QF Regional Pilots the Best!

By Qantas' own admission!

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committ...ions/sub26.pdf

Qantaslink (Regional) Pilots

The story for Qantaslink pilots is quite different to that as for main-line Qantas pilots above. The increasing shortage of qualified pilots for recruitment is already present. Furthermore, the Qantaslink Pilots have an attrition rate that is 8 times than that of the mainline Pilots.

Additionally, an increasing number of current pilots are approaching retirement age with 12% of this workforce over 55:

Whilst we receive approximately four applications for every vacancy, only one in four actually meet the job requirements. The skills and experience required for regional pilots are higher than that for mainline, as pilots enter the regional workforce directly as a First Officer, whereas in mainline they enter as Second Officers.

FOSkygods

[Spaghetti Monster]

the problem with the "Gods" is that they actually believe that they are better than everyone else

Given that you don't even seem to know what decade QF1 @ BKK occurred in, and are wrong about many of the other details as pointed out by Keg, I'm wondering how you can claim an insight into the minds of about 2500 individual pilots?

[hoss]

"The skills and experience required for regional pilots are higher than that for mainline, as pilots enter the regional workforce directly as a First Officer, whereas in mainline they enter as Second Officers."

Well it looks like I'm a SkyGod, I'll be around to sign for autographs later.

[permFO]

The inference made is that QF provide more training than J* so they must be better pilots. Max queried the number of sim sessions that QF pilots do compared to J* but as someone else pointed out the time spent in the sim is exactly the same (16 hours per year). Ansett were doing their sim sessions in 6 monthly intervals as well so why QF do it the "old" way I don't know. It could be just as simple as "we have always done it this way".

The idea that as a Qantas pilot you are better than the rest is stated on day one of the induction when it is put that you must be better than everybody else if you have been selected. I think the expression used was "creme de la creme". It is further reinforced when you finish your probation and the letter includes the statement "not everyone has been able to do what you have done".

I agree that those who work for Qantas are part of a proud heritage and not all take that to mean that they have greatness bestowed upon them, but there are a significant number who think that flying for Mainline is a testament to their superior aviating abilities.

As for BKK, a significant factor that was overlooked even by the ATSB report was that, if the PF had pressed the TOGA buttons then the PIC would probably not have been able to abort the go-around in the manner in which he did.

[AnQrKa]

To those who think that QF is safer than JQ or UA or my dad with his lawnmower, what exactly are you using for reference. How do you determine the level of safety at an airline. If you are simply using historical accident data then you are living in dreamland - its much more complex.

Many ex AN guys that have been via QF to other airlines since just laugh when you talk about QF. They have just as many stuff ups as anybody. No different.

[Bula]

God some people are just plain tools arn't they

[max autobrakes]

Once again we spiral into the pagan tribalism of pilot groups attacking each other.
Bula and others I will ask , were you happy with your training in JetStar?
You might very well be ex-Rex, or ex somewhere else and came with a very solid grounding.Are all pilots coming from the same starting point as you? Can management guarantee that the lowest common denominator is covered?
Yes to other posters Qantas is not the be all to end all! In fact until recently I thought training in Qantas stank.
They didn't really train ,they checked.
Shorhaul Qantas I'm told had much better training. Why ,because it was ex TAA ,like Ansett they had a corporate culture that evolved to bring young pilots out of GA into the right hand seat to be an F/O.They had to train to achieve a satisfactory result.
Whereas the corporate culture that existed in Qantas was that these same young pilots that came out of GA or the airforce etc started as S/O's and learnt most of their craft through osmosis, the training section never really had to do much training because of the time frames involved in getting to F/O ,the motivation of the individuals and the experience levels these S/O's were exposed to, or came into the company with ,resulted in the training section evolving into the way we knew it.

Threat Error management appears to be the latest buzz concept.
Have a look at the way our industry is going and the ever increasing threats that are facing professional pilots today.
Casualisation of just about every facet and section of airlines.
Training given that satisfies regulations but no more because that costs money.I'm not just talking about pilots, every section of every airline. Instead of people doing their jobs and having done so for many years you are getting continual turn over of people now.
Staff who now worry about paying bills, staff who worry about how I'm supposed to do this ,no staff ,no time, manpower shortages.
No spare parts in inventory, that costs money.
Dispatching aircraft with multiple complex MEL's.
No time to study the effects or operational and or performance implications of these MEL's because aircraft are scheduled with tight turn around times for efficient use of airframes.
Threats everywhere and growing.

Guess what ,pilots are the last line of defence, and what do you think will happen if an accident occurs?
As usual it will be the pilots who they will try to blame.

That fellow aviators is why pilots in this country need to start working together, asking difficult questions when they see less than optimal company practices that put profits and bonus' before best practise.Training is just one of those defences to help a pilot break the chain of events that lead to an accident.


As has been said before and dare I say it again, if you think safety and training are expensive try having an accident!

[helijet]

Max you have hinted that the Pilot groups should be standing together to improve training and yet at the start of this post you blatantly attack one particular group.
Why should they now stand with you, when you've made your true feelings toward this group obvious in the beginning?
I for one have chosen not to try for mainline, not because I'm not good enough but because I don't feel that the culture would suite me. That doesn't make me any less of a pilot than you! I'm sure that a lot of other people feel the same.

[The Kavorka]

Max Auto...

Your a W*NK*R...everyone knows your a W*NK*R, and I think even your QF mates try an distance themselves from you.......

How was the training on your cadet course???????????????????????

[Going Boeing]

Kav, I suggest that you re-read Max's post. A lot of what he says makes sense.

I've found that when groups of pilots join an airline that there may be a wide variation in experience and skill level but after a few years of line experience the differences become negligible. Line experience can make up for shortfalls in a training system as long as aircraft are operated in a conservative manner during the period that pilots are adjusting to their new environment. My understanding of the JQ system is that a lot more of the training responsibility is thrust on the shoulders of line captains because the length of training is minimal.

Wrt JQ command training, I have doubts that 4 sim sessions and 6 domestic sectors is sufficient to expose any shortcomings. The QF command training has sufficient sectors that by the law of averages every command trainee is exposed to events or scenarios which tests his/her decision making and lateral thinking - the C & T pilots don't have to create scenarios, the real world always provides them. I would think that it is possible for a JQ trainee to complete the required sectors without being exposed to any difficult scenario. Input from JQ trainers would be appreciated.

[flyingins]

You've got to be kidding......

Where the heck did you get the "6 domestic sectors" rubbish for JQ command training?

Just like 99% of the rest of the "information" that gets propogated on this forum, it is a complete Chinese whisper and/ or has been made up by someone with an agenda (against Jetstar? Never!).

I'm just trawling through the logbook now;
16 simulator hours before getting into the aeroplane, then; 62 sectors; 124.5 flight hours; 2 day, 8 domestic sector check-to-line.

Please pull your heads out of the sand and try not to be so blindly guided by utter gibberish.