jetstar curfew fine at YSSY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a criminal offence. Can we get that straight? In the same way that exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/h is not a criminal offence.
This infringement (that's ALL it was) would have probably been overlooked previously.
Whilst it could be argued that landings on 16 CAN be disturbing to the punters at Tempe or wherever, it's hard to see how a departure over Botany Bay (assuming it was 16R) could have concerned anybody.
let's just go back to the dark ages
Okay Okay, I was on the way out anyway
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what I understand is that the crew were ordered to depart by Operations which I would expect would have been approved by senior management considering the financial implications for departing after curfew.
This has nothing to do with the pilot. He followed company command for an act that did not place him, his crew, the aircraft or the passengers in any danger.
It must be obvious that it was in the best interests of Jetstar to send the aircraft versus park it for the night and overnight all passengers (on both sides) plus handle the follow-on disruption this would have caused. With only a few aircraft in the network, any disruption to the 'highly untilised' 330 fleet would probably cost the organisation more then what the fine did...
Obviously this is not a common event - in 5 years of operation this is the only such breach of curfew. The airline made a decision which was in its best interests for the airline and its customers.
This has nothing to do with the pilot. He followed company command for an act that did not place him, his crew, the aircraft or the passengers in any danger.
It must be obvious that it was in the best interests of Jetstar to send the aircraft versus park it for the night and overnight all passengers (on both sides) plus handle the follow-on disruption this would have caused. With only a few aircraft in the network, any disruption to the 'highly untilised' 330 fleet would probably cost the organisation more then what the fine did...
Obviously this is not a common event - in 5 years of operation this is the only such breach of curfew. The airline made a decision which was in its best interests for the airline and its customers.
The airline made a decision which was in its best interests for the airline and its customers.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Borough
yes, and that's the problem...its an effing law that doesn't take unusual operational requirements into consideration.
Repeat after me...no one was endangered and no one got hurt.
Sometimes the law has to be broken if it's a stupid law that is purely a political expedient.
Towards the company they work for obviously. 
They would have weighed up the risk vs benefit and made the decision.
Anyone who can't/won't do that wouldn't be working for me.
Glad to see commonsense prevail.
but they still broke the effing law.
Repeat after me...no one was endangered and no one got hurt.
Sometimes the law has to be broken if it's a stupid law that is purely a political expedient.
Further, where is the responsibility of the individuals in JQ who authorised and sanctioned the law violation, not to mention the person who actually did it?
They would have weighed up the risk vs benefit and made the decision.
Anyone who can't/won't do that wouldn't be working for me.
Glad to see commonsense prevail.
So where do you draw the line?
What laws can you break just because you believe they are stupid?
Crew duty? go that extra hour to make sure the company doesn't lose any money?
Carry that little bit less fuel so the company doesn't lose any money?
Push that extra 50 foot below minima?
The law/rule/regulation was there.
The company (I don't care what company) made a deliberate decision to disregard it based purely on economics.
Where would you draw the line? Thats why we have rules/regulations/laws. So people can't do what ever they feel like when it suits them, thats how accidents happen.
Some say this wasn't dangerous.
How much pressure where the crew under to get going? the ground crew? How was their crew duty? How much were they thinking about how much trouble was going to happen from that decision instead of thinking about the job at hand?
I can't think of any more blatant disregard of the rule. The company had probably written off the 500K, they must be laughing at HQ only being fined 100K.
You think your company will look after you when it all turns to tears? Ask the Qantas exec in jail in the USA.
What laws can you break just because you believe they are stupid?
Crew duty? go that extra hour to make sure the company doesn't lose any money?
Carry that little bit less fuel so the company doesn't lose any money?
Push that extra 50 foot below minima?
The law/rule/regulation was there.
The company (I don't care what company) made a deliberate decision to disregard it based purely on economics.
Where would you draw the line? Thats why we have rules/regulations/laws. So people can't do what ever they feel like when it suits them, thats how accidents happen.
Some say this wasn't dangerous.
How much pressure where the crew under to get going? the ground crew? How was their crew duty? How much were they thinking about how much trouble was going to happen from that decision instead of thinking about the job at hand?
I can't think of any more blatant disregard of the rule. The company had probably written off the 500K, they must be laughing at HQ only being fined 100K.
You think your company will look after you when it all turns to tears? Ask the Qantas exec in jail in the USA.
What I don't get is why, if it was illegal to take off, did the tower issue a take off clearance??
Someone earlier said they can only advise that curfew is in operation, how can they not enforce curfew, like they do separation standards or any other regulation. They wouldn't issue a clearance if the separation standards were broken so why would they issue one when the curfew is broken?
Someone earlier said they can only advise that curfew is in operation, how can they not enforce curfew, like they do separation standards or any other regulation. They wouldn't issue a clearance if the separation standards were broken so why would they issue one when the curfew is broken?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the company tell me to fly from A to B and it's operationally safe ( as in this case ) then of course I'd go, who wouldn't? Operational decisions like these are made every day by trained OPERATIONS staff at each Airlines head office, that's what they're there for. If they wish to bust a curfew and the a/c departure is safe from a Pilot/Engineering/Wx point of view then that's their decision.
It's their a/c after all.
It's their a/c after all.
If the company tell me to fly from A to B and it's operationally safe ( as in this case ) then of course I'd go, who wouldn't?
It's their a/c after all.
In Australia, you may get away with just a fine, but try doing this in another country and you could end up in jail for a considerable time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
but it was Australia and it wasnt a criminal offence, this is why support people and the associated structures and systems are in place. This is not really different from a truck driver not following a "no engine braking" area at night...he probably wont get locked up..and certainly not fined over 100K.
It is not a safety rule...but exists simply to satisfy complaining people who moved into houses after the airport was built and probably had sound proofing installed courtesy of you and I travelling. Of course had it been a safety issue the tower would not have let them go....
Ask the 300 pax on the flight if they think the 100K is worth it...given the circumstances around this flight I find it quite poor that dispensation was not given. But such is life.
but it was Australia and it wasnt a criminal offence, this is why support people and the associated structures and systems are in place. This is not really different from a truck driver not following a "no engine braking" area at night...he probably wont get locked up..and certainly not fined over 100K.
It is not a safety rule...but exists simply to satisfy complaining people who moved into houses after the airport was built and probably had sound proofing installed courtesy of you and I travelling. Of course had it been a safety issue the tower would not have let them go....
Ask the 300 pax on the flight if they think the 100K is worth it...given the circumstances around this flight I find it quite poor that dispensation was not given. But such is life.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 things, quite separate [which some don't seem to understand]
1 : Curfew rules stuffed, should change.
2 : Manager who ordered Captain to depart knowingly broke rules [laws,whatever!] put in place by the Parlament!
Since fines like this are an obvious joke that Manager should be GAOLED for perhaps 6 months!
I wonder if the next manager would do so again!
As a Captain there is no way I would depart without a dispensation!
1 : Curfew rules stuffed, should change.
2 : Manager who ordered Captain to depart knowingly broke rules [laws,whatever!] put in place by the Parlament!
Since fines like this are an obvious joke that Manager should be GAOLED for perhaps 6 months!
I wonder if the next manager would do so again!
As a Captain there is no way I would depart without a dispensation!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oxbiggles has hit the nail on the head.
Whether you agree with them or not ,rules are rules, where do you draw the line?
To all the JetStar pilots supporting this curfew busting decision, what does this say about the culture at JetStar?
What other rules are also considered an impediment to the profit making ability of the Jetstar juggernaught?
Whether you agree with them or not ,rules are rules, where do you draw the line?
To all the JetStar pilots supporting this curfew busting decision, what does this say about the culture at JetStar?
What other rules are also considered an impediment to the profit making ability of the Jetstar juggernaught?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia's major airlines are all powerful.
The captain knowingly broke the law of the land. And was allowed to do so without penalty.
The company also broke the law of the land and was fined an ammount that will not discourage a repeat of that event.
It is very, very unusual for these airlines to be in court at all. They are all powerful in Australia.
The company also broke the law of the land and was fined an ammount that will not discourage a repeat of that event.
It is very, very unusual for these airlines to be in court at all. They are all powerful in Australia.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Airlines have fully trained OPERATIONS staff that deal with these type of things and instruct the crew as to what the company want you to do. They know lots of things I don't such as overflight charges, landing and parking charges, interline connections, Engineering rotations, fuel prices at each port, medical facilities, staff availability, hotel availability, catering availability , blah blah blah. IT'S THEIR JOB TO KNOW, not mine.
If the airport is serviceable ( lights on, aids on, ATC available, Wx ok ) then if my company make the decision to dispatch the a/c ( even after I remind them about a curfew ) then it's their call.
My control as Captain starts at doors closed and pertains to the continued safe operation of my Aircraft. Busting an airport curfew doesn't constitute a safety hazzard of any sort. It may be wrong and indeed illegal but...................that's another story for the lawyers and ops people to sort out.
If the airport is serviceable ( lights on, aids on, ATC available, Wx ok ) then if my company make the decision to dispatch the a/c ( even after I remind them about a curfew ) then it's their call.
My control as Captain starts at doors closed and pertains to the continued safe operation of my Aircraft. Busting an airport curfew doesn't constitute a safety hazzard of any sort. It may be wrong and indeed illegal but...................that's another story for the lawyers and ops people to sort out.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: blackstump
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People here need to get a grip. This issue isn't the same as running a red light. Or any other laws like an epa law. Whilst you may choose to draw a long bow and say the issue is about sound pollution. The takeoff from the information that i have read stated it was over the water so the noise impact to those residents that get affected by the airport was probably very limited.
I ask myself why does atc help out so much with crews to give taxi clearances before 2300 when they haven't been pushed back? I am sorry I don't think atc are that blind or stupid to not know what goes on. It is a wink wink sort of thing cause like most times ATC are their to help and exercise a usage of common sense rather that strict adherance to the a set or rules and procedures. Ask david iredale how a rigid set of procedures helped him!!
Maybe if we think outside the square a bit. Most people in this industry and know more than me would be accutely aware that the margins involved to remain profitable can be miniscule compared to the capital involved. So for an issue(passenger lost baggage, technical, pilot checking updated notams etc etc) that may have delayed the scheduled departure it was not a case of breaking a safety induced type of law. Most of if not all other laws have a safety, personal well being issue tied up in the reason for the law. Ok the well being of the public that are affected by noise is mitigated by the taking off over water, or an intersection departure low thrust noise abatement takeoff or whatever was most likely done. But then you have to look at the well being of the people that have paid for a service and have an expectation that it will be delivered. The company paid if they only had 200 people on board a premium to provide for that at aprox 800 per passenger. I imagine the costs involved with putting people up and delays further down the line would add up to probably more than that. So the manager involved made a decisive decision and would have prepared to take the hit for the issue. Whilst I understand that ultimately the pilots have an ultimate responsibilty for the safety and well being of the passengers when they are under their command. As long as the captain and first officer involved are backed up by the company for following the allowance to break the curfew. We should get of our high horses. Understand the reason for the scales that are apart of the courts crest.
Okay i think it is good to do some navel gazing to understand how and why it happened to allow for prevention for the future. But the artificial constraints on an industry that is expensive to have airplanes just parked sitting their doing nothing as long as their was no safety issues like taking off with a maintence breach issue, we should stop bagging the decision out. To think in any otherwise is idealised too much and is too black and white. Where the world really is shades of grey.
Each circumstance is different and too summise that this is a start of something more sinister or grandeous than the company accepting a curfew was broken and is going to pay the fine. The arguements about whether the curfew should be their in the first place or that it is broken is a seperate issue.
I personally don't think there should be a curfew I have lived at tempe/st peters 15 or 20 seconds directly under the threshold for 16R and occasionaly a 747 would make a phone call inaudible but i moved their i knew what i would have to put up with and I not being so self absorbed in my own self importance can accept that other people that are flying around are just entitled to go about their business as I am to have my house free of noise. They are planes, they arn't the lakemba street racers with their domp domp music being fully sic, who are actually going about being disrepectful to people.
I ask myself why does atc help out so much with crews to give taxi clearances before 2300 when they haven't been pushed back? I am sorry I don't think atc are that blind or stupid to not know what goes on. It is a wink wink sort of thing cause like most times ATC are their to help and exercise a usage of common sense rather that strict adherance to the a set or rules and procedures. Ask david iredale how a rigid set of procedures helped him!!
Maybe if we think outside the square a bit. Most people in this industry and know more than me would be accutely aware that the margins involved to remain profitable can be miniscule compared to the capital involved. So for an issue(passenger lost baggage, technical, pilot checking updated notams etc etc) that may have delayed the scheduled departure it was not a case of breaking a safety induced type of law. Most of if not all other laws have a safety, personal well being issue tied up in the reason for the law. Ok the well being of the public that are affected by noise is mitigated by the taking off over water, or an intersection departure low thrust noise abatement takeoff or whatever was most likely done. But then you have to look at the well being of the people that have paid for a service and have an expectation that it will be delivered. The company paid if they only had 200 people on board a premium to provide for that at aprox 800 per passenger. I imagine the costs involved with putting people up and delays further down the line would add up to probably more than that. So the manager involved made a decisive decision and would have prepared to take the hit for the issue. Whilst I understand that ultimately the pilots have an ultimate responsibilty for the safety and well being of the passengers when they are under their command. As long as the captain and first officer involved are backed up by the company for following the allowance to break the curfew. We should get of our high horses. Understand the reason for the scales that are apart of the courts crest.
Okay i think it is good to do some navel gazing to understand how and why it happened to allow for prevention for the future. But the artificial constraints on an industry that is expensive to have airplanes just parked sitting their doing nothing as long as their was no safety issues like taking off with a maintence breach issue, we should stop bagging the decision out. To think in any otherwise is idealised too much and is too black and white. Where the world really is shades of grey.
Each circumstance is different and too summise that this is a start of something more sinister or grandeous than the company accepting a curfew was broken and is going to pay the fine. The arguements about whether the curfew should be their in the first place or that it is broken is a seperate issue.
I personally don't think there should be a curfew I have lived at tempe/st peters 15 or 20 seconds directly under the threshold for 16R and occasionaly a 747 would make a phone call inaudible but i moved their i knew what i would have to put up with and I not being so self absorbed in my own self importance can accept that other people that are flying around are just entitled to go about their business as I am to have my house free of noise. They are planes, they arn't the lakemba street racers with their domp domp music being fully sic, who are actually going about being disrepectful to people.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a read of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995.
- Breaking the curfew IS a criminal offence.
- YOU as the captain can be held legally responsible.
By making the decision to depart after curfew, you are assuming operations staff are fully conversant with the law, that the company will be willing to admit liability and that the authorities will only take action against the company, and not the Captain as well. Unless I can answer all of these with 100% certainty, I ain't going.
FWIW, Ops have led me up the garden path plenty of times. They are an excellent source of information, but at the end of the day it's your licence, not theirs.
- Breaking the curfew IS a criminal offence.
- YOU as the captain can be held legally responsible.
By making the decision to depart after curfew, you are assuming operations staff are fully conversant with the law, that the company will be willing to admit liability and that the authorities will only take action against the company, and not the Captain as well. Unless I can answer all of these with 100% certainty, I ain't going.
FWIW, Ops have led me up the garden path plenty of times. They are an excellent source of information, but at the end of the day it's your licence, not theirs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by 'Holic
By making the decision to depart after curfew, you are assuming operations staff are fully conversant with the law, that the company will be willing to admit liability and that the authorities will only take action against the company, and not the Captain as well. Unless I can answer all of these with 100% certainty, I ain't going.
This decision 'to go' would not have been made by the Duty Manager on the night. There would have been Senior Executive consultation.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter where the decision came from. The act states that you are responsible for breaches of the act.
It's all very well to say the Duty Manager, CEO or whoever made the decision, but you're presuming the company will still be willing to back you when the dust settles.
Also, what happens if you depart and have some kind of inflight emergency, say a fire. Return to SYD, reduced ARFF and other services during the curfew, evacuation with injuries etc etc. All because you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I reckon the trial would take about 10 minutes.
It's all very well to say the Duty Manager, CEO or whoever made the decision, but you're presuming the company will still be willing to back you when the dust settles.
Also, what happens if you depart and have some kind of inflight emergency, say a fire. Return to SYD, reduced ARFF and other services during the curfew, evacuation with injuries etc etc. All because you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I reckon the trial would take about 10 minutes.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just read the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (one of the shortest Acts of Parliament I've read).
Unless it's been amended, section 7, subsection 2 clearly states that 'the Operator of an aircraft commits an offence' if the operator engages in conduct which results in a contravention to subsection 1 (which details the prohibition and exceptions during curfew periods).
Nowhere does it state that the Pilot In Command is liable under the Act.
In another section it also goes on to state that the airport can be used during emergencies, and for other approved operations.
Nor do I recall any Notam that states ARFF is reduced during curfew periods.
So please help me out with some references, and I'd be mighty grateful.
Personally, I say well done! AJ for putting pax ahead of profit on this particular night.
Unless it's been amended, section 7, subsection 2 clearly states that 'the Operator of an aircraft commits an offence' if the operator engages in conduct which results in a contravention to subsection 1 (which details the prohibition and exceptions during curfew periods).
Nowhere does it state that the Pilot In Command is liable under the Act.
In another section it also goes on to state that the airport can be used during emergencies, and for other approved operations.
Nor do I recall any Notam that states ARFF is reduced during curfew periods.
So please help me out with some references, and I'd be mighty grateful.
Personally, I say well done! AJ for putting pax ahead of profit on this particular night.