QF Staff Travel. FA jump seat use
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peg.
Clearly if we have a differing point of view in an area that is not covered by company regulations then we would need to refer said issue to our respective higher managements for a decision. If you were not happy then with that decision it would be your choice not to operate I guess. If I am not happy with the decision I shrug my shoulders and get on with it because plenty of things happen on the line each day that are less then ideal and its just a matter of getting on with the task at hand
But in this case we are NOT talking about a differing point of view.
The flight standing order on this issue makes it company policy. Policy forms part of the CASA endorsed operator approval, WHICH MEANS that ALL operating aircrew, both tech and cabin, are required to follow said policy unless in the view of the licensed aircrew an emergency exists where the regulation needs to be disregarded so as to ensure a safe outcome for the flight.
Note that a family member sitting on a cabin crew jumpseat does not constitute an emergency under the CAR's
Also note, that the pilot in command is empowered, indeed is LEGALLY obligated to enforce and follow all company policy and the CAR'S.
If you chose, on the day of the flight, to refuse to follow company policy, then you may be held out of service to allow a crew member who will comply with the policy to replace you.
And the beauty of the situation is that it won't even be me that has to make the decision.
Once I inform the Duty Captain I have a crew member refusing to follow company policy he will consult with cabin crew management and you will be dropped like a hot potato.
And to make sure of things I will also place a phone call to the CASA FOI with a heads up that an ASIR is coming his way which talks about a crew member who refuses to operate under company policy and by extension the CAR's.
The FAAA won't save you then I can assure you.
There will be no time for mediation or any other PC bullsh** due to the need to achieve an on time departure.
You may not like the policy, and thats your prerogative. But you will need to progress your concerns through your management using the appropriate processes, and in the mean time comply with company policy like everyone else has to.
Clearly if we have a differing point of view in an area that is not covered by company regulations then we would need to refer said issue to our respective higher managements for a decision. If you were not happy then with that decision it would be your choice not to operate I guess. If I am not happy with the decision I shrug my shoulders and get on with it because plenty of things happen on the line each day that are less then ideal and its just a matter of getting on with the task at hand
But in this case we are NOT talking about a differing point of view.
The flight standing order on this issue makes it company policy. Policy forms part of the CASA endorsed operator approval, WHICH MEANS that ALL operating aircrew, both tech and cabin, are required to follow said policy unless in the view of the licensed aircrew an emergency exists where the regulation needs to be disregarded so as to ensure a safe outcome for the flight.
Note that a family member sitting on a cabin crew jumpseat does not constitute an emergency under the CAR's
Also note, that the pilot in command is empowered, indeed is LEGALLY obligated to enforce and follow all company policy and the CAR'S.
If you chose, on the day of the flight, to refuse to follow company policy, then you may be held out of service to allow a crew member who will comply with the policy to replace you.
And the beauty of the situation is that it won't even be me that has to make the decision.
Once I inform the Duty Captain I have a crew member refusing to follow company policy he will consult with cabin crew management and you will be dropped like a hot potato.
And to make sure of things I will also place a phone call to the CASA FOI with a heads up that an ASIR is coming his way which talks about a crew member who refuses to operate under company policy and by extension the CAR's.
The FAAA won't save you then I can assure you.
There will be no time for mediation or any other PC bullsh** due to the need to achieve an on time departure.
You may not like the policy, and thats your prerogative. But you will need to progress your concerns through your management using the appropriate processes, and in the mean time comply with company policy like everyone else has to.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice back track..
cabin crew have never refused to follow lawful directions of the captain or CSO's or FSO's or any other lawful instruction.
Your previous post inferred that you were looking forward to picking some sort of concocted flight with a flight attendant so that you could stand them down.
forget casa and all that bull**** ok..
if you behave completely irrationally and start standing crew down who merely disagree with your view then you will be deemed "unsound" and the FAAA will get the crew off the aircraft until you are examined and deemed "sound"
We will not fly with some lunatic having a breakdown....its not safe
Now if a flight attendant breached a regulation or disobeyed a lawful instruction then probably before you could stand them down the CSM would have already contacted management in SYdney and had it done for you.
You will find that all this drama is about the fact that DOTARS has stopped you having your family on the flight deck which is plainly stupid.... but having them in a crew jump seat is even more stupid....
cabin crew have never refused to follow lawful directions of the captain or CSO's or FSO's or any other lawful instruction.
Your previous post inferred that you were looking forward to picking some sort of concocted flight with a flight attendant so that you could stand them down.
forget casa and all that bull**** ok..
if you behave completely irrationally and start standing crew down who merely disagree with your view then you will be deemed "unsound" and the FAAA will get the crew off the aircraft until you are examined and deemed "sound"
We will not fly with some lunatic having a breakdown....its not safe
Now if a flight attendant breached a regulation or disobeyed a lawful instruction then probably before you could stand them down the CSM would have already contacted management in SYdney and had it done for you.
You will find that all this drama is about the fact that DOTARS has stopped you having your family on the flight deck which is plainly stupid.... but having them in a crew jump seat is even more stupid....
Nunc est bibendum
Wow, you go flying for a day and I miss three pages of.....
.....absolutely nothing!
Peg, I don't think there has been any back track by Mohikan as you allege. This was their original point:
Pretty clear that Mohikan was talking about the jump seat issue and whilst Mohikan has been considerably more blunt than I would have been, the point made is 100% correct. A CC member who stands their digs against this policy on board when the Captain is acting in accordance with the FSO is putting a sign on their chest that says 'stand me down please'.
As I alluded to previously, if you don't like the policy you can use any number of tools to fix it- Safety Obs report, ICAN, whatever. Arguing with the Captain would be option number 83 on a list of 84 things you could do.
.....absolutely nothing!
Peg, I don't think there has been any back track by Mohikan as you allege. This was their original point:
Im glad this jump seat initiative has been taken, and I actually hope that a flight attendant takes me on over this so I can stand them down and f**** them off from the aircraft and hopefully the company.
As I alluded to previously, if you don't like the policy you can use any number of tools to fix it- Safety Obs report, ICAN, whatever. Arguing with the Captain would be option number 83 on a list of 84 things you could do.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Outworld
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PpRuNE's Biggest Pissing Contest
The scenario upon which this thread is predicated is unlikely to occur more than once or twice a year.
Yet we have normally rational posters like Kegmeister and Peg 747 getting hot under the collar.
Zip up your pants gentleman and put into some sort of perspective what it is you are raving about.
How does Qantas function with all this infighting and nonsense going on?
Yet we have normally rational posters like Kegmeister and Peg 747 getting hot under the collar.
Zip up your pants gentleman and put into some sort of perspective what it is you are raving about.
How does Qantas function with all this infighting and nonsense going on?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless if you are a Captain/FO/SO/FA, rules have changed and I'm happy with them. CA's, forget the days you can bring your family aboard, get with the real time, cant believe you think that is still ok. A simple blanket rule is NO FLIGHT DECK access. These rules are in place for your protection, not any one elses. Remember that. Think about where you work and think about how many lives are in your hand. Think about kids that shoot kids. No not your child, but access to the cockpit is suicide. Think about Colombine, and all the disasters that have happened, no not your kid but anyone can bring a plane down, thats why we have NO ACCESS. If you were my captain I would be very concerned if your kids were up on deck. 30 years ago I wouldn't have a problem but now, no way.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An FSO, just like a CSO is an statement of company policy in respect of a given regulatory regime.
An Operator's individual company policy however does not dictate what is essentially a Federal jurisdiction. The Operator's approval is designated by the regulator not by the company.
Too this end the current FSO is not reflected as a change in the Ops Manual and the change has not been presented to the regulator in accordance with the requirements of the Act and required process.
That said - and until alternative compliance procedures are effected, the FSO would be followed on-board accordingly with the appropriate reports initiated to both the company and the regulator.
In the event however of an unsuitable person being placed in the CC jumpseat, I would expect a professional liaision to take place between the Captian and the CSM. I would expect, just like in 767 days that an unsuitable pax in an exit row would be moved and all would be in agreeance.
If the seat to my left was say batting from a position of adversarial stupidity, then I would not hestitate in closing the door and having one of 'those' full and frank discussions. If the CSM was batting the same way I would not hesitate in backing the chair.
But If the situation was giving rise to a risk to the safety and security of the a/c or the pax, and the risk was not being addressed due to escalated stupidity (on either side), then I would certainly prefer not to fly the sector and would certainly be making a phone call or two.
Reality is that this reform is a last resort and given we will no doubt have an amended FSO expressing a few more compliance conditions once the regulator is formerly advised then maybe aPprune 'cease fire' is appropriate.
As stated previously one would have thought that the operating crew were all on the same side. ......maybe the thread should be parked while process catches up.
Still think however a much better solution is to fix staff travel (which is really the cause of most of this grief in the first place) and then the bloody CC jumpseat would probably not be needed !
AT
An Operator's individual company policy however does not dictate what is essentially a Federal jurisdiction. The Operator's approval is designated by the regulator not by the company.
Too this end the current FSO is not reflected as a change in the Ops Manual and the change has not been presented to the regulator in accordance with the requirements of the Act and required process.
That said - and until alternative compliance procedures are effected, the FSO would be followed on-board accordingly with the appropriate reports initiated to both the company and the regulator.
In the event however of an unsuitable person being placed in the CC jumpseat, I would expect a professional liaision to take place between the Captian and the CSM. I would expect, just like in 767 days that an unsuitable pax in an exit row would be moved and all would be in agreeance.
If the seat to my left was say batting from a position of adversarial stupidity, then I would not hestitate in closing the door and having one of 'those' full and frank discussions. If the CSM was batting the same way I would not hesitate in backing the chair.
But If the situation was giving rise to a risk to the safety and security of the a/c or the pax, and the risk was not being addressed due to escalated stupidity (on either side), then I would certainly prefer not to fly the sector and would certainly be making a phone call or two.
Reality is that this reform is a last resort and given we will no doubt have an amended FSO expressing a few more compliance conditions once the regulator is formerly advised then maybe aPprune 'cease fire' is appropriate.
As stated previously one would have thought that the operating crew were all on the same side. ......maybe the thread should be parked while process catches up.
Still think however a much better solution is to fix staff travel (which is really the cause of most of this grief in the first place) and then the bloody CC jumpseat would probably not be needed !
AT
Nunc est bibendum
Yet we have normally rational posters like Kegmeister.....getting hot under the collar.
In the unlikely event it does then as a reasonable person and understanding the overwhelming majority of CSMs are also reasonable then I'd back our collective ability to manage the issue appropriately. It's only when someone is unreasonable and the issue is no longer about seats but rather failure to adhere to company policy that the discussion will take a very different tone.
No pissing contest, not getting wound up about it, just a statement of fact. Hopefully this will be my last post on the matter as I've wasted enough time as it is on it!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungle Juice you really are a sad sack. This has nothing to do with safety. This has to do with your reidiculous hatred of pilots
CC and their beneficiaries can sit in those seats as well. It doesn't take ONE SINGLE THING away from you, and in fact could help you, your friends, your work mates and thier families. But no you jump up and down with these completely insane scenarios when in fact your only problem with it is you think this is some sort of pilot take over.
So rather than look at this an go "great my work friends can now get their kids home from OS" you go into a pilot hatred frenzy.
Get a mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.
ditch handle,Don't worry about this as you'll never win with a group that yet again wants something at someone else's expense.
They sit up there strapped in and can't understand the concerns of others.
The first rule of yours is the main one and that is the drivers are upset that they can't take their wife on the flight deck anymore so they expect us to wear it.
'I'm alright jack'
They sit up there strapped in and can't understand the concerns of others.
The first rule of yours is the main one and that is the drivers are upset that they can't take their wife on the flight deck anymore so they expect us to wear it.
'I'm alright jack'
So rather than look at this an go "great my work friends can now get their kids home from OS" you go into a pilot hatred frenzy.
Get a mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote-
"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."
_________
Neither have I.
"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."
_________
Neither have I.
It has hapened many many times.
Conversely I have never heard a tech crew refuse a jump seat.
God I am even more ashamed now. What a bunch of petty children
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote-
"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."
_________
Neither have I.
"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."
_________
Neither have I.
When techies give away the jump seat does it stop them putting their seat belts on.
Do you have trouble putting your seat belt on when there is no assist seat.
Completely senseless argument.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowawhatever,
Again.
What is it with you lot????
Myopic, self obsessed, obtuse,............... retarded!!??
Those arguing against the policy are doing so because they are looking at it from an, operational perspective.
You are not.
For at least one of the reasons mentioned above.
Obtw. My completely senseless argument was a piss take [and cut and paste
] from the other completely senseless argument that immediately proceeded it.
Again.
What is it with you lot????
Myopic, self obsessed, obtuse,............... retarded!!??
Those arguing against the policy are doing so because they are looking at it from an, operational perspective.
You are not.
For at least one of the reasons mentioned above.
Obtw. My completely senseless argument was a piss take [and cut and paste
] from the other completely senseless argument that immediately proceeded it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those arguing against the policy are doing so because they are looking at it from an, operational perspective.
There operational aspects have been covered. The post quoted above clearly demostrates that JJ has a problem with tech crew. JJ didn;t mentioned operational aspects. JJ mentioned pilots getting something from CC. It was pure spite.
The fact is this is not a significant operational matter. It is safe. There are the number of seats required for people to sit in.
I have talked to many many many CC over the last few days about this. Luckiliy they think JJ is a sad sack who needs to get a life. The vast majority thinks this is a good thing.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it with you lot????
What do you mean "you lot"? I am a pilot am I. Did I address the individuals (JJ DH and Peg) or did I make a silly stereotype?
So you say "you lot" then try and defend your position as being based on operational merit, rather than a stereotypical view of a group of people whose only common attribute is their job.
Basically you just let the true colours show
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would of course be self evident [for anyone with a semblance of intelligence] that "you lot" refers those arguing in support of the policy.
You are the one who is rather pathetically trying to personalize the issue.
You are the one who is rather pathetically trying to personalize the issue.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personalise the issue!!!
Give me a break. So IF (and nobody believes you for a moment) 'you lot' refers to those saying this policy is OK - the vast majority of CC and techies - you are saying that you are retarded and obtuse if you agree with the policy? Yeah obviously we are personalising the issue.
Basically almost everyone is a retard except you and a couple of others? Disagreeing with you (because this policy is safe, is operationally sound, and helps both CC and techies) means you call the person "you lot" and a retard.
Either way you make no sense. You made a stereotype, it was personal, it made no sense. Then you accuse me of personalising the issue. Good grief!
The procedure is safe. JJ made a comment about techies, then you say "you lot".
I think everyone here knows exactly what is going on. Luckily most CC and techies do not agree with you.
Give me a break. So IF (and nobody believes you for a moment) 'you lot' refers to those saying this policy is OK - the vast majority of CC and techies - you are saying that you are retarded and obtuse if you agree with the policy? Yeah obviously we are personalising the issue.
Basically almost everyone is a retard except you and a couple of others? Disagreeing with you (because this policy is safe, is operationally sound, and helps both CC and techies) means you call the person "you lot" and a retard.
Either way you make no sense. You made a stereotype, it was personal, it made no sense. Then you accuse me of personalising the issue. Good grief!
The procedure is safe. JJ made a comment about techies, then you say "you lot".
I think everyone here knows exactly what is going on. Luckily most CC and techies do not agree with you.