Qantas:Cockpit Access
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas:Cockpit Access
Pilots take controls of cockpit issue: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | September 11, 2009
Article from: The Australian
QANTAS pilots have caused a furore in federal parliament by successfully lobbying to get legislation restricting access to aircraft cockpits disallowed.
The Australian and International Pilots Association had been lobbying to get the legislation overturned because it placed the criminal responsibility for allowing access to the flight deck on the captain rather than the airline.
It also meant that off-duty pilots were no longer eligible to fly in the jump seat unless they were commuting to and from work.
The Howard government introduced regulations in 2005 that restricted access to cockpits but the Rudd government in February moved to tighten what it saw as a loophole in the rules and doubled the penalty for breaches.
While pilots recognised the need to restrict access to cockpits, they complained they were not consulted about the new rules and warned the changes would affect their safety culture.
They also argued the regulations were inconsistent with global best practice, a view that was supported by international and US pilot groups.
The disallowance was put forward by independent senator Nick Xenophon and supported by the opposition and the Greens.
AIPA president Barry Jackson said the Senate had disallowed a flawed piece of legislation about which pilots were not consulted.
He said the strict liability meant that a captain would be responsible if a flight attendant inadvertently left a cockpit door unlocked.
"All we wanted to do was to be able to discuss this," Captain Jackson said. "The criminal liability to me was the big thing and I think the Greens made a good comment about safety culture.
"If you know you are going to be criminally liable either financially or through jailable offence then you are not going to be so forthcoming with any information. So it's completely at odds with a just culture or a proper safety-management system."
Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.
He said pilots were happy to work with the government on the issue, which he believed needed "just a little rejigging".
A legal opinion by Bret Walker SC, suggested that existing Civil Aviation Regulations could be easily changed to oblige airlines to include cockpit-access instructions in operations manuals.
However, the disallowance was blasted in question time by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.
Mr Albanese said there would now be no effective legal restrictions on who could enter a cockpit or penalties for unauthorised access. Other aviation regulations also had strict liability offences.
"It is completely unsatisfactory for such an important measure in such a vital security regime to rely on industry self-regulation," Mr Albanese said. "The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union."
Labelling the regulations bizarre, opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss said his party voted to disallow the rules after attempting to negotiate amendments with the government.
"Regulations should not turn pilots into flying doormen and force them into spending more time checking that the cockpit door is closed than flying the plane," he said.
Article from: The Australian
QANTAS pilots have caused a furore in federal parliament by successfully lobbying to get legislation restricting access to aircraft cockpits disallowed.
The Australian and International Pilots Association had been lobbying to get the legislation overturned because it placed the criminal responsibility for allowing access to the flight deck on the captain rather than the airline.
It also meant that off-duty pilots were no longer eligible to fly in the jump seat unless they were commuting to and from work.
The Howard government introduced regulations in 2005 that restricted access to cockpits but the Rudd government in February moved to tighten what it saw as a loophole in the rules and doubled the penalty for breaches.
While pilots recognised the need to restrict access to cockpits, they complained they were not consulted about the new rules and warned the changes would affect their safety culture.
They also argued the regulations were inconsistent with global best practice, a view that was supported by international and US pilot groups.
The disallowance was put forward by independent senator Nick Xenophon and supported by the opposition and the Greens.
AIPA president Barry Jackson said the Senate had disallowed a flawed piece of legislation about which pilots were not consulted.
He said the strict liability meant that a captain would be responsible if a flight attendant inadvertently left a cockpit door unlocked.
"All we wanted to do was to be able to discuss this," Captain Jackson said. "The criminal liability to me was the big thing and I think the Greens made a good comment about safety culture.
"If you know you are going to be criminally liable either financially or through jailable offence then you are not going to be so forthcoming with any information. So it's completely at odds with a just culture or a proper safety-management system."
Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.
He said pilots were happy to work with the government on the issue, which he believed needed "just a little rejigging".
A legal opinion by Bret Walker SC, suggested that existing Civil Aviation Regulations could be easily changed to oblige airlines to include cockpit-access instructions in operations manuals.
However, the disallowance was blasted in question time by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.
Mr Albanese said there would now be no effective legal restrictions on who could enter a cockpit or penalties for unauthorised access. Other aviation regulations also had strict liability offences.
"It is completely unsatisfactory for such an important measure in such a vital security regime to rely on industry self-regulation," Mr Albanese said. "The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union."
Labelling the regulations bizarre, opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss said his party voted to disallow the rules after attempting to negotiate amendments with the government.
"Regulations should not turn pilots into flying doormen and force them into spending more time checking that the cockpit door is closed than flying the plane," he said.
Nunc est bibendum
Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks....
Good work otherwise.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this politician Albanese knows more about aviation security and decision-making that aircraft Captains do, does he? I wonder if he wants the same restrictions on ocean-going liner Captains on their respective bridges?
Perhaps airline Captains should be setting his salary and terms of employment. After all, those Captains know what a pollie is worth, don't they? Or maybe, said Capts should be deciding on the priorities of legislation in this legislative round.
Yeah, right....
Keep him on your side of the Ditch please. We don't need that sort of dangerous behavour on this side of the Tassie.
Le Vieux
Perhaps airline Captains should be setting his salary and terms of employment. After all, those Captains know what a pollie is worth, don't they? Or maybe, said Capts should be deciding on the priorities of legislation in this legislative round.
Yeah, right....
Keep him on your side of the Ditch please. We don't need that sort of dangerous behavour on this side of the Tassie.
Le Vieux
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labor ignored whistleblower on airport security flaws
THE Labor Party turned away whistleblower Allan Kessing and refused to act when he provided federal MP Anthony Albanese - now the Transport Minister - with access to a secret report on security flaws at Sydney airport.
When Labor was in opposition, Mr Kessing, a former Customs officer, provided a clandestine briefing to the Sydney office of Mr Albanese, his mother's local member.
Despite accompanying that briefing with a report on security failures that had been suppressed for more than two years, Mr Kessing's attempt to persuade Labor to take up the issue was rebuffed. Several days after briefing Mr Albanese's electorate officer, Nathan Cureton, Mr Kessing telephoned to check on Mr Albanese's intentions. Mr Cureton told him Mr Albanese would not be taking any action.
Mr Kessing has retained Mr Cureton's business card and has provided The Australian with telephone records showing he made a call to Mr Albanese's electorate office that lasted two minutes and four seconds. That call took place on April 5, 2005, less than a week after Mr Kessing's visit to Mr Albanese's office.
Mr Cureton, who is a solicitor, no longer works for Mr Albanese. He confirmed he met Mr Kessing but said he could not remember the details of the meeting and it was inappropriate to discuss his work for Mr Albanese.
Mr Kessing said Mr Cureton took two pages of notes. Halfway through the briefing, Mr Cureton took the report into an office normally occupied by Mr Albanese.
He could not see if Mr Albanese was present but Mr Cureton remained in that room with the report for 10 minutes.
Mr Albanese said yesterday: "I am confident my electorate office in general responds to representations appropriately, but I will check any records to ensure an accurate response, given this is back in 2005."
Mr Kessing's leak to Mr Albanese, whose electorate of Grayndler borders Sydney airport, means at least some elements within the then Labor opposition knew about the security risk at Sydney airport almost two months before its disclosure in The Australian on May 31, 2005.
Kevin Rudd, who criticised the Howard government's approach to whistleblowers before the last election, last night declined to say whether he knew that Mr Albanese had rebuffed Mr Kessing.
When asked if the Prime Minister had been aware of the incident, a spokesman said: "Mr Rudd's comments during the 2007 election campaign related to whistleblowing and the approach of the Howard government in this area.
"The Rudd Government is developing its response to the House of Representatives committee report on whistleblower reform."
Mr Albanese's inaction on the airport security leak has only come to light now because Mr Kessing has volunteered the information to The Australian in full knowledge its publication could prompt federal authorities to charge him with breaching public service secrecy laws for a second time.
Mr Kessing has already been convicted of providing the report on airport security to The Australian - an accusation he still denies, despite freely admitting he leaked it to Mr Albanese.
"If I am going to have a criminal record it may as well be for something I have done rather than for something I have not done," Mr Kessing said.
He also wanted to show the nation why the government needed to greatly improve the limited whistleblower reform plan it is soon expected to make public. His experience in attempting to have Mr Albanese address an issue that was clearly in the public interest meant the federal government needed to extend the likely scope of its whistleblower reforms.
The government has been considering a report that calls for most public interest disclosures to remain criminal offences unless they are made to authorised groups inside the public sector, including federal politicians. By revealing his contacts with Mr Albanese's office, Mr Kessing has also cast light on why he never gave evidence in his own defence during his trial over the leak to The Australian.
Had he been asked if he had ever leaked the secret report, he would have been required to reveal the leak to Mr Albanese, potentially exposing Mr Kessing to liability over events that were unknown to the authorities.
However, Mr Kessing adopted that position reluctantly. On July 31, 2007, he sent an email to his solicitor, Joe Weller, that said in part: "I'm still tempted to drop Albanese & Kendall/Bevis into this, since AA had the docs in April." The "Kendall/Bevis" reference is to Rod Kendall, a staffer for federal Labor backbencher Arch Bevis.
Other documents supplied by Mr Kessing had been passed on to Mr Bevis's office by Mr Cureton in Mr Albanese's office.
An email from Mr Kessing to Mr Kendall dated November 7, 2005, says: "I have heard nothing from you or your office since giving Nathan (@ Grayndler) the requested docs for you in Canberra that w/e?? beginning of October? I hope they were received, understood and proved useful."
Mr Kendall replied the same day: "I did receive the information and used it as the basis for some questions I submitted to Senate estimates hearings."
Mr Kessing's decision to admit leaking confidential material to Mr Albanese comes soon after he abandoned a plan aimed at laying information about the affair before the NSW Supreme Court in an attempt to reopen his conviction over the leak to The Australian.
For more than a month, Mr Kessing and a small team led by independent senator Nick Xenophon, have been assembling information aimed at persuading NSW Chief Justice Jim Spigelman that Mr Kessing's conviction was unsafe and needed to be reopened.
Mr Kessing, who still owes money for past legal fees, has now abandoned that course, saying he is in no fit state - financially or emotionally - for another extended round of legal action.
THE Labor Party turned away whistleblower Allan Kessing and refused to act when he provided federal MP Anthony Albanese - now the Transport Minister - with access to a secret report on security flaws at Sydney airport.
When Labor was in opposition, Mr Kessing, a former Customs officer, provided a clandestine briefing to the Sydney office of Mr Albanese, his mother's local member.
Despite accompanying that briefing with a report on security failures that had been suppressed for more than two years, Mr Kessing's attempt to persuade Labor to take up the issue was rebuffed. Several days after briefing Mr Albanese's electorate officer, Nathan Cureton, Mr Kessing telephoned to check on Mr Albanese's intentions. Mr Cureton told him Mr Albanese would not be taking any action.
Mr Kessing has retained Mr Cureton's business card and has provided The Australian with telephone records showing he made a call to Mr Albanese's electorate office that lasted two minutes and four seconds. That call took place on April 5, 2005, less than a week after Mr Kessing's visit to Mr Albanese's office.
Mr Cureton, who is a solicitor, no longer works for Mr Albanese. He confirmed he met Mr Kessing but said he could not remember the details of the meeting and it was inappropriate to discuss his work for Mr Albanese.
Mr Kessing said Mr Cureton took two pages of notes. Halfway through the briefing, Mr Cureton took the report into an office normally occupied by Mr Albanese.
He could not see if Mr Albanese was present but Mr Cureton remained in that room with the report for 10 minutes.
Mr Albanese said yesterday: "I am confident my electorate office in general responds to representations appropriately, but I will check any records to ensure an accurate response, given this is back in 2005."
Mr Kessing's leak to Mr Albanese, whose electorate of Grayndler borders Sydney airport, means at least some elements within the then Labor opposition knew about the security risk at Sydney airport almost two months before its disclosure in The Australian on May 31, 2005.
Kevin Rudd, who criticised the Howard government's approach to whistleblowers before the last election, last night declined to say whether he knew that Mr Albanese had rebuffed Mr Kessing.
When asked if the Prime Minister had been aware of the incident, a spokesman said: "Mr Rudd's comments during the 2007 election campaign related to whistleblowing and the approach of the Howard government in this area.
"The Rudd Government is developing its response to the House of Representatives committee report on whistleblower reform."
Mr Albanese's inaction on the airport security leak has only come to light now because Mr Kessing has volunteered the information to The Australian in full knowledge its publication could prompt federal authorities to charge him with breaching public service secrecy laws for a second time.
Mr Kessing has already been convicted of providing the report on airport security to The Australian - an accusation he still denies, despite freely admitting he leaked it to Mr Albanese.
"If I am going to have a criminal record it may as well be for something I have done rather than for something I have not done," Mr Kessing said.
He also wanted to show the nation why the government needed to greatly improve the limited whistleblower reform plan it is soon expected to make public. His experience in attempting to have Mr Albanese address an issue that was clearly in the public interest meant the federal government needed to extend the likely scope of its whistleblower reforms.
The government has been considering a report that calls for most public interest disclosures to remain criminal offences unless they are made to authorised groups inside the public sector, including federal politicians. By revealing his contacts with Mr Albanese's office, Mr Kessing has also cast light on why he never gave evidence in his own defence during his trial over the leak to The Australian.
Had he been asked if he had ever leaked the secret report, he would have been required to reveal the leak to Mr Albanese, potentially exposing Mr Kessing to liability over events that were unknown to the authorities.
However, Mr Kessing adopted that position reluctantly. On July 31, 2007, he sent an email to his solicitor, Joe Weller, that said in part: "I'm still tempted to drop Albanese & Kendall/Bevis into this, since AA had the docs in April." The "Kendall/Bevis" reference is to Rod Kendall, a staffer for federal Labor backbencher Arch Bevis.
Other documents supplied by Mr Kessing had been passed on to Mr Bevis's office by Mr Cureton in Mr Albanese's office.
An email from Mr Kessing to Mr Kendall dated November 7, 2005, says: "I have heard nothing from you or your office since giving Nathan (@ Grayndler) the requested docs for you in Canberra that w/e?? beginning of October? I hope they were received, understood and proved useful."
Mr Kendall replied the same day: "I did receive the information and used it as the basis for some questions I submitted to Senate estimates hearings."
Mr Kessing's decision to admit leaking confidential material to Mr Albanese comes soon after he abandoned a plan aimed at laying information about the affair before the NSW Supreme Court in an attempt to reopen his conviction over the leak to The Australian.
For more than a month, Mr Kessing and a small team led by independent senator Nick Xenophon, have been assembling information aimed at persuading NSW Chief Justice Jim Spigelman that Mr Kessing's conviction was unsafe and needed to be reopened.
Mr Kessing, who still owes money for past legal fees, has now abandoned that course, saying he is in no fit state - financially or emotionally - for another extended round of legal action.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pollies should stick to what they know...making short term decisions based on the next election, rorting allowances and super, acting like 10yr olds in Parliment etc
Just leave aviation to the professionals...ok?
Just leave aviation to the professionals...ok?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therein lies the problem
I can’t see this pattern changing in my lifetime. Especially with the current crop of clowns running the circus. They are so out of touch with reality and don’t represent anyone but themselves.
All I can do is build my nest as big as I can to try and insulate me and my family from the government’s bad and misguided decisions. Oh – and vote in vain for the lesser evil.
Albanese you’re a d1ckhead
Pollies should stick to what they know...making short term decisions based on the next election
All I can do is build my nest as big as I can to try and insulate me and my family from the government’s bad and misguided decisions. Oh – and vote in vain for the lesser evil.
Albanese you’re a d1ckhead
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottums Up
Captain Jackson said the pilots supported prohibiting the families of airline staff and other passengers on flight decks but believed that allowing an off-duty pilot access enhanced safety.
Probably worth as many people as possible emailing him asking him to explain his qualifications in making such a statement, and asking him on what safety case such a comment is made. I just sent one! (Thanks for the link )
)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politicians are ar5eholes!
framer,
You'll be totally wasting your time writing to the Minister my friend!
I've done it a number of times, and I've never had the courtesy of a reply (or even an acknowledgement) from the pr1ck! Also cc'd the PM...........didn't get the courtesy of any response from him either. Why am I not surprised?
I've now realised it's simply a wasted effort, so I've given up, I regret to say.
The same thing happened when I wrote to my local (NSW) member re a matter under the control of Albanese's 'better half' in the NSW bearpit. She was asked the question in the house, stood up, said 'No', then sat down! And that was that........'fcuk you Jack'........one 'concerned' NSW constituent consigned to the sh1thouse! Just like that!
And it's no different in Canberra I'm afraid. Particularly if you ask a question that 'ruffles' some Ministerial feathers!
It seems to me that neither Albanese NOR the PM either understand OR give a 5hit about aviation! It also seems to me from listening to both, that they clearly adhere to the proposition that it's entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!
Notwithstanding, and despite both 'gentlemen' persisting with the misguided belief of trying to convince the electorate that a turd's a sandwich, they're both still feeding the electorate sh1t!
Dickheads!
You'll be totally wasting your time writing to the Minister my friend!
I've done it a number of times, and I've never had the courtesy of a reply (or even an acknowledgement) from the pr1ck! Also cc'd the PM...........didn't get the courtesy of any response from him either. Why am I not surprised?
I've now realised it's simply a wasted effort, so I've given up, I regret to say.
The same thing happened when I wrote to my local (NSW) member re a matter under the control of Albanese's 'better half' in the NSW bearpit. She was asked the question in the house, stood up, said 'No', then sat down! And that was that........'fcuk you Jack'........one 'concerned' NSW constituent consigned to the sh1thouse! Just like that!
And it's no different in Canberra I'm afraid. Particularly if you ask a question that 'ruffles' some Ministerial feathers!
It seems to me that neither Albanese NOR the PM either understand OR give a 5hit about aviation! It also seems to me from listening to both, that they clearly adhere to the proposition that it's entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!
Notwithstanding, and despite both 'gentlemen' persisting with the misguided belief of trying to convince the electorate that a turd's a sandwich, they're both still feeding the electorate sh1t!
Dickheads!
Nunc est bibendum
News to me. I'm yet to hear any pilot advocate the banning of families.