Govt Trying To Ban Jump Seats Again Today
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Next door to Hell
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad case the other day where the crew was asked for jump seat and the pilot in the left seat was heard clearly stating,"f*&^ him". I hope I can return the favor one day, but I don't think I could.
If we don't look after each other what hope do we have as a professional pilot group.
If we don't look after each other what hope do we have as a professional pilot group.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the one looking after the risk analysis project that AIPA commissioned, I'm right across the science and the numbers.
Taking into account the two-dimensional nature of risk - (a) probability and (b) consequences - we looked at the positives and negatives of having an off-duty crew-member jump-seating. The ratio of positives to negatives was scientifically shown to be about 3000:1 That was even after having a very high consequence multiplier on a "rogue/fake pilot" event. The reason that type of event doesn't destroy our arguments is that probability of that sort of event occurring is so low. Rogue pilot includes suicide and FedEx type events. Historical data was used as well as analysing current protocols/procedures for gaining jump-seat approval.
Other data was used to evaluate the occasions where jump-seaters contribute positively and mitigate errors. A lot of reports from Australia, Europe and the USA were analysed as to what jump-seaters contributed. A huge number of Australian pilots contributed to a survey seeking their personal examples.
The numbers are clear: a jump-seater is 3000 times more likely to be of benefit than a hindrance/danger. And that is being extremely conservative and aggressively biasing the multiplying factors towards negative events. A truer ratio is almost certainly higher.
Guys like Aussie027, Bullethead, Maggotdriver... and others: great examples. You know what? Don't just write about those examples here, write to the Opposition/Independents or your own MP and tell them too. As I said, I'm quietly confident the Opposition is on side. But anecdotes such as yours can only help reinforce that.
Key supporters are the following:
Ms Peta Credlin, who is Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff (and formerly Malcolm Turnbull's Deputy CoS). (Email: [email protected]) I have met with her personally and she is extremely astute. She immediately understood the merit in having off-duty professionals jump-seating but said "Convince us formally". Hence the risk analysis. And that worked.
The Hon Warren Truss, Nationals Leader and Shadow Minister for Transport. (Contact link: Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives ) Skeptical at first and convinced pilots were just trying to hang onto a "perk", he has become a important supporter. The win in the Senate could not have happened without his support.
Senator Nick Xenophon, Independent, South Australia (Email: [email protected]) An enthusiastic supporter of professional pilots and also very sharp. As an independent he holds a critical balance of voting power in the Senate.
The Greens, esp Senator Christine Milne, Greens, Tasmania. (Email: [email protected]) Again, the Greens are all very astute and keen to see Govt held accountable and producing quality outcomes through good legislation.
All these people are worth 30 minutes of your time corresponding with - to shore up the argument that off-duty professional pilots add safety and security layers when they are jump-seating. AIPA and other groups are lobbying on a daily basis that this is not about "perks", but about increasing safety and security.
You can help too - believe me. But not by just writing on PPrune. By writing to the decision-makers. I'm impressed with what we have achieved so far through logical and unemotional reasoning.
Taking into account the two-dimensional nature of risk - (a) probability and (b) consequences - we looked at the positives and negatives of having an off-duty crew-member jump-seating. The ratio of positives to negatives was scientifically shown to be about 3000:1 That was even after having a very high consequence multiplier on a "rogue/fake pilot" event. The reason that type of event doesn't destroy our arguments is that probability of that sort of event occurring is so low. Rogue pilot includes suicide and FedEx type events. Historical data was used as well as analysing current protocols/procedures for gaining jump-seat approval.
Other data was used to evaluate the occasions where jump-seaters contribute positively and mitigate errors. A lot of reports from Australia, Europe and the USA were analysed as to what jump-seaters contributed. A huge number of Australian pilots contributed to a survey seeking their personal examples.
The numbers are clear: a jump-seater is 3000 times more likely to be of benefit than a hindrance/danger. And that is being extremely conservative and aggressively biasing the multiplying factors towards negative events. A truer ratio is almost certainly higher.
Guys like Aussie027, Bullethead, Maggotdriver... and others: great examples. You know what? Don't just write about those examples here, write to the Opposition/Independents or your own MP and tell them too. As I said, I'm quietly confident the Opposition is on side. But anecdotes such as yours can only help reinforce that.
Key supporters are the following:
Ms Peta Credlin, who is Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff (and formerly Malcolm Turnbull's Deputy CoS). (Email: [email protected]) I have met with her personally and she is extremely astute. She immediately understood the merit in having off-duty professionals jump-seating but said "Convince us formally". Hence the risk analysis. And that worked.
The Hon Warren Truss, Nationals Leader and Shadow Minister for Transport. (Contact link: Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives ) Skeptical at first and convinced pilots were just trying to hang onto a "perk", he has become a important supporter. The win in the Senate could not have happened without his support.
Senator Nick Xenophon, Independent, South Australia (Email: [email protected]) An enthusiastic supporter of professional pilots and also very sharp. As an independent he holds a critical balance of voting power in the Senate.
The Greens, esp Senator Christine Milne, Greens, Tasmania. (Email: [email protected]) Again, the Greens are all very astute and keen to see Govt held accountable and producing quality outcomes through good legislation.
All these people are worth 30 minutes of your time corresponding with - to shore up the argument that off-duty professional pilots add safety and security layers when they are jump-seating. AIPA and other groups are lobbying on a daily basis that this is not about "perks", but about increasing safety and security.
You can help too - believe me. But not by just writing on PPrune. By writing to the decision-makers. I'm impressed with what we have achieved so far through logical and unemotional reasoning.
Last edited by Jay Arr; 4th Mar 2010 at 06:56.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: keilor vic australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gov to ban jumpseat travel.
Ken.
why is it that on long range flights where a double crew is rostered, that the second crew are required in the cockpit for take off and landing.
My last engine failure in a B747 was departing Athens at night with a full load for Singapore. Crew, 2 captains, one F/O. 2 F/Es. all in the cockpit.
At 300' in a left turn No4 engine failed with a shudder that caused the jump seat Captain to strike his head on the wall. We shut down the engine as a crew procedure and when stable on climb I divided the crew duties to utilize each member in the cockpit. I set the a/c on autopilot and proceded to a dump area.
At his suggestion the second Captain made a PA to the cabin. The F/O monitored tracking and LSA and the second F/E was sent to the cabin to check the engine visually for any sign of fire. The operating F/E calculated the dump at 80 Tons and 45 minutes and on return to the cockpit the second F/E double checked these figures and helped monitored the dump. With 45 minutes in the dump area we had plenty of time to discuss any extra procedures and the junior F/E suggested that as we had departed at max T/O weight and would be landing at max landing weight we should extend the gear early on final approach to dissipate the brake temps. I am glad I had all those extra eyes and experience that night because the pressure on me as Pilot in Command was greatly reduced. Save the captains prerogative as to who occupies the jump seat.
why is it that on long range flights where a double crew is rostered, that the second crew are required in the cockpit for take off and landing.
My last engine failure in a B747 was departing Athens at night with a full load for Singapore. Crew, 2 captains, one F/O. 2 F/Es. all in the cockpit.
At 300' in a left turn No4 engine failed with a shudder that caused the jump seat Captain to strike his head on the wall. We shut down the engine as a crew procedure and when stable on climb I divided the crew duties to utilize each member in the cockpit. I set the a/c on autopilot and proceded to a dump area.
At his suggestion the second Captain made a PA to the cabin. The F/O monitored tracking and LSA and the second F/E was sent to the cabin to check the engine visually for any sign of fire. The operating F/E calculated the dump at 80 Tons and 45 minutes and on return to the cockpit the second F/E double checked these figures and helped monitored the dump. With 45 minutes in the dump area we had plenty of time to discuss any extra procedures and the junior F/E suggested that as we had departed at max T/O weight and would be landing at max landing weight we should extend the gear early on final approach to dissipate the brake temps. I am glad I had all those extra eyes and experience that night because the pressure on me as Pilot in Command was greatly reduced. Save the captains prerogative as to who occupies the jump seat.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, They Used To Have Another Set Of Eyes And Hands They Were Called Flight Engineers And Very Handy They Were Too. Bloody Disgrace You Cannot Give A Lift To A Colleague/mate So They Can Get To Work, What A Load Of Crap....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody Mindedness
This has nothing to do with safety security or anything else except Albaneses" wanting to show that he is in charge and wants to save face.
Live in his electorate ?
Pay his office a visit
Live in his electorate ?
Pay his office a visit
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'We are taking these steps to restrict cockpit access and safeguard Australian travellers based on advice from aviation security experts,'' a spokesman for the Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, said.
To all the nay-sayers putting the dubious argument of 'another pair of eyes'. Well, it is all very circular. A certain A340 from the Middle East, on departure from Melbourne, had not an additional pair of eyes but two pairs of eyes. These additional eyes did nothing to prevent a near disaster.
Teresa - I hear what you say about giving "A Lift To A Colleague/mate So They Can Get To Work..." but why can't people live where they are employed like most mortal beings? Commuting pilots should not receive any special perks that are unavailable to other staff simply because they possess an ASIC card and live away from their place of employment. If a ground- staffer lived in MEL, would you give him/her a lift to the office in SYD? The answer is probably 'no' but most would neither ask nor expect a ride on the jump seat. The truth should not be manipulated to support an unjustified perk.
And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?
And to newsensation who asks "who are the "aviation security experts"?", I don't know but perhaps they just may know much more about aviation security than pilots ever will. If the pilots collective wisdom is better than that of the security experts, then the pilots are in the wrong job!
Teresa - I hear what you say about giving "A Lift To A Colleague/mate So They Can Get To Work..." but why can't people live where they are employed like most mortal beings? Commuting pilots should not receive any special perks that are unavailable to other staff simply because they possess an ASIC card and live away from their place of employment. If a ground- staffer lived in MEL, would you give him/her a lift to the office in SYD? The answer is probably 'no' but most would neither ask nor expect a ride on the jump seat. The truth should not be manipulated to support an unjustified perk.
And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?
And to newsensation who asks "who are the "aviation security experts"?", I don't know but perhaps they just may know much more about aviation security than pilots ever will. If the pilots collective wisdom is better than that of the security experts, then the pilots are in the wrong job!
Ken,
generally, however I have no knowledge of the event you mentioned, jumseaters board either with or just prior to the main pax flow. Considering that the calculations that lead to the error were "probably" complete prior to the jump seaters being present your comments may be irrelevant. If they were present and did run an eye over the calculations, then the following incident may not have eventuated. Either way I agree with your point, allow pilots on the flight deck. What is lacking fromyour general argument is a reason tochange the regs and NOT allow pilots inthe jump seat.
As for the "security experts" they are a joke and I have obsolutely no doubt about that. Perverts and time waisters creating an illusion for the general public.
generally, however I have no knowledge of the event you mentioned, jumseaters board either with or just prior to the main pax flow. Considering that the calculations that lead to the error were "probably" complete prior to the jump seaters being present your comments may be irrelevant. If they were present and did run an eye over the calculations, then the following incident may not have eventuated. Either way I agree with your point, allow pilots on the flight deck. What is lacking fromyour general argument is a reason tochange the regs and NOT allow pilots inthe jump seat.
As for the "security experts" they are a joke and I have obsolutely no doubt about that. Perverts and time waisters creating an illusion for the general public.
Last edited by RENURPP; 20th May 2010 at 06:06.
It's very simple, you either trust the pilots or you don't. Their security and investigation of us prior to issuing ASICs should be sufficient, if not they are deficient in their jobs. If I'm not a threat with my big fat hoof on the rudder peddles at 150 knots rolling down the runway, then I shouldn't be one sitting in the back seat helping to possibly stop someone from gaining access. Whilst they're at it, why don't they endorse the security experts so that they can deal with the engine failure when it occurs. Oh! F... where are those untrustworthy pilots now??
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HA HA Ken, you make me laugh
You don't know who the so called experts are but you do know they are more expert than pilots......
And to newsensation who asks "who are the "aviation security experts"?", I don't know but perhaps they just may know much more about aviation security than pilots ever will
but why can't people live where they are employed like most mortal beings?
Pilot's commuting to work using their own companies form of transport ( in this case an Aircraft ) are no different.
It's just pure damn jealously on the behalf of the Pollies and they are trying to show us who the boss is.
Pure and simple.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
I notice AIPA seem to be ramping up the issue of airside security. Is that purely coincidental? Maybe if Mr Albanese wants to play hardball, then pilots can too.
What would happen if you questioned one of the cleaners on your aircraft whether or not they had been through a proper metal detector screening before being allowed on to your aircraft? If the answer was no, then presumably the PIC would be in their rights, nay compelled by the law, to have the aircraft thoroughly searched before departure.
A few of those instances and who knows what change of attitude may be experienced by our dear Minister?
What would happen if you questioned one of the cleaners on your aircraft whether or not they had been through a proper metal detector screening before being allowed on to your aircraft? If the answer was no, then presumably the PIC would be in their rights, nay compelled by the law, to have the aircraft thoroughly searched before departure.
A few of those instances and who knows what change of attitude may be experienced by our dear Minister?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The relevant section of the current regulations:
Unless all personnel entering a sterile zone are subject to metal detection screening or full body searches, how else can this part of the regs be properly observed?
4.04 Things to be detected by screening
(1) This regulation is made for paragraph 44 (2) (b) of the Act.
(2) The things that are to be detected by screening are:
(a) on a person, or in a person’s belongings, or in stores
entering a sterile area — weapons and prohibited items;
and
(b) in checked baggage — explosives; and
(c) in a vehicle or in goods entering an enhanced inspection
area — weapons.(2) The things that are to be detected by screening are:
(a) on a person, or in a person’s belongings, or in stores
entering a sterile area — weapons and prohibited items;
and
(b) in checked baggage — explosives; and
(c) in a vehicle or in goods entering an enhanced inspection
Unless all personnel entering a sterile zone are subject to metal detection screening or full body searches, how else can this part of the regs be properly observed?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken you said:
And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?
You are kidding aren't you.
By the way what is exactly your interest in something that does not directly affect you, I am assuming you are not an airline pilot.
And what do I ask is the airline view? They have been notably silent on the issue but if the pilots were so right, wouldn't the carriers be supporting them?
You are kidding aren't you.
By the way what is exactly your interest in something that does not directly affect you, I am assuming you are not an airline pilot.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albanese media release
I read the Minister's media release which stated
"The Pilot’s Association is wrong when it says the regulations exclude licensed company pilots from travelling on the flight deck when they are not actually flying the plane. If the airline allows those pilots to travel in the cockpit for an operational, safety, security or training reason they can do so, and the airline – not the pilot – carries legal responsibility.
"In fact, the pilot in command of a plane will be able to allow people to travel in the cockpit (such as other pilots), so long as they have an operational, safety, security or training reason for being there. The pilot is then legally responsible for doing so."
I ask you - If we can let another pilot into the cockpit to help with safety, what's the big deal?
"The Pilot’s Association is wrong when it says the regulations exclude licensed company pilots from travelling on the flight deck when they are not actually flying the plane. If the airline allows those pilots to travel in the cockpit for an operational, safety, security or training reason they can do so, and the airline – not the pilot – carries legal responsibility.
"In fact, the pilot in command of a plane will be able to allow people to travel in the cockpit (such as other pilots), so long as they have an operational, safety, security or training reason for being there. The pilot is then legally responsible for doing so."
I ask you - If we can let another pilot into the cockpit to help with safety, what's the big deal?
Last edited by Tony John; 25th May 2010 at 11:27. Reason: tidy it up