Nick Xenophon - The most important person in the future of Australian Aviation
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regrettably, managements do take their corporate responsibility seriously, the responsibility to deliver ever increasing dividends to shareholders. They will continue to attempt to crew aircraft for less to achieve that aim. I don't like it either, and I've said previously that managements would have airline crews being paid less than a base grade clerk if they could, but that's the way it is. It would have always been so in QF and AN, but one was the public service, and the other a private company.
"Money is never the issue, never was, never is and never will be; there is always enough money in the till and if there is not, it is managments job to find it."
This illustrious gentleman was proved correct time and time again and certainly during the time of a `certain aviation event' the percussor of much of the industry flight crew woes of today.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Just because the domestic airlines had cadets in the 50’s going directly into the right seat of a large piston twin or turbo props doesn’t mean it was safe.
No it doesn't, but I'm guessing it was mostly safe. How many times have we heard of two checkies, our contemporaries, flying together, highly experienced, trainers, and near disaster strikes??? We've all heard those yarns, and most are true, so experience isn't the be all and end all. Crewing an aircraft with two 10,000 pilots doesn't necessarily make it safer than say a 5000 hour Captain and 500 hour FO, but having both with 100 hours on type is a different kettle of fish.
Bear in mind that 200 hour graduates to the big piston and early turboprop aircraft of a generation and more back did survive in aircraft that were far less sophisticated than the modern generation with far greater workloads, auto pilots that were rudimentary at best, or none at all, failure rates of engines and components much greater than today's aircraft, etc.
And, to quote one Dick Holt:
"Money is never the issue, never was, never is and never will be; there is always enough money in the till and if there is not, it is managments job to find it."
I agree DK, but this is a different era; that was in the days of government and private airlines; this is the public company era and the shareholder is king.
Just because the domestic airlines had cadets in the 50’s going directly into the right seat of a large piston twin or turbo props doesn’t mean it was safe.
No it doesn't, but I'm guessing it was mostly safe. How many times have we heard of two checkies, our contemporaries, flying together, highly experienced, trainers, and near disaster strikes??? We've all heard those yarns, and most are true, so experience isn't the be all and end all. Crewing an aircraft with two 10,000 pilots doesn't necessarily make it safer than say a 5000 hour Captain and 500 hour FO, but having both with 100 hours on type is a different kettle of fish.
Bear in mind that 200 hour graduates to the big piston and early turboprop aircraft of a generation and more back did survive in aircraft that were far less sophisticated than the modern generation with far greater workloads, auto pilots that were rudimentary at best, or none at all, failure rates of engines and components much greater than today's aircraft, etc.
And, to quote one Dick Holt:
"Money is never the issue, never was, never is and never will be; there is always enough money in the till and if there is not, it is managments job to find it."
I agree DK, but this is a different era; that was in the days of government and private airlines; this is the public company era and the shareholder is king.
Last edited by relax737; 18th Sep 2010 at 08:00.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon,
Just do me a favour and post your answers to Dark Knights list of vary basic questions.
I know this a highly emotion charged topic, but we can not manipulate the safety versus T&C's as some here are trying to do. I know the only reason JQ are pursuing this mantra is because it is cheaper for them. Read my last post; it is the only thing the airlines have fiscal control over. However, to falsely(IMHO) pitch the Cadet/Safety issue against the protection of T&Cs is very irresponsible. At the end of the day, what we do is not the science of rockets, and putting a 200-300hr cadet at the pointy end along side an experienced Captain IS NOT DANGEROUS. It happens in nearly every other region around the world. Oz is very, very sheltered.
FWIW, many(not all) of the cadets that I have trained or checked have been very sharp. Just an observation from one who has trained/checked cadets first hand for quite a few years, unlike a lot of the posters here.
Just do me a favour and post your answers to Dark Knights list of vary basic questions.
I know this a highly emotion charged topic, but we can not manipulate the safety versus T&C's as some here are trying to do. I know the only reason JQ are pursuing this mantra is because it is cheaper for them. Read my last post; it is the only thing the airlines have fiscal control over. However, to falsely(IMHO) pitch the Cadet/Safety issue against the protection of T&Cs is very irresponsible. At the end of the day, what we do is not the science of rockets, and putting a 200-300hr cadet at the pointy end along side an experienced Captain IS NOT DANGEROUS. It happens in nearly every other region around the world. Oz is very, very sheltered.
FWIW, many(not all) of the cadets that I have trained or checked have been very sharp. Just an observation from one who has trained/checked cadets first hand for quite a few years, unlike a lot of the posters here.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normasars, exactly right. To make the connection is tenuous at best (that's doing it a favour!) and just plain 'no case' at worst.
Many do not enjoy admitting that flying isn't rocket science; it requires a certain level of intelligence, not IQ's of 140+, and a psychological profile; it's a very regimented occupation.
Many do not enjoy admitting that flying isn't rocket science; it requires a certain level of intelligence, not IQ's of 140+, and a psychological profile; it's a very regimented occupation.
Normasars
How many times have I got to say this? J* and the like intend to have 100% recruitment from cadet schemes. This doesn’t even happen in Europe where most airlines have a mixture of both cadets and DE. The US has now banned non ATPL holders from the flight deck of RPT aircraft +5700kg for the same reason we are debating here. This issue is 100% about safety. If it has a positive effect on T&C’s, great, it’s about time but it isn’t the reason some of us are concerned with what is going on in Australian aviation.
I have flown with my share of cadets too. Most are very sharp just as the DE pilots are otherwise we wouldn’t be here. That’s not the point though. I’ve been flying for 25 years and I’m still learning something every time I go flying, especially when I go flying with guys that have been doing it longer than I have. My concern is that in time the experience level on the flight deck will be so diluted because of the shear numbers of cadets that will be employed that it will become a safety issue.
It is only you and Relax737 that is trying to draw a connection between the safety issue and T&C’s, not us. I have no problem with cadet schemes when it is done right. Self funded schemes have become more biased in recent years towards those that can afford the training rather than those that are the best candidate for the job. There also needs to be a balance between DE and cadets to maintain experience levels on the flight deck. Maybe going totally in the direction that the US has isn’t necessarily the right answer but neither is employing only cadets over experience.
How many times have I got to say this? J* and the like intend to have 100% recruitment from cadet schemes. This doesn’t even happen in Europe where most airlines have a mixture of both cadets and DE. The US has now banned non ATPL holders from the flight deck of RPT aircraft +5700kg for the same reason we are debating here. This issue is 100% about safety. If it has a positive effect on T&C’s, great, it’s about time but it isn’t the reason some of us are concerned with what is going on in Australian aviation.
I have flown with my share of cadets too. Most are very sharp just as the DE pilots are otherwise we wouldn’t be here. That’s not the point though. I’ve been flying for 25 years and I’m still learning something every time I go flying, especially when I go flying with guys that have been doing it longer than I have. My concern is that in time the experience level on the flight deck will be so diluted because of the shear numbers of cadets that will be employed that it will become a safety issue.
It is only you and Relax737 that is trying to draw a connection between the safety issue and T&C’s, not us. I have no problem with cadet schemes when it is done right. Self funded schemes have become more biased in recent years towards those that can afford the training rather than those that are the best candidate for the job. There also needs to be a balance between DE and cadets to maintain experience levels on the flight deck. Maybe going totally in the direction that the US has isn’t necessarily the right answer but neither is employing only cadets over experience.
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
How many times have I got to say this? J* and the like intend to have 100% recruitment from cadet schemes
Low time cadets will be a permanent feature of LCC flight decks. Once they have moved up from JFO to FO they will be moved on, and replaced with another new cadet fresh out of training.
If I am correct, within 5 years the vast majority First Officers in j* will have between 300 & 3000 hours. Therefore, on average the experience in the RHS would be approx 1500 hours total time. This does represent a significant dilution of experience & an adverse impact on safety.
Last edited by breakfastburrito; 18th Sep 2010 at 11:00.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404,
I hear what you are saying, believe me. When you say JQ and the like, what is the like???
AFAIK, it is JQ(QF) only ATM. What you are saying is incorrect unless you have FACTS regarding JQ exclusively only hiring Cadet F/Os. I know a QLINK guy who starts with JQ on Monday.
I will say it again, flying aeroplanes is not rocket science mate and the sooner you guys accept this the better. I don't know why a lot of people here think that it is. If there are standards issues with an individual/s, then surely they won't be checked to line. Lets face it. If a guy can perform in the sim with typical sim wx, on one donk to the minima and subsequent missed approach and then non precision with circling off the bottom, well my guess is that out on the line these guys will be fine.
I hear what you are saying, believe me. When you say JQ and the like, what is the like???
AFAIK, it is JQ(QF) only ATM. What you are saying is incorrect unless you have FACTS regarding JQ exclusively only hiring Cadet F/Os. I know a QLINK guy who starts with JQ on Monday.
I will say it again, flying aeroplanes is not rocket science mate and the sooner you guys accept this the better. I don't know why a lot of people here think that it is. If there are standards issues with an individual/s, then surely they won't be checked to line. Lets face it. If a guy can perform in the sim with typical sim wx, on one donk to the minima and subsequent missed approach and then non precision with circling off the bottom, well my guess is that out on the line these guys will be fine.
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
I will say it again, flying aeroplanes is not rocket science mate
The point is that with experience, you feel like its not rocket science, things start to happen automagically. This is the mark of a professional, pro's make it look easy. It is learning by experience that projects you further & further in front of the aircraft, & this is function of time in the seat & desire to learn.
This is the value of experience, spare capacity.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burrito,
This is all I will say WRT this subject. I am getting tired.
I have trained cadets in the wet season in FNQ, frontal crappy wx down south with big winds and turbulence at low levels, fog in all places etc etc. Most do the job with aplomb and quite regularly really impress me with their spare brain capacity under difficult conditions.
As for the SIM, everyone is equal and there are no special favours to anybody. And guess what mate? The cadets are just as good as the rest.
So have your opinion FWIW, but unless you have trained and checked these people you are speaking out of turn. If they meet the standard, your argument is flawed.
I have said enuf on this. Period.
This is all I will say WRT this subject. I am getting tired.
I have trained cadets in the wet season in FNQ, frontal crappy wx down south with big winds and turbulence at low levels, fog in all places etc etc. Most do the job with aplomb and quite regularly really impress me with their spare brain capacity under difficult conditions.
As for the SIM, everyone is equal and there are no special favours to anybody. And guess what mate? The cadets are just as good as the rest.
So have your opinion FWIW, but unless you have trained and checked these people you are speaking out of turn. If they meet the standard, your argument is flawed.
I have said enuf on this. Period.
Last edited by Normasars; 18th Sep 2010 at 11:52.
The silly old 2 Airline policy might have been a cumbersome duopoly but at least the public was safe.
Quite how did you come to the above conclusion. I suggest you look up a few facts, including how may DC-3,DC-4, F-27 and particularly Viscounts were lost during the above era . And the airline size was a fraction of the size now.
Safer??? Go read your history.
Compared to how many fatal accidents to RPT since the 2 airline policy was dropped in the first Hawke Government ??? And if you exclude the "regional" fatals ( a category that was largely non-existent in the "two airline" era) how many RPT fatals does that leave ????
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Sep 2010 at 14:29.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Focus!
Gentlemen,
Its has been said so many times before. Bickering amongst ourselves on PPRuNe does us all a disservice...and makes it all the more likely we will achieve nothing. Please, for the sake of our profession, try to be constructive!
PG
Its has been said so many times before. Bickering amongst ourselves on PPRuNe does us all a disservice...and makes it all the more likely we will achieve nothing. Please, for the sake of our profession, try to be constructive!
PG
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to supporting Xenophons argument.....
Pilots:
The notion that there is a shortage of suitably qualified and experienced Australian licenced pilots is a baseless convenience on behalf of the airlines.
As has been stated here before,"there is only a shortage of suitable terms and conditions".
I choose to work overseas as I am remunerated appropriately. I have never had to pay for the several type ratings I hold, nor for the ongoing training.
I am one of many.
Should the T&C'S change, then there will be a return of suitably qualified and experienced pilots to the Australian market.
Pilots are a commodity like any other....sad but true.
Training:
You can train your way to a standard, but you cannot check your way to a standard. However, the perpensity towards checking has become the standard paradigm within Australia.
A box ticking exercise to ensure compliance, just never mind the content.
Its ironic that in a number of "second/third world countries", the concept of training is thoroughly understood..........but then they see the results of accidents more often.
The phrase "race to the bottom" is unfortunately accurate in the Senators speech, as we pass those aviation regimes whom we once considered inferior.
Pilots:
The notion that there is a shortage of suitably qualified and experienced Australian licenced pilots is a baseless convenience on behalf of the airlines.
As has been stated here before,"there is only a shortage of suitable terms and conditions".
I choose to work overseas as I am remunerated appropriately. I have never had to pay for the several type ratings I hold, nor for the ongoing training.
I am one of many.
Should the T&C'S change, then there will be a return of suitably qualified and experienced pilots to the Australian market.
Pilots are a commodity like any other....sad but true.
Training:
You can train your way to a standard, but you cannot check your way to a standard. However, the perpensity towards checking has become the standard paradigm within Australia.
A box ticking exercise to ensure compliance, just never mind the content.
Its ironic that in a number of "second/third world countries", the concept of training is thoroughly understood..........but then they see the results of accidents more often.
The phrase "race to the bottom" is unfortunately accurate in the Senators speech, as we pass those aviation regimes whom we once considered inferior.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solutions?
Maralinga,
I mainly agree with your post, however, you propose no solutions. How, as a professional industry community, do you believe we should proceed?
Cheers,
PG
I mainly agree with your post, however, you propose no solutions. How, as a professional industry community, do you believe we should proceed?
Cheers,
PG
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should a 1,000/1,500 requirement be legislated where are pilots going to get this experience? (particulalry in Australia?)
Not being allowed to operate as part of a crew in RPT A/c over +5700kgs, again, where will experienced pilots come from?
Who will pay or finance the cost of gaininig experience?
The good Senator, his fellow Senators and Members of the House of Representative regulary use (commute) in A/c below 5700kgs why should they fly with pilots of a `lesser standard'?
Perhaps a good deal of the problem lies with the regulator and accident investigator?
My observations would indicate the regulator has not fullfilled its duties or responsibilities in capably, correctly monitroing or regulating the industry for many, many years. Nor has it, or does it have the capability to do so,
Simlarly, the accident investigator suffers from identical problems to the regulator being unable to impartially or professionally investgate incidents/accidents providing and unbiased, politically incorrect, professional finding and recommendations.
Relax737: agreed; though different owner, same managment' different shareholders who are the owners/management
Not being allowed to operate as part of a crew in RPT A/c over +5700kgs, again, where will experienced pilots come from?
Who will pay or finance the cost of gaininig experience?
The good Senator, his fellow Senators and Members of the House of Representative regulary use (commute) in A/c below 5700kgs why should they fly with pilots of a `lesser standard'?
Perhaps a good deal of the problem lies with the regulator and accident investigator?
My observations would indicate the regulator has not fullfilled its duties or responsibilities in capably, correctly monitroing or regulating the industry for many, many years. Nor has it, or does it have the capability to do so,
Simlarly, the accident investigator suffers from identical problems to the regulator being unable to impartially or professionally investgate incidents/accidents providing and unbiased, politically incorrect, professional finding and recommendations.
"Money is never the issue, never was, never is and never will be; there is always enough money in the till and if there is not, it is managments job to find it."
I agree DK, but this is a different era; that was in the days of government and private airlines; this is the public company era and the shareholder is king.
I agree DK, but this is a different era; that was in the days of government and private airlines; this is the public company era and the shareholder is king.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good senator may be about to shoot himself in the foot and local pilots in the heads!!
If 1000/1500 hours is mandated as the minimum for FO in RPT jet operations, and there is a distinct lack of those so qualified available in Australia, bearing in mind that a 50+ year old pilot with 10,000 hours instructing or C402 charter ops won't be acceptable, nor will somebody who doesn't fit the psychological profile, or a host of other requirements such as age spread, etc., airlines may find that they MUST turn to recruiting overseas.
Proceed carefully senator.
Let me say it again; politicians often get involved for their own benefit rather than those whom they supposedly represent.
If 1000/1500 hours is mandated as the minimum for FO in RPT jet operations, and there is a distinct lack of those so qualified available in Australia, bearing in mind that a 50+ year old pilot with 10,000 hours instructing or C402 charter ops won't be acceptable, nor will somebody who doesn't fit the psychological profile, or a host of other requirements such as age spread, etc., airlines may find that they MUST turn to recruiting overseas.
Proceed carefully senator.
Let me say it again; politicians often get involved for their own benefit rather than those whom they supposedly represent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprune waffle or a contribution?
A lot of opinion and writing going on here but how many people have written a non emotive letter to the Senator? You know one that doesn't mention specific people or companies.
The idea is to equip the good Senator with insight to our industry. Something that might be particular to you as an Air Traffic Controller or as an Engineer: an experts insight. I don't believe its all about pilot wages conditions etc. I believe its about an industry that gives and never receives. Take take take be it consumer big business or government.
There is talk of high speed rail between Sydney and Melbourne this will be another threat to the industry tightening margin even further. Sure good for consumers no doubt but bad for us on the front line. Obviously consumers will weigh up all of the inefficiencies that come with air travel and whether it'll just be easier to get a train. How many times have you been sitting in Sydney for 20-30 waiting for a bay. Is there really a need for this carry on. Is there need for 10 changes to the ATIS within 90 minutes? We're drowning here!
Here is a follow up article from Ben Sandilands
Give truth, and air safety, a chance – Plane Talking
September 18, 2010 – 7:45 am, by Ben Sandilands
In a society where spin and media manipulation perpetuates myths about airline safety and keeps a lid on disclosures of unsafe practices the commitment of independent politician Nick Xenophon to his proposed Senate Inquiry into pilot training standards might trigger some long overdue reforms.
As Senator Xenophon pointed out in his address to the Australian and International Pilots Association recently, Australia is tolerating what the US now finds intolerable, which is the placing of pilots with as little as 200 hours experience in the right hand or first officer seat of airliners.
It is a madness that needs to be hauled up sharp in this country. It requires a revaluation of piloting skills and safety cultures. There are a number of elements to this controversy. One of them is the corruption of airline safety ‘cultures’ into ones where pilots increasingly think like accountants or shareholders rather than professional pilots required to conform to some very serious rules about what defines safe flight, including loss of control and upset situations, fuel and weather considerations and separation in uncontrolled air space.
Another is the popular insistence by airlines, here and elsewhere, on the notion that meeting the requirements of airworthiness directives, or maintenance intervals, or tick-the-boxes flying courses for flying skills delivered by outside trainers, all represent world’s best practice.
This is a popular lie. All the carriers are doing is meeting the minimum legal standards, or even delegating the achievement of those standards to external enterprises they have no control over. The standards required in these cases are not the highest available, they are the cheapest legally available standards, and in the case of regulatory matters like airworthiness directives, they are often the end result of ‘consultations’ between the carriers, the regulators and equipment manufacturers which involve the commercial consequences for airlines.
Airbus has been vocal on the topic diminishing flying skills, yet has been firmly challenged by the French accident investigators over its history in handling piloting issues where unreliable airspeed warnings are generated by ice clogging external air speed probes. Boeing infamously dragged the chain over 737 rudder control failures that confronted pilots with a bewildering and potentially disastrous problem for years, indeed, it even slandered the pilots who died in struggling to save several stricken jets before the truth about a lethal design error finally came out.
But back to a tighter focus. Xenophon has gone for pilot training standards in this country, which are in crisis, and for inadequate incident reporting procedures.
There is more than enough in both to keep a Senate Inquiry very usefully occupied.
His has called for Alan Joyce, as then CEO of Jetstar, to explain himself over the July 2007 botched missed approach to Melbourne of an A320. Was Joyce ignorant of his obligations to the law, or did he chose to ignore them? In this incident the airline he was responsible for broke the law on the reporting of safety incidents, and only disclosed the true situation when the ATSB felt compelled to act on a media report by myself, one and half months later. After which the ATSB produced a damning report, yet failed to refer Jetstar to the Commonwealth public prosecutor.
The ATSB is a world class technical investigator that is too timid to refer breaches of the law on failures to report serious operational incidents involving major carriers. Most recently, it sat on its hands while Tiger Airways chose to ignore its legal obligations concerning an aileron failure in one of its A320s because Tiger had decided the Australian laws didn’t matter.
It has a habit of making excuses for the airlines, although not in the case of the Lockhart River disaster in 2005, in which it nailed CASA for lack of appropriate action against a carrier it knew was dangerous.
Which raises an important issue for the Senate to consider. When the safety regulator CASA finds evidence that an operator is unsafe, does it not have an obligation to tell the travelling public, rather than do nothing to warn them, allowing an unsafe operation to continue flying in that particular case until it killed 15 people?
In the Crikey story linked above and published yesterday, reference is made to a Qantaslink incident at Sydney Airport on Boxing Day 2008, which was also covered by Plane Talking in June.
The ATSB report is woefully evasive in its accounting for this astonishing incident. A Qantaslink turbo-prop, with 50 seats, nearly stalls twice in 10 seconds on approach to Sydney airport, during which a first officer with limited experience on the type disobeys an instruction by the captain to go around rather than try and complete an ‘unstable’ approach to the runway.
The report fails to explain how standards at Qantaslink could be so pathetic as to allow this situation to arise. It fails to detail what then happened in the Qantaslink management of its safety standards. It doesn’t tell us what submissions Qantaslink made, or what submissions the CASA safety regulator made. The final report is only released after the wording has been read and passed by the airline and the safety investigator, although it can ignore objections by the parties being investigated.
The public just doesn’t get any inkling as to what really happened.
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. There is nothing wonderful about a Qantas turbo-prop being put in peril twice in 10 seconds by the flight standards that it is the obligation of the company to uphold and administer.
This proposed inquiry is of critical importance to all air travellers in Australia"]Give truth, and air safety, a chance
September 18, 2010 – 7:45 am, by Ben Sandilands
In a society where spin and media manipulation perpetuates myths about airline safety and keeps a lid on disclosures of unsafe practices the commitment of independent politician Nick Xenophon to his proposed Senate Inquiry into pilot training standards might trigger some long overdue reforms.
As Senator Xenophon pointed out in his address to the Australian and International Pilots Association recently, Australia is tolerating what the US now finds intolerable, which is the placing of pilots with as little as 200 hours experience in the right hand or first officer seat of airliners.
It is a madness that needs to be hauled up sharp in this country. It requires a revaluation of piloting skills and safety cultures. There are a number of elements to this controversy. One of them is the corruption of airline safety ‘cultures’ into ones where pilots increasingly think like accountants or shareholders rather than professional pilots required to conform to some very serious rules about what defines safe flight, including loss of control and upset situations, fuel and weather considerations and separation in uncontrolled air space.
Another is the popular insistence by airlines, here and elsewhere, on the notion that meeting the requirements of airworthiness directives, or maintenance intervals, or tick-the-boxes flying courses for flying skills delivered by outside trainers, all represent world’s best practice.
This is a popular lie. All the carriers are doing is meeting the minimum legal standards, or even delegating the achievement of those standards to external enterprises they have no control over. The standards required in these cases are not the highest available, they are the cheapest legally available standards, and in the case of regulatory matters like airworthiness directives, they are often the end result of ‘consultations’ between the carriers, the regulators and equipment manufacturers which involve the commercial consequences for airlines.
Airbus has been vocal on the topic diminishing flying skills, yet has been firmly challenged by the French accident investigators over its history in handling piloting issues where unreliable airspeed warnings are generated by ice clogging external air speed probes. Boeing infamously dragged the chain over 737 rudder control failures that confronted pilots with a bewildering and potentially disastrous problem for years, indeed, it even slandered the pilots who died in struggling to save several stricken jets before the truth about a lethal design error finally came out.
But back to a tighter focus. Xenophon has gone for pilot training standards in this country, which are in crisis, and for inadequate incident reporting procedures.
There is more than enough in both to keep a Senate Inquiry very usefully occupied.
His has called for Alan Joyce, as then CEO of Jetstar, to explain himself over the July 2007 botched missed approach to Melbourne of an A320. Was Joyce ignorant of his obligations to the law, or did he chose to ignore them? In this incident the airline he was responsible for broke the law on the reporting of safety incidents, and only disclosed the true situation when the ATSB felt compelled to act on a media report by myself, one and half months later. After which the ATSB produced a damning report, yet failed to refer Jetstar to the Commonwealth public prosecutor.
The ATSB is a world class technical investigator that is too timid to refer breaches of the law on failures to report serious operational incidents involving major carriers. Most recently, it sat on its hands while Tiger Airways chose to ignore its legal obligations concerning an aileron failure in one of its A320s because Tiger had decided the Australian laws didn’t matter.
It has a habit of making excuses for the airlines, although not in the case of the Lockhart River disaster in 2005, in which it nailed CASA for lack of appropriate action against a carrier it knew was dangerous.
Which raises an important issue for the Senate to consider. When the safety regulator CASA finds evidence that an operator is unsafe, does it not have an obligation to tell the travelling public, rather than do nothing to warn them, allowing an unsafe operation to continue flying in that particular case until it killed 15 people?
In the Crikey story linked above and published yesterday, reference is made to a Qantaslink incident at Sydney Airport on Boxing Day 2008, which was also covered by Plane Talking in June.
The ATSB report is woefully evasive in its accounting for this astonishing incident. A Qantaslink turbo-prop, with 50 seats, nearly stalls twice in 10 seconds on approach to Sydney airport, during which a first officer with limited experience on the type disobeys an instruction by the captain to go around rather than try and complete an ‘unstable’ approach to the runway.
The report fails to explain how standards at Qantaslink could be so pathetic as to allow this situation to arise. It fails to detail what then happened in the Qantaslink management of its safety standards. It doesn’t tell us what submissions Qantaslink made, or what submissions the CASA safety regulator made. The final report is only released after the wording has been read and passed by the airline and the safety investigator, although it can ignore objections by the parties being investigated.
The public just doesn’t get any inkling as to what really happened.
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. There is nothing wonderful about a Qantas turbo-prop being put in peril twice in 10 seconds by the flight standards that it is the obligation of the company to uphold and administer.
This proposed inquiry is of critical importance to all air travellers in Australia
The idea is to equip the good Senator with insight to our industry. Something that might be particular to you as an Air Traffic Controller or as an Engineer: an experts insight. I don't believe its all about pilot wages conditions etc. I believe its about an industry that gives and never receives. Take take take be it consumer big business or government.
There is talk of high speed rail between Sydney and Melbourne this will be another threat to the industry tightening margin even further. Sure good for consumers no doubt but bad for us on the front line. Obviously consumers will weigh up all of the inefficiencies that come with air travel and whether it'll just be easier to get a train. How many times have you been sitting in Sydney for 20-30 waiting for a bay. Is there really a need for this carry on. Is there need for 10 changes to the ATIS within 90 minutes? We're drowning here!
Here is a follow up article from Ben Sandilands
Give truth, and air safety, a chance – Plane Talking
September 18, 2010 – 7:45 am, by Ben Sandilands
In a society where spin and media manipulation perpetuates myths about airline safety and keeps a lid on disclosures of unsafe practices the commitment of independent politician Nick Xenophon to his proposed Senate Inquiry into pilot training standards might trigger some long overdue reforms.
As Senator Xenophon pointed out in his address to the Australian and International Pilots Association recently, Australia is tolerating what the US now finds intolerable, which is the placing of pilots with as little as 200 hours experience in the right hand or first officer seat of airliners.
It is a madness that needs to be hauled up sharp in this country. It requires a revaluation of piloting skills and safety cultures. There are a number of elements to this controversy. One of them is the corruption of airline safety ‘cultures’ into ones where pilots increasingly think like accountants or shareholders rather than professional pilots required to conform to some very serious rules about what defines safe flight, including loss of control and upset situations, fuel and weather considerations and separation in uncontrolled air space.
Another is the popular insistence by airlines, here and elsewhere, on the notion that meeting the requirements of airworthiness directives, or maintenance intervals, or tick-the-boxes flying courses for flying skills delivered by outside trainers, all represent world’s best practice.
This is a popular lie. All the carriers are doing is meeting the minimum legal standards, or even delegating the achievement of those standards to external enterprises they have no control over. The standards required in these cases are not the highest available, they are the cheapest legally available standards, and in the case of regulatory matters like airworthiness directives, they are often the end result of ‘consultations’ between the carriers, the regulators and equipment manufacturers which involve the commercial consequences for airlines.
Airbus has been vocal on the topic diminishing flying skills, yet has been firmly challenged by the French accident investigators over its history in handling piloting issues where unreliable airspeed warnings are generated by ice clogging external air speed probes. Boeing infamously dragged the chain over 737 rudder control failures that confronted pilots with a bewildering and potentially disastrous problem for years, indeed, it even slandered the pilots who died in struggling to save several stricken jets before the truth about a lethal design error finally came out.
But back to a tighter focus. Xenophon has gone for pilot training standards in this country, which are in crisis, and for inadequate incident reporting procedures.
There is more than enough in both to keep a Senate Inquiry very usefully occupied.
His has called for Alan Joyce, as then CEO of Jetstar, to explain himself over the July 2007 botched missed approach to Melbourne of an A320. Was Joyce ignorant of his obligations to the law, or did he chose to ignore them? In this incident the airline he was responsible for broke the law on the reporting of safety incidents, and only disclosed the true situation when the ATSB felt compelled to act on a media report by myself, one and half months later. After which the ATSB produced a damning report, yet failed to refer Jetstar to the Commonwealth public prosecutor.
The ATSB is a world class technical investigator that is too timid to refer breaches of the law on failures to report serious operational incidents involving major carriers. Most recently, it sat on its hands while Tiger Airways chose to ignore its legal obligations concerning an aileron failure in one of its A320s because Tiger had decided the Australian laws didn’t matter.
It has a habit of making excuses for the airlines, although not in the case of the Lockhart River disaster in 2005, in which it nailed CASA for lack of appropriate action against a carrier it knew was dangerous.
Which raises an important issue for the Senate to consider. When the safety regulator CASA finds evidence that an operator is unsafe, does it not have an obligation to tell the travelling public, rather than do nothing to warn them, allowing an unsafe operation to continue flying in that particular case until it killed 15 people?
In the Crikey story linked above and published yesterday, reference is made to a Qantaslink incident at Sydney Airport on Boxing Day 2008, which was also covered by Plane Talking in June.
The ATSB report is woefully evasive in its accounting for this astonishing incident. A Qantaslink turbo-prop, with 50 seats, nearly stalls twice in 10 seconds on approach to Sydney airport, during which a first officer with limited experience on the type disobeys an instruction by the captain to go around rather than try and complete an ‘unstable’ approach to the runway.
The report fails to explain how standards at Qantaslink could be so pathetic as to allow this situation to arise. It fails to detail what then happened in the Qantaslink management of its safety standards. It doesn’t tell us what submissions Qantaslink made, or what submissions the CASA safety regulator made. The final report is only released after the wording has been read and passed by the airline and the safety investigator, although it can ignore objections by the parties being investigated.
The public just doesn’t get any inkling as to what really happened.
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. There is nothing wonderful about a Qantas turbo-prop being put in peril twice in 10 seconds by the flight standards that it is the obligation of the company to uphold and administer.
This proposed inquiry is of critical importance to all air travellers in Australia"]Give truth, and air safety, a chance
September 18, 2010 – 7:45 am, by Ben Sandilands
In a society where spin and media manipulation perpetuates myths about airline safety and keeps a lid on disclosures of unsafe practices the commitment of independent politician Nick Xenophon to his proposed Senate Inquiry into pilot training standards might trigger some long overdue reforms.
As Senator Xenophon pointed out in his address to the Australian and International Pilots Association recently, Australia is tolerating what the US now finds intolerable, which is the placing of pilots with as little as 200 hours experience in the right hand or first officer seat of airliners.
It is a madness that needs to be hauled up sharp in this country. It requires a revaluation of piloting skills and safety cultures. There are a number of elements to this controversy. One of them is the corruption of airline safety ‘cultures’ into ones where pilots increasingly think like accountants or shareholders rather than professional pilots required to conform to some very serious rules about what defines safe flight, including loss of control and upset situations, fuel and weather considerations and separation in uncontrolled air space.
Another is the popular insistence by airlines, here and elsewhere, on the notion that meeting the requirements of airworthiness directives, or maintenance intervals, or tick-the-boxes flying courses for flying skills delivered by outside trainers, all represent world’s best practice.
This is a popular lie. All the carriers are doing is meeting the minimum legal standards, or even delegating the achievement of those standards to external enterprises they have no control over. The standards required in these cases are not the highest available, they are the cheapest legally available standards, and in the case of regulatory matters like airworthiness directives, they are often the end result of ‘consultations’ between the carriers, the regulators and equipment manufacturers which involve the commercial consequences for airlines.
Airbus has been vocal on the topic diminishing flying skills, yet has been firmly challenged by the French accident investigators over its history in handling piloting issues where unreliable airspeed warnings are generated by ice clogging external air speed probes. Boeing infamously dragged the chain over 737 rudder control failures that confronted pilots with a bewildering and potentially disastrous problem for years, indeed, it even slandered the pilots who died in struggling to save several stricken jets before the truth about a lethal design error finally came out.
But back to a tighter focus. Xenophon has gone for pilot training standards in this country, which are in crisis, and for inadequate incident reporting procedures.
There is more than enough in both to keep a Senate Inquiry very usefully occupied.
His has called for Alan Joyce, as then CEO of Jetstar, to explain himself over the July 2007 botched missed approach to Melbourne of an A320. Was Joyce ignorant of his obligations to the law, or did he chose to ignore them? In this incident the airline he was responsible for broke the law on the reporting of safety incidents, and only disclosed the true situation when the ATSB felt compelled to act on a media report by myself, one and half months later. After which the ATSB produced a damning report, yet failed to refer Jetstar to the Commonwealth public prosecutor.
The ATSB is a world class technical investigator that is too timid to refer breaches of the law on failures to report serious operational incidents involving major carriers. Most recently, it sat on its hands while Tiger Airways chose to ignore its legal obligations concerning an aileron failure in one of its A320s because Tiger had decided the Australian laws didn’t matter.
It has a habit of making excuses for the airlines, although not in the case of the Lockhart River disaster in 2005, in which it nailed CASA for lack of appropriate action against a carrier it knew was dangerous.
Which raises an important issue for the Senate to consider. When the safety regulator CASA finds evidence that an operator is unsafe, does it not have an obligation to tell the travelling public, rather than do nothing to warn them, allowing an unsafe operation to continue flying in that particular case until it killed 15 people?
In the Crikey story linked above and published yesterday, reference is made to a Qantaslink incident at Sydney Airport on Boxing Day 2008, which was also covered by Plane Talking in June.
The ATSB report is woefully evasive in its accounting for this astonishing incident. A Qantaslink turbo-prop, with 50 seats, nearly stalls twice in 10 seconds on approach to Sydney airport, during which a first officer with limited experience on the type disobeys an instruction by the captain to go around rather than try and complete an ‘unstable’ approach to the runway.
The report fails to explain how standards at Qantaslink could be so pathetic as to allow this situation to arise. It fails to detail what then happened in the Qantaslink management of its safety standards. It doesn’t tell us what submissions Qantaslink made, or what submissions the CASA safety regulator made. The final report is only released after the wording has been read and passed by the airline and the safety investigator, although it can ignore objections by the parties being investigated.
The public just doesn’t get any inkling as to what really happened.
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. There is nothing wonderful about a Qantas turbo-prop being put in peril twice in 10 seconds by the flight standards that it is the obligation of the company to uphold and administer.
This proposed inquiry is of critical importance to all air travellers in Australia
relax737
You have obviously been out of Australia for far too long. There are more than enough pilots in Australia who meet all the airlines recruitment requirements. The problem is that airlines don’t want to pay them what they are really worth in this country. Instead they want to pay third world salaries. Why do you think so many of us work overseas? Instead they would rather bring pilots into Australia from third world countries, with dubious qualifications issued by foreign regulators that are up to their armpits in graft and corruption. If some of us think cadets are a safety issue, just wait until the safety issues regarding this are exposed to the public and the senator.
You have obviously been out of Australia for far too long. There are more than enough pilots in Australia who meet all the airlines recruitment requirements. The problem is that airlines don’t want to pay them what they are really worth in this country. Instead they want to pay third world salaries. Why do you think so many of us work overseas? Instead they would rather bring pilots into Australia from third world countries, with dubious qualifications issued by foreign regulators that are up to their armpits in graft and corruption. If some of us think cadets are a safety issue, just wait until the safety issues regarding this are exposed to the public and the senator.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the 'desperate worldwide (and Australia is part of the world) shortage' that others speak of here, is, in fact, a myth??
I have been out of Australia a lot of years; you're right
I have been out of Australia a lot of years; you're right
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 titan, you will not be popular with those (many) who post here and who are perpetuating the myth of an 'imminent and desperate worldwide shortage' then.
I know little of Ben Sandilands, haven't read much of his writing, but do recall disagreeing strongly with him on something he did write a few years back, so googled him. His website gives this info:
About Ben Sandilands
A reporter since November 30, 1960, Ben looks at what really matters up in the sky: public administration of air transport and its safety, the accountability of the carriers, and space for everyone’s knees.
The highlights are mine.
I'm not out to shoot the messenger, but he doesn't sound like someone with anything like a comprehensive knowledge of aviation other than possibly as a passenger.
I know little of Ben Sandilands, haven't read much of his writing, but do recall disagreeing strongly with him on something he did write a few years back, so googled him. His website gives this info:
About Ben Sandilands
A reporter since November 30, 1960, Ben looks at what really matters up in the sky: public administration of air transport and its safety, the accountability of the carriers, and space for everyone’s knees.
The highlights are mine.
I'm not out to shoot the messenger, but he doesn't sound like someone with anything like a comprehensive knowledge of aviation other than possibly as a passenger.