Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 18th Mar 2011, 20:36
  #521 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 72
Posts: 81
Bugger that, any problem requiring an evacuation and I'm gone!!!
You show your true colours here mate. You're all mouth. You're part of the me, me, me, me, mob. The rest of the world should be perfect but not you.
It is part of the rules for the operation of the aircraft that a person who occupies an emergency exit row seat be willing and able to open the emergency exit doors. That's what they're there for. If you're not prepared to open the exit door then bugger off and give someone who is, the responsibility. In my experience most if not all 320 and 737 operators worldwide do the same thing, not just JQ. but any excuse to grandstand will do eh?
More to come MFA
clotted is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 21:50
  #522 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: london
Age: 47
Posts: 96
From the kelpie

'I was not only asked to open the exit in the event of an emergency but rather assist the cabin crew and provide assistance for them to get out of the aircraft I'f necessary. Bugger that,'

My bold (and red). Clotted, don't think opening the emergency exit was the problem, rather doing their jobs is what may cause him to baulk. Don't see any grandstanding from my POV.
mister hilter is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 21:53
  #523 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767

I did not say that I would not operate the emergency exit. What I said if you would take a moment to go back and read it is that I was asked by the single cabin crew in the centre if the aircraft to assist passengers by shouting directions and such. Even if need be, when I eventually leave the aircraft after all other passengers using that exit have gone, to make sure that the cabin crew was also able to leave the aircraft, otherwise to take her with me.

I just wonder how many pax actually listen to that special pax brief and understand exactly what they are asking?

IMHO most people have heard the standard 'operate the emergeny exit' Brief so many times they switch off.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Last edited by The Kelpie; 18th Mar 2011 at 22:08.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 22:31
  #524 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269

That is BS, you still get the same "seat of your pants" feeling flying a big jet as you do flying a c152.

Only difference is it takes a bit of experience to recognise that feeling.
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 23:16
  #525 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Well it's not just me that believes there is a problem and something is not quite adding up.

Jetstar contradicts CASA’s evidence to Senate inquiry
March 19, 2011 – 9:58 am, by Ben Sandilands
Jetstar’s reaction to the tabling of an unfavourable CASA audit of its rostering practices and fatigue management at the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety yesterday contradicts the testimony given by CASA chief executive officer John McCormick.

In the Brisbane Times this morning this appears:

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said safety was the airline’s priority and CASA regularly undertook such audits.He said the audit ”delivered no formal request for corrective action into areas assessed”.

”Jetstar is currently formalising its integrated fatigue risk management system in accordance with best practice.”

Yet John McCormick said:

…. that as a result of the combined audit and its recommendations being sent to Jetstar all of the those findings had been satisfactorily addressed by Jetstar.

Westaway doesn’t speak for Jetstar without his words being approved by the most senior levels of the airline. This is unlikely therefore to be a mistake, raising the question as to whether McCormick was mistaken.

Or whether McCormick is mindful of the relationship between major Australian carriers and the safety regulator to the point where documents that say in a direct manner that any of them aren’t properly managing safety issues are suppressed, edited, or otherwise defanged to avoid causing harm to the relationship.

There may be only one way that the dilemma created by Jetstar’s response can be* resolved in fairness to all parties.

That is, for the Senators to compare the human factors audit to the full audit document sent to Jetstar in May 2010.

Then, for the Senators to ask,* as some of them did yesterday, exactly what CASA required of Jetstar, exactly what Jetstar did in response, and exactly why CASA was then satisfied with the responses made by Jetstar which its spokesperson says they weren’t even asked to address and thus presumably never made.

These questions, and the resolution of the disparity in positions, is surely as critically important as Jetstar improperly changing the standard operating procedures for missed approaches on A320s, failing to keep any written records, failing to acknowledge its culpability in its Senate submission per Qantas, and leaving the pilots of one of its jets on July 27, 2007, so dangerously confused that they comes within metres of smashing the jet into the ground at Tullamarine Airport.

Jetstar is very proactive about throwing around the ‘proactive safety’ phrase. But it is very opaque and defensive, and at critical times, undocumented, when it comes proactively explaining actual events, processes and reasons concerning matters of direct relevance to its performance of regulatory obligations.

Its group CEO, Bruce Buchanan, should, with respect be begging the Senate to return and explain all of these matters, oh and a few concerning its apparent attempt to evade Australian labor laws and tax and superannuation obligations concerning its not-really-NZ New Zealand cadet pilot scheme and the offshoring of jobs and assets in Singapore.

It’s a wonderful opportunity for Jetstar to put the pro-active into ‘pro-active’ and talk these things through, one step at a time, without any flights to catch or weddings to attend or any other time pressures, in a Senate inquiry of vital interest to Australians beyond just those of air travellers.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 23:19
  #526 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,036
WRT the A320 T/S incident, I wasn't there but I dunno', personally I wouldn't even contemplate departing if I wasn't completely sure I wouldn't encounter a microburst. the fact that the crew requested information, were unable to elicit a response, and then decided to depart anyway has me more than just a little concerned.

About 6 months ago we waited on the ground at KSA for 90mins as a particularily nasty front moved through before we were convinced it was safe to depart. In that time there were no less than 3 runway changes! Now Krusty isn't particularily over cautious, but he has had enough scares in his previous G/A career to know when to go and when not to.

We all at some stage have lived and learnt. I'm sure this crew have learnt a valuable lesson and will use that hard won experience to good effect in the future. But, the cockpit of a Jet airliner is NOT the place to be learning such lessons!

Senators, are you listening.
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 23:32
  #527 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
That is BS, you still get the same "seat of your pants" feeling flying a big jet as you do flying a c152.

Only difference is it takes a bit of experience to recognise that feeling.
Yeah I agree, especially about the experience bit. I did about 3000 hours out bush and it took me about 2000hrs on 737's before I realised that my seat of the pants reactions (ie when to add thrust etc) were actually applicable to jets. Prior to that I was a fraction of a second behind the 8 ball because I would wait to see whatever needed done be shown through the instruments. It is much more subtle in my opinion but still there. if I hadn't already known the feelings which are so pronounced in lite aircraft I think I would still be waiting for the instruments to confirm my suspiscians before acting because I wouldn't have recognised the feelings in the first place.
framer is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 00:21
  #528 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
So true! Because jets are so automated initially we tend to rely on instrument indications and autopilots wheras the seat of the pants flying still applies and is completely essential! Like the instructor told us in the sim on the endorsement, "it's just a aeroplane!".
In addition I've found I learn so much from the older generation, guys with tens of thousands of hours and decades behind them. Why? EXPERIENCE. You can't teach experience.
At 200 hours we are all extremely green. We know the basics with a licence, but it's a licence to learn. We learn on every flight. But a jetliner is no place to polish your basic flying skills and management of a flight. I'm sure insurance companies would love it. Bit why P-Plate drivers aren't allowed to drive high powered vehicles.
SW3 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 00:49
  #529 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Godzone
Posts: 230
It's a bit like being a CEO of a multi million dollar Company, you need to have many years of experience & not just straight out of school..........
Oxidant is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 01:51
  #530 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Quoting clotted...
It is part of the rules for the operation of the aircraft that a person who occupies an emergency exit row seat be willing and able to open the emergency exit doors. That's what they're there for.
So, I am in an emergency exit on a flight from Sydney to Perth, I've had a big day and decide to have a few as the missus is picking me up at the other end.

After about five beers and no lunch I am feeling a bit tipsy so I think I could go a few more.

My question clotted, I may be still willing but am I still able and who decides that I am no longer capable, or that I should move and where to on a full flight ?
Captahab is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 02:16
  #531 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Lets put the whole exit row thingy to rest as there are much bigger issues at hand:

1. SLF Type III exits were 'delegated' to pax use by proxy for no other reason other than to facilitate a reduce crew compliment (20:16:3)

2. The exemptions granted to JQ DJ & QF by CASA for their operation rely WHOLLY on the a/c manufacturers' claims that
a) pax can be briefed to operate them and;
b) the a/c can be evac'd within the magic 90 secs.

3. The conditions attached to the exemptions are very clear in respect of a compliant pax briefing HOWEVER - alcohol consumption is not a preclusion unless you are obviously franz list in which case you should not be on the a/c or should not have been served enough booze to get you that way- age, fatness (xtn seatbelt) and disability are.

4. CASA is SUPPOSED to have an active audit program especially in respect of exit row briefing compliance - only happens on the way to other meetings typically....

5. The RENEWAL of exemptions is SUPPOSED to include review of practice and review of operators manual (but it does not - DJ's were renewed 'automatically)

6. IF you're in an exit row and you are not briefed correctly (ie the PAX has to open the exit as the CC are at opposite ends of the a/c) then ring REPCON and report it. Also inform the Cabin Manager inflight and ask him or her to please inform the Captain accordingly. (he might as well get started on the associated paperwork)

7. If you're in an exit row and you hear the crew using the 'e' word (or in DJ's simplified language coz Branson-speak always has to be different....) the phrase 'Get out' ..........then check safe to open, open the bloody exit, step onto the wing and get the hell away from the a/c.

As with just about everything else, the regulatory environment is the new frontier for cost cutting and CASA is the lazy old dog asleep on the verandah that doesn't want to bark too loudly.

Back to the serious stuff

airtags is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 02:28
  #532 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Loose Bruce won't go near the Committee Room unles he is forced to.

As for Westy's carefully worded comments in relation to JQ's FRMS ...........................

Interestingly Vaus has been issued with an exemption from CASA regarding duty limits which also references CC.......

Aside from the clear lack of wisdom on CASA's part the inclusion of the CC in the exemption seems like a precursor for some heavy patterns.

Any V drivers got a comment?

airtags is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 05:19
  #533 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767

Oh I think the next communication from the committee chairman will not have the word 'request' in it.

The Senators are going to want answers, the travelling public want and deserve answers.

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 05:33
  #534 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 655
Well if the respective ceos, managers are too busy attending weddings, parties, anything, perhaps the chairman of the board would suffice?
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 06:11
  #535 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 72
Posts: 81
And Jetstar had a heavy landing? Surely that is getting behind the aircraft? Surely a botched approach is the same thing - getting behind the aircraft.
The best of them can get caught out with a heavy landing and the best of them can botch an approach and it ain't necessarily about getting behind the aircraft. In some cases it can be the result of poor decision making but it isn't always.
clotted is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 07:16
  #536 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Dick Mackerras described part of the problem as out of date regulations which had been written on the basis of reasonable people doing reasonable things....
Therein lies an important point; the regulations used to be a reasonable safety net, but now they are a target pursued (or lobbyed against) by unreasonable people.

Ansett pilots accepted the CAO 48 trial partly on management word that the long duty days would be occasional; for disruptions and a couple of problem sectors. What actually happened: crews were routinely rostered to the limit, and expected to extend for disruptions. I recall an FOs anecdote flying with a management Captain faced with the need to extend – Captain: "I'm management – I guess we should extend". FO: "You're management – why don't you follow the rules".

Jetstar is currently formalising its integrated Fatigue Risk Management System in accordance with best practice risk management approach.
This reads like crew welfare is a high priority: In reality, it's more like a dairy farmer using best practice to get a few more drops of milk from each cow just short of killing them (well, at least until long-service nears).

My hope: the Senate realises airlines are no longer run by reasonable people, and regulates accordingly – the 1500 hour rule is probably a good start.
FlareArmed is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 07:30
  #537 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767

Probably the conclusion that the US Senate came to and why they did it!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 07:36
  #538 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the moon
Posts: 69

Very interested into the diverse perspectives of different pilot on here, both experienced and inexperienced.
Being a pilot is mainly a decision making job. A very wise CFI once told me this:-

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

Hence I don't support cadetships in any way, shape, or form. I'd sooner see a pilot make a fatal decision and prang a C206 rather than a A320. (I'd rather not read about a crash at all!)

Of course there are all the other reasons that cadetships are nasty. E.g. IR laws, cost saving etc.
beat ups are fun is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 08:30
  #539 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
I take it that if the Senate are minded to not introduce the 1500 hours rule then they will also recommend that the minimum requirements for GA and high / low capacity charter work undertaken on behalf of the many Government Agencies will also be reduced accordingly.

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 08:52
  #540 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Cadets are not the problem, I work with and are friends with cadets that have been through the QF cadet scheme and they are very competent operators. Not better, not worse, just very competent like most of us with experience in aviation.

The problems begin with cadet programs when unscrupulous execs see this as another way of cutting costs by bypassing experience, charging the cadet exorbitant fees and bonds and paying a pittance. And as I said before, you can bet that they will identify more cost savings in the training program over time until all the cadet will eventually graduate with is the minimum CPL and a basic endorsement. Which I am sure at a royal commission would be described by Dumb and Dumber as meeting "industry standards"

Airlines currently run on KPI's, and it is dangerous. Until this culture is finished with they cannot be trusted to govern there own safety standards. CASA, and the government for that matter, need to be stronger and not be seen as another employee on the payroll. Until such a time, airline minimum requirements for Aircrew must be considerably increased for the good of all traveling Australians.

Cost cutting and safety go hand in hand in aviation.
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.