Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and Fast:
I can't say I disagree with much of what you are saying. There does now seem to be an element of 'pay for job schemes'. Gone are the days where QF was the only operator that had a renowned and respected cadet scheme... now everyone wants in on the action.
Having said that, with regards to:
I was speaking to 3 different training/checking captains from 2 different airlines recently, all of whom, to my surprise, said that of all of the new pilots to come through their respective companies in the last 18 months (cadet scheme vs GA), by far the ones with the most difficulty have been those from GA. By no means were they implying that all GA operators were poor, far from it... They simply said they've had less problems getting cadet/trainee pilots up to standard for the line than they have GA pilots. I must admit I was a bit surprised. 
Not my words, theirs. And they were surprised too.
I can't say I disagree with much of what you are saying. There does now seem to be an element of 'pay for job schemes'. Gone are the days where QF was the only operator that had a renowned and respected cadet scheme... now everyone wants in on the action.
Having said that, with regards to:
There is no shortage of qualified and suitable applicants in Australia, I personally no of many pilots that can't get a look in or are stuck on hold files
Not my words, theirs. And they were surprised too.
Gone are the days where QF was the only operator that had a renowned and respected cadet scheme... now everyone wants in on the action.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
havick,
"on notice" means you don't have to answer them straight away but can provide answers at a later date................."in camera" means that you can provide answers without the media/public being present.
The first is often used if the questions have not been anticipated and the person required to answer does not have the information to hand. The second is often used where the answers may be revealing commercial information or information that could be of benefit to the persons's/company's opponents.
What does it mean exactly when they ask 'would you like to take these questions on notice", and "in camera"?
The first is often used if the questions have not been anticipated and the person required to answer does not have the information to hand. The second is often used where the answers may be revealing commercial information or information that could be of benefit to the persons's/company's opponents.
I was speaking to 3 different training/checking captains from 2 different airlines recently, all of whom ... by far the ones with the most difficulty have been those from GA
I wonder if the REX check pilots would be happy to train the the cadets on kingairs out of essendon and cut them loose on their own? If 200 hours or so isn't good enough to send them out on their own in a twin turboprop, then they sure as hell shouldn't be in any airliner except as perhaps an SO on a longhaul jet.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
call me a conspiracy theorist, if you will.... but is there any possibility that MAYBE the recruiting departments have DELIBERATELY employed GA drivers whom they KNOW will struggle... and hence skew the statistics in the debate "cadets vs GA pilots" in the individual companies favour?
Nunc est bibendum
It depends on the definition of 'struggle'?!?!? I'm not surprised that a cadet straight after graduation is better flying the numbers than someone who has been in GA for the last few years. However, once they're both proficient at flying I'd back the former GA driver to have better decision making over the first couple of years. After that it may be a bit more even.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Aust
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Hat
I totally disagree that "People straight of pistons will always find it harder"
From my personal experience years of flying a piston, then thrown into a turboprop I loved it, the easiest job I've ever had, ever easier learning & adapting to a multicrew environment then single pilot ifr ops.
The hardest was learning the new company SOP's but after lots of hard work & 50 plus hours of flying I was starting to get my head around it.
My opinion easier. But for a person with the right attitude and skills developed during their time in GA it is very possible for one to go from piston to Jet, I know of many great captains that have taken this road.
Cheers
I totally disagree that "People straight of pistons will always find it harder"
From my personal experience years of flying a piston, then thrown into a turboprop I loved it, the easiest job I've ever had, ever easier learning & adapting to a multicrew environment then single pilot ifr ops.
The hardest was learning the new company SOP's but after lots of hard work & 50 plus hours of flying I was starting to get my head around it.
My opinion easier. But for a person with the right attitude and skills developed during their time in GA it is very possible for one to go from piston to Jet, I know of many great captains that have taken this road.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for the fat lady
This poor crippled enquiry needs a fat lady to end it. (Haven't we got one?? somewhere??).
If Heff can't get a better brief than the last poor offering then it's time to shoot the dogs and walk off the place.
CASA 10 - The mob 0. Smoke and mirrors down to a fine art.
Just another waste of money, one in a long list of hopes dashed by political ineptitude and lack of plain old fashioned brains and guts. At least the cadets might get a fair shake now.
Selah
If Heff can't get a better brief than the last poor offering then it's time to shoot the dogs and walk off the place.
CASA 10 - The mob 0. Smoke and mirrors down to a fine art.
Just another waste of money, one in a long list of hopes dashed by political ineptitude and lack of plain old fashioned brains and guts. At least the cadets might get a fair shake now.
Selah
Hansard is out for last week's hearing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf
cheers
.http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf
cheers
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Senate Hearing
CASA Senate Hearing Transcript - 27th May 2011:
This can be accessed at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf
Makes interesting reading, with the connection of the entire submissions from, in particular - 2008 Senate hearing, which I have been reading and digesting. Senator Heffernan uses the term "Malfeasance" on 27th May 2011, which has a very specific legal meaning:
From WikiPedia:
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.[citation needed]
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
The question is CASA:
This is at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ions/sub47.pdf
The matter was listed, as reported by AR Connelly on 21st April 2010:
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Limitation Act 1935 (WA) - proposed action by applicant company & its director claiming breach of Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), misfeasance in public office, & negligence - constitutional law - s39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia - ‚matter‛ (I)
It is still before the Federal Court on 26th May 2010, with further hearings to come.
This can be accessed at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s61.pdf
Makes interesting reading, with the connection of the entire submissions from, in particular - 2008 Senate hearing, which I have been reading and digesting. Senator Heffernan uses the term "Malfeasance" on 27th May 2011, which has a very specific legal meaning:
From WikiPedia:
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.[citation needed]
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
—Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
The question is CASA:
- Guilty of gross misfeasance??
- Using public office in such a way that people are damaged??
- Attempting to damage Company's or individuals who may disagree with "findings";
- Other issues that we don't yet know about.
This is at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ions/sub47.pdf
The matter was listed, as reported by AR Connelly on 21st April 2010:
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Limitation Act 1935 (WA) - proposed action by applicant company & its director claiming breach of Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), misfeasance in public office, & negligence - constitutional law - s39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia - ‚matter‛ (I)
It is still before the Federal Court on 26th May 2010, with further hearings to come.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 2nd Jun 2011 at 05:28. Reason: addition for clarity of "with further hearings to come."
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is CASA:
- Guilty of gross misfeasance??
- Using public office in such a way that people are damaged??
- Attempting to damage Company's or individuals who may disagree with "findings";
- Other issues that we don't yet know about.
Misfeance: n. law. the improper performance of an act that is lawful in itself. Compare malfeasance, nonfeasance.
Malfeance: n. law.The doing of a wrongful or illegal act, esp by a public official.
Nonfeance: n. law. A failure to act when under an obligation to do so.
I take it your use of the word "misfeasance" is an indication of the legal / probability/ ability to be able to prove such a thing?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training
Air France crash investigation sparks calls for better pilot training
Alan Levin
June 3, 2011
In memoriam ... relatives of those killed attended a mass in Rio De Janeiro on June 1, the second anniversary of the tragedy. Photo: Reuters
AS AIR FRANCE flight 447 plunged in the darkness two years ago, its pilots had ample opportunities to save the jet. Instead, as has happened repeatedly on airliners around the world, they exacerbated the problem, according to preliminary information released by French investigators.
The disaster, which killed 228 people on their way from Brazil to France on June 1, 2009, is the latest example of the biggest killer in aviation: a plane going out of control.
The latest information in the case, released by investigators, is spurring renewed calls for better pilot training and other measures.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''If this was a technical problem [with the jet], we'd be saying we need to fix this,'' said John Cox, a former airline pilot and safety consultant. ''There have been those of us in the industry that have been arguing for this for decades.''
Pilots need better training so they are not as startled and confused during emergencies, and better tools to warn them when their planes are about to go out of control, the experts say.
The French government's preliminary report describes what happened:
The jet's 11 kilometre plunge into the Atlantic began suddenly when its instruments went haywire.
Ice had blocked speed sensors.
The pilots could not tell how fast they were going.
Warnings and alerts sounded almost simultaneously.
In response, the pilots made a series of mistakes, according to the French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses, the agency that investigates aviation accidents. Instead of flying level while they diagnosed the problem, one of the pilots climbed steeply, causing a loss of speed. The aggressive nose-up pitch of the plane and the slower speed caused air to stop flowing smoothly over the wings, triggering a rapid descent.
They had entered an aerodynamic stall, meaning the wings could no longer keep the plane aloft. Once a plane is stalled, the correct response is to lower the nose and increase speed.
For the 3˝ minutes before they crashed into the ocean, the pilots did the opposite, holding the Airbus A330's joystick back to lift the nose.
Although the response was improper, it would be wrong to simply blame the pilots without looking at how well they were prepared for the emergency and whether the information they received could have confused them, said Michael Barr, an instructor at the University of Southern California's Aviation Safety and Security Program.
''They're sitting there happy, the autopilot is on,'' Mr Barr said. ''Next thing you know, lights are flashing, warning horns are on. There were probably 10 warnings or messages coming to the crew at the same time.''
Similar miscalculations and miscues have been common:
In the Colgan Air crash on February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people, the captain overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had slowed too much and pulled the nose upward. If he had pushed it down, the National Transportation Safety Board said, he might have saved the plane.
On August 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela, killing all 160 aboard, after it stalled at 11,000 metres. The Venezuelan government blamed the pilots for failing to recognise that they were in a stall during a 3˝ minute plunge.
Similar accidents killed 1848 people in the 10 years ending in 2009, according to Boeing.
Mr Cox and others said stall training has been lacking for decades. Newer flight simulators are better at teaching pilots how planes respond in stalls, they said.
USA Today
Read more: Air France crash investigation sparks calls for better pilot training
Alan Levin
June 3, 2011
In memoriam ... relatives of those killed attended a mass in Rio De Janeiro on June 1, the second anniversary of the tragedy. Photo: Reuters
AS AIR FRANCE flight 447 plunged in the darkness two years ago, its pilots had ample opportunities to save the jet. Instead, as has happened repeatedly on airliners around the world, they exacerbated the problem, according to preliminary information released by French investigators.
The disaster, which killed 228 people on their way from Brazil to France on June 1, 2009, is the latest example of the biggest killer in aviation: a plane going out of control.
The latest information in the case, released by investigators, is spurring renewed calls for better pilot training and other measures.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''If this was a technical problem [with the jet], we'd be saying we need to fix this,'' said John Cox, a former airline pilot and safety consultant. ''There have been those of us in the industry that have been arguing for this for decades.''
Pilots need better training so they are not as startled and confused during emergencies, and better tools to warn them when their planes are about to go out of control, the experts say.
The French government's preliminary report describes what happened:
The jet's 11 kilometre plunge into the Atlantic began suddenly when its instruments went haywire.
Ice had blocked speed sensors.
The pilots could not tell how fast they were going.
Warnings and alerts sounded almost simultaneously.
In response, the pilots made a series of mistakes, according to the French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses, the agency that investigates aviation accidents. Instead of flying level while they diagnosed the problem, one of the pilots climbed steeply, causing a loss of speed. The aggressive nose-up pitch of the plane and the slower speed caused air to stop flowing smoothly over the wings, triggering a rapid descent.
They had entered an aerodynamic stall, meaning the wings could no longer keep the plane aloft. Once a plane is stalled, the correct response is to lower the nose and increase speed.
For the 3˝ minutes before they crashed into the ocean, the pilots did the opposite, holding the Airbus A330's joystick back to lift the nose.
Although the response was improper, it would be wrong to simply blame the pilots without looking at how well they were prepared for the emergency and whether the information they received could have confused them, said Michael Barr, an instructor at the University of Southern California's Aviation Safety and Security Program.
''They're sitting there happy, the autopilot is on,'' Mr Barr said. ''Next thing you know, lights are flashing, warning horns are on. There were probably 10 warnings or messages coming to the crew at the same time.''
Similar miscalculations and miscues have been common:
In the Colgan Air crash on February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people, the captain overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had slowed too much and pulled the nose upward. If he had pushed it down, the National Transportation Safety Board said, he might have saved the plane.
On August 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela, killing all 160 aboard, after it stalled at 11,000 metres. The Venezuelan government blamed the pilots for failing to recognise that they were in a stall during a 3˝ minute plunge.
Similar accidents killed 1848 people in the 10 years ending in 2009, according to Boeing.
Mr Cox and others said stall training has been lacking for decades. Newer flight simulators are better at teaching pilots how planes respond in stalls, they said.
USA Today
Read more: Air France crash investigation sparks calls for better pilot training
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Limitation Act 1935 (WA) - proposed action by applicant company & its director claiming breach of Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), misfeasance in public office, & negligence - constitutional law - s39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia - ‚matter‛ (I)
And Malfeasance applies to everybody and every organisation accept Government.....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bet's anyone;
The Director of Civil Aviation will probably serve out his term. I doubt he will be "terminated" prior. Too much money, but either way he will be well rewarded for his ineptitude, ignorance and arrogance. Good riddence!
The Deputy Director will do something likewise, but he is more prone to political "ejection" as a scapegoat because of his recent legal loss. Good riddence!
The Associate Director will then "take over".
And that people is when you should be afraid, very afraid, because this puts The Office of Legal Counsel firmly in charge of regulatory matters and the Human Resources crew in ongoing charge of employing other mutants unable to gain or hold productive employment in the public sector.
Add to this the plethora of past mutants given "advisory" roles while they work in parallel Quango's and The Attorney Generals Department.
And just for good measure, add an apathetic and pathetic do-nothing Minister of Transport.
Swap one Corporate Psychopath for another.
The Director of Civil Aviation will probably serve out his term. I doubt he will be "terminated" prior. Too much money, but either way he will be well rewarded for his ineptitude, ignorance and arrogance. Good riddence!
The Deputy Director will do something likewise, but he is more prone to political "ejection" as a scapegoat because of his recent legal loss. Good riddence!
The Associate Director will then "take over".
And that people is when you should be afraid, very afraid, because this puts The Office of Legal Counsel firmly in charge of regulatory matters and the Human Resources crew in ongoing charge of employing other mutants unable to gain or hold productive employment in the public sector.
Add to this the plethora of past mutants given "advisory" roles while they work in parallel Quango's and The Attorney Generals Department.
And just for good measure, add an apathetic and pathetic do-nothing Minister of Transport.
Swap one Corporate Psychopath for another.