At Last - A Voice of Reason
Capt Kremlin:
Well said.
Regards,
MHA
Professor, I would posit that approximately 100% of all airline captains would include " experienced, and well trained First Officer" as an indispensible line of defence for a safe operation. Who are you to argue with their opinion?
Regards,
MHA
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MHA, I concur. I always look back with amusement, as my F/O quietly commented on us losing a donk on rotate out of CBR (DC9) Skipper, he said, I think we might have to have a beer at the CBR Hyatt, instead of the SYD Hilton. We made haste back in fairly smartly, with a full load of fuel, and the pollies heading home, being a friday night. My experience after 49 years of flying and more than a few scares, is that your training kicks in, and you automatically work towards a solution, no fear, no what ifs, no thinking about the people behind you, just working towards a good outcome. A good F/O is paramount, we also had the luxury of a Flight Engineer, always a comfort when things appeared pear shaped, but alas you people don't. Training is everything, and I mean everything, it is what will get you thru. That is what I found.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TG
I have learned so much from folk like you.........ven just talking and sharing tales of the past.
If you are ever bored and up my way.....give me a call, its stuff like that story we cal all learn from.
J
I have learned so much from folk like you.........ven just talking and sharing tales of the past.
If you are ever bored and up my way.....give me a call, its stuff like that story we cal all learn from.
J
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true,
We have reached the situation that the bonus driven managers running Aviation businesses in Australia have come to the conclusion that somehow we have an enviable safety record and that this , for some reason, will continue.
They do not seem to understand that those (and those that came before them) asking them to moderate their short term ideas are actually interested in MAINTAINING that record for the benefit of the punters who actually travel on the aircraft.
We have reached the situation that the bonus driven managers running Aviation businesses in Australia have come to the conclusion that somehow we have an enviable safety record and that this , for some reason, will continue.
They do not seem to understand that those (and those that came before them) asking them to moderate their short term ideas are actually interested in MAINTAINING that record for the benefit of the punters who actually travel on the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The same applies to long-haul crew from Cathay, SIA”
I think you will find that SQ doesn’t operate with S/O’s.
“and many other long haul airlines.”
Can you list the “many”?
“will always put the inexperienced pilots on narrow body short haul ops and only progress to long haul after having gained the required experience.”
They also place cadets directly into wide body aircraft too. Do you think long haul flying requires some special expertise that one can only “progress” to?
“The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management”
Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?
“Thay therefore have little other option than to go down this path”
So BA and LH have no option but to employ a crewing system that so far has yielded excellent results? How very odd.
“And look where it got them. Professor? Ask the passengers on that flight what they think about pilot training.”
You appear confused, as your argument has changed from experience to training. I have NEVER advocated a reduction in training standards.
“Neither have BA or Lufthansa.”
They sure have. And one of these cadets successfully landed a powerless 777 recently.
“…the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.”
Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought.
“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”
Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?
You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.
Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?
I think you will find that SQ doesn’t operate with S/O’s.
“and many other long haul airlines.”
Can you list the “many”?
“will always put the inexperienced pilots on narrow body short haul ops and only progress to long haul after having gained the required experience.”
They also place cadets directly into wide body aircraft too. Do you think long haul flying requires some special expertise that one can only “progress” to?
“The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management”
Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?
“Thay therefore have little other option than to go down this path”
So BA and LH have no option but to employ a crewing system that so far has yielded excellent results? How very odd.
“And look where it got them. Professor? Ask the passengers on that flight what they think about pilot training.”
You appear confused, as your argument has changed from experience to training. I have NEVER advocated a reduction in training standards.
“Neither have BA or Lufthansa.”
They sure have. And one of these cadets successfully landed a powerless 777 recently.
“…the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.”
Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought.
“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”
Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?
You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.
Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?
Unfortunately Professor, I suggest that the statistics don't agree with you.
Complete systemic failures leading to great loss of life are rare, but the probability of their occurrence is not zero. Training alone is not the issue; aptitude, dedication, commitment and experience all play a role, and it is up to an airlines management to ensure that each of these factors is given weight.
If you want to read a document that underlines what I have just said, read the entire transcript of the pilots of The Colgan Buffalo New York crash aircraft. It is the saddest I have ever read; Aptitude? Dedication? Commitment? Experience? The resulting NTSB recommendations were accepted in full without comment by a chastened industry and regulator who discovered that they had cut way too close to the bone.
Aircrew Buzz: Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript from Colgan Air Flight 3407 released by the NTSB
Of course Professor, it won't be the current Qantas Board and senior management that cop it when a stretched Jetstar A380 with 600+ punters on board crashes into the middle of central Sydney, they will be long gone. However they will have laid the foundations for that eventual calamity years before.
You need to read this too, if you haven't already.
It starts out like this:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...Appendix-F.txt
Complete systemic failures leading to great loss of life are rare, but the probability of their occurrence is not zero. Training alone is not the issue; aptitude, dedication, commitment and experience all play a role, and it is up to an airlines management to ensure that each of these factors is given weight.
If you want to read a document that underlines what I have just said, read the entire transcript of the pilots of The Colgan Buffalo New York crash aircraft. It is the saddest I have ever read; Aptitude? Dedication? Commitment? Experience? The resulting NTSB recommendations were accepted in full without comment by a chastened industry and regulator who discovered that they had cut way too close to the bone.
Aircrew Buzz: Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript from Colgan Air Flight 3407 released by the NTSB
Of course Professor, it won't be the current Qantas Board and senior management that cop it when a stretched Jetstar A380 with 600+ punters on board crashes into the middle of central Sydney, they will be long gone. However they will have laid the foundations for that eventual calamity years before.
You need to read this too, if you haven't already.
It starts out like this:
It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement?
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement?
Hey Prof,
For a self-confessed manager you really seem to get off on commenting on a pilot's bulletin board. But then I guess that's pretty typical behaviour for sociopaths such as yourself.
So why don't you do us all a favour and find a management bulletin board somewhere so you can all blow smoke up each other's a%$s about what a clever bunch of guys you all are. I imagine after the GFC there must be a lot of ex-managers with time on their hands.
For a self-confessed manager you really seem to get off on commenting on a pilot's bulletin board. But then I guess that's pretty typical behaviour for sociopaths such as yourself.
So why don't you do us all a favour and find a management bulletin board somewhere so you can all blow smoke up each other's a%$s about what a clever bunch of guys you all are. I imagine after the GFC there must be a lot of ex-managers with time on their hands.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”
Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?
You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.
Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?
Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?
You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.
Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?
And no, I dont regard you as a troll because your opinion happens to differ with mine. I regard you as a troll because you are getting on this forum and talking crap. A troll is someone who tries to wind others up. In this case, you probably wont find too many pilots who agree with you, therefore you are likely attempting a wind up.
You talk about facts and statistics? I ask you, what is the cost of just one life? If it is economically acceptable to you that inexperienced pilots are up front, again I ask, what price, one life? Would it make a difference if that life is yours?
Where do you get YOUR statistics from to prove YOUR point. There are plenty of pilots arguing on this forum that experience counts, and they are qualified to say that, because they have been there and done that. You on the other hand are suggesting something is OK, because it is economically viable, and no-one can prove otherwise. Righto, then prove your statistics. Where are they?
Again, what is the cost of one life?
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
The Professor knows the truth. The truth is there are two classes in society, the people & the oligarchs, in a ratio of 99.9:1. People like the professor chant the mantra of "Free Markets" & globalization, but they are the shill's of our true overlords, the oligarchs in the banking cartel. Events of the last 2 years should have awoken everyone to the fact that the free market applies only to the little guy.
If you can't see this you haven't been paying attention. Why are the the bankers bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer? If it were a true free market the bank would go bust & banker would be out of a job or in jail for fraud. How many bankers have we seen charged with fraud? I have been paying attention and I cant think of one. Bankers bonuses are back to record levels.
The entire global monetary system is designed to take from the poor & give to the rich. As the money supply is increased by governments & private banks relative to the goods in production, inflation occurs. This inflation steals from savers & rewards debtors, is a hidden tax that hurt those on fixed incomes (usually the poor & workers who can't get a pay rise because of globalization) the most. Those that win from inflation - governments & its contractor friends of the that get to spend the money first. The banks also get to create loans out of thin air on collect interest on it, but you already know that Professor.
The hedge funds that destroy or reward, based in Los Angles or Nice as you say, derive most of their funding through the biggest banks, which in turn are lent money by the US Federal Reserve (a private corporation with the sole monopoly to print the worlds reserve currency, but you knew that already) at 0.25% interest. They take this money and spray it round like confetti to distort markets & profit from the known outcome (determined in advance). If the bets go wrong, the banks are bailed out by the taxpayer. And who owns the Federal Reserve you ask? Why the big banks of course. The Professor knows this.
Professor, I am also a believer in the free market, but there hasn't been a free market for nearly a 100 years. Governments (under the direction of the banking cartel) are free to print unlimited amounts of paper currency, determine interest rates & conduct wars. These alone provide massive distortions in prices for everything everywhere. The "free market" that you talk of cannot exist as described by modern orthodox economics. When the price of money has no relative value to anything real, there cannot be price discovery.
Troll
Source: Wikipedia
Professor, you are here to elicit & provoke other PPRuNE readers into a response. You provide no solutions other that "Lower Cost is always better". You pose question, & only ever one solution. Therefore, you are a troll. You might be able to bull**** some people Professor, but some of us understand what is really going on.
For anyone who may be interesting in educating themselves, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" forensically & meticulously documents the history on how we all became owned & indebted to the global banking cartel, a series of private entities. Professor, I suggest you get a copy.
If you can't see this you haven't been paying attention. Why are the the bankers bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer? If it were a true free market the bank would go bust & banker would be out of a job or in jail for fraud. How many bankers have we seen charged with fraud? I have been paying attention and I cant think of one. Bankers bonuses are back to record levels.
The entire global monetary system is designed to take from the poor & give to the rich. As the money supply is increased by governments & private banks relative to the goods in production, inflation occurs. This inflation steals from savers & rewards debtors, is a hidden tax that hurt those on fixed incomes (usually the poor & workers who can't get a pay rise because of globalization) the most. Those that win from inflation - governments & its contractor friends of the that get to spend the money first. The banks also get to create loans out of thin air on collect interest on it, but you already know that Professor.
The hedge funds that destroy or reward, based in Los Angles or Nice as you say, derive most of their funding through the biggest banks, which in turn are lent money by the US Federal Reserve (a private corporation with the sole monopoly to print the worlds reserve currency, but you knew that already) at 0.25% interest. They take this money and spray it round like confetti to distort markets & profit from the known outcome (determined in advance). If the bets go wrong, the banks are bailed out by the taxpayer. And who owns the Federal Reserve you ask? Why the big banks of course. The Professor knows this.
Professor, I am also a believer in the free market, but there hasn't been a free market for nearly a 100 years. Governments (under the direction of the banking cartel) are free to print unlimited amounts of paper currency, determine interest rates & conduct wars. These alone provide massive distortions in prices for everything everywhere. The "free market" that you talk of cannot exist as described by modern orthodox economics. When the price of money has no relative value to anything real, there cannot be price discovery.
Troll
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Professor, you are here to elicit & provoke other PPRuNE readers into a response. You provide no solutions other that "Lower Cost is always better". You pose question, & only ever one solution. Therefore, you are a troll. You might be able to bull**** some people Professor, but some of us understand what is really going on.
For anyone who may be interesting in educating themselves, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" forensically & meticulously documents the history on how we all became owned & indebted to the global banking cartel, a series of private entities. Professor, I suggest you get a copy.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that SQ doesn’t operate with S/O’s.
They also place cadets directly into wide body aircraft too.
Do you think long haul flying requires some special expertise that one can only “progress” to?
“The cadet scheme for Jet* is proposed strictly as a cost saving device from management”
Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?
Is there such a thing as a cost-increasing device?
So BA and LH have no option but to employ a crewing system that so far has yielded excellent results? How very odd.
“…the training department will be presented with a group of young hopefuls, that lack the aptitude and talent being available to their European counterparts.”
Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought.
Well then I guess they won’t pass and other applicants will be sought.
one of these cadets successfully landed a powerless 777 recently.
Last edited by Red Jet; 24th Nov 2010 at 09:38.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kids with several hundred hours go straight to a window seat on a wide body.
Needless to say, there are positively no jet training aircraft planned as part of the Jet* Cadet scheme, and the fact that SQ are spending a very large amount of dollars operating a fleet of jet training aircraft for some of their graduates, doesn't change the premise of the point I am making.
Last edited by Red Jet; 24th Nov 2010 at 05:54. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ahhh, some of the Captains who fly with fresh cadets as F/O's also have varying thoughts on the situation. Buzz words such as 'cockpit gradient,' 'situational awareness,' 'real world experience' all come to mind... Just because it happens doesn't mean it is automatically 'world's best practice.' There is more than one way to skin a cat but are there some ways that are better than others?! 
Evening Professor.
The debate over Experience vs Training etc... has raged for years, and will probably do so untill aviation no longer exists! People use statistics and their own brand of logic to put forward their opinions, and depending what side of the debate you're on usually determines that opinion.
But here's where the real issue lies, and Sunfish and Redjet have hit the nail on the head. The destruction (or inexorable dismantleing) by unscrupulous airline managements of a viable long term career path for their professional pilots is, IMHO the greatest threat to air safety that has ever occured in the modern era! Have a read of the Colgan tapes (if you're game) and if you can see past your beancounter arrogance, ask yourself why didn't those pilots have their minds on their job? and why, when the **** hit the fan, didn't they react in a proper and decisive manner? The combined incomes of those poor pilots (pun intended) and their terms and conditions of employment were significantly less than the wage of the Kitchen hand at most Australian mine sites! If the Bruce Buchanans of this world have their way, Australian pilots will become the new working class poor, just like their counterparts in the U.S.
The American Senate has taken a blunt stick to the issue. Much the same as the Reserve bank does on interest rates. You can relate to that right? There is no point trying to tweak training, add an extra few sessions in the Sim, or refine scrutiny at the interview stage. The real issue lies elsewhere. The Americans have realised that the primary reason for the situation they are now in, is the destruction of the profession of Airline Pilot! By mandating minimum experience requirements for all Airline Pilots, They have made pilots valuable again. The average punter may have to pay a few dollars more, but what do you think the victims of the Colgan crash would say to that (if they could).
Let's say we follow the path that Jetstar have embarked upon. A path that will flood the pilot market with Gen Y wannabees that would otherwise not have bothered. What sort of professional pilots will these people ultimately become? Flying an A320 with nearly 200 fare paying passengers in the back, whilst earning $42K P/A, saddled with massive debt, and locked into the most draconian terms and conditions. What sort of stability of life will these people ultimately have? What sort of attitude will they posess when the novelty wears off and the grim realisation of their situation becomes apparent? All this so Bruce and his mates can crow about extra profit, pocket obscene bonuses, and as a sweetener, put it up those "Experienced" pilots who are over-rated anyway. What sort of people are we going to have occupying the flight-decks of our domestic jet airliners?
ARE YOU INSANE!!!
The debate over Experience vs Training etc... has raged for years, and will probably do so untill aviation no longer exists! People use statistics and their own brand of logic to put forward their opinions, and depending what side of the debate you're on usually determines that opinion.
But here's where the real issue lies, and Sunfish and Redjet have hit the nail on the head. The destruction (or inexorable dismantleing) by unscrupulous airline managements of a viable long term career path for their professional pilots is, IMHO the greatest threat to air safety that has ever occured in the modern era! Have a read of the Colgan tapes (if you're game) and if you can see past your beancounter arrogance, ask yourself why didn't those pilots have their minds on their job? and why, when the **** hit the fan, didn't they react in a proper and decisive manner? The combined incomes of those poor pilots (pun intended) and their terms and conditions of employment were significantly less than the wage of the Kitchen hand at most Australian mine sites! If the Bruce Buchanans of this world have their way, Australian pilots will become the new working class poor, just like their counterparts in the U.S.
The American Senate has taken a blunt stick to the issue. Much the same as the Reserve bank does on interest rates. You can relate to that right? There is no point trying to tweak training, add an extra few sessions in the Sim, or refine scrutiny at the interview stage. The real issue lies elsewhere. The Americans have realised that the primary reason for the situation they are now in, is the destruction of the profession of Airline Pilot! By mandating minimum experience requirements for all Airline Pilots, They have made pilots valuable again. The average punter may have to pay a few dollars more, but what do you think the victims of the Colgan crash would say to that (if they could).
Let's say we follow the path that Jetstar have embarked upon. A path that will flood the pilot market with Gen Y wannabees that would otherwise not have bothered. What sort of professional pilots will these people ultimately become? Flying an A320 with nearly 200 fare paying passengers in the back, whilst earning $42K P/A, saddled with massive debt, and locked into the most draconian terms and conditions. What sort of stability of life will these people ultimately have? What sort of attitude will they posess when the novelty wears off and the grim realisation of their situation becomes apparent? All this so Bruce and his mates can crow about extra profit, pocket obscene bonuses, and as a sweetener, put it up those "Experienced" pilots who are over-rated anyway. What sort of people are we going to have occupying the flight-decks of our domestic jet airliners?
ARE YOU INSANE!!!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 25th Nov 2010 at 09:18.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KRUSTY, an interesting post much of which I agree with, especially in regard to the destruction of terms and conditions which is destroying the profession of airline pilot.
The US experience is very informative in this regard as their environment is very similar to Australia; a large GA sector feeding into the airlines. However, following deregulation and the rapid expansion of regional carriers and cutback of legacy airlines there was a demand for pilots which could not be met through the traditional means and this led to the growth of airline schools where training was to a price and not necessarily a standard. At the same time terms and conditions were drastically eroded in the legacy carriers and regionals paid a pittance. This set the scene for a number of crashes and incidents in the US which can be attributed to a lack of professionalism for want of a better word.
In contrast Europe has followed the school path of training airline pilots for a long time. By that I mean all of their training has been directed at the single purpose of flying multi-crew transport category aircraft. Many of those cadets who started in the right hand seat of single aisle jets and turbo-props with hours that cause heart palpitations in Australia have now progressed successfully to commands and this is in an environment that is far harsher than Australia. I suggest that this is because their training is more rigorous than either similar schools in the US or Australia.
I believe the approach that Jetstar have embarked upon is wrong. Not that a cadetship won't work but the training regime they want for their cadets is the same that would be applied for a pilot coming out of GA. It is the lowest cost approach and it won't work with ab-initio cadets. It only works where the candidates have a generous background experience level. Incidentally, I don't think Jetstar will attract masses of Gen Y candidates as the lure of being an "Airline Pilot" is much tarnished these days and not desirable in the way it was for past generations.
The US 1,500 hour minimum is a very broad approach (incidentally I believe the legislation also contains provisions to reduce that minimum where training has been conducted at approved schools). It might, as you suggest, make pilots with the required experience levels more valuable and raise salary levels but I expect that it will only make certain schools far more attractive for students.
I believe that there is going to be a shortage of suitable pilots in Australia in the not too distant future. I know this is contentious but for those who argue that there will always be a surplus I suggest that they are looking at their own experience in the past rather than the present day situation.
In the light of a future shortage the airlines are going to require some way of gaining their numbers more quickly than the traditional GA route and they will increasingly turn to cadetships. I suggest that the Australian Senate inquiry could do far worse than to mandate more rigorous training standards rather than the blunt axe approach of minimum hours which is still no guarantee of adequate skill.
The US experience is very informative in this regard as their environment is very similar to Australia; a large GA sector feeding into the airlines. However, following deregulation and the rapid expansion of regional carriers and cutback of legacy airlines there was a demand for pilots which could not be met through the traditional means and this led to the growth of airline schools where training was to a price and not necessarily a standard. At the same time terms and conditions were drastically eroded in the legacy carriers and regionals paid a pittance. This set the scene for a number of crashes and incidents in the US which can be attributed to a lack of professionalism for want of a better word.
In contrast Europe has followed the school path of training airline pilots for a long time. By that I mean all of their training has been directed at the single purpose of flying multi-crew transport category aircraft. Many of those cadets who started in the right hand seat of single aisle jets and turbo-props with hours that cause heart palpitations in Australia have now progressed successfully to commands and this is in an environment that is far harsher than Australia. I suggest that this is because their training is more rigorous than either similar schools in the US or Australia.
I believe the approach that Jetstar have embarked upon is wrong. Not that a cadetship won't work but the training regime they want for their cadets is the same that would be applied for a pilot coming out of GA. It is the lowest cost approach and it won't work with ab-initio cadets. It only works where the candidates have a generous background experience level. Incidentally, I don't think Jetstar will attract masses of Gen Y candidates as the lure of being an "Airline Pilot" is much tarnished these days and not desirable in the way it was for past generations.
The US 1,500 hour minimum is a very broad approach (incidentally I believe the legislation also contains provisions to reduce that minimum where training has been conducted at approved schools). It might, as you suggest, make pilots with the required experience levels more valuable and raise salary levels but I expect that it will only make certain schools far more attractive for students.
I believe that there is going to be a shortage of suitable pilots in Australia in the not too distant future. I know this is contentious but for those who argue that there will always be a surplus I suggest that they are looking at their own experience in the past rather than the present day situation.
In the light of a future shortage the airlines are going to require some way of gaining their numbers more quickly than the traditional GA route and they will increasingly turn to cadetships. I suggest that the Australian Senate inquiry could do far worse than to mandate more rigorous training standards rather than the blunt axe approach of minimum hours which is still no guarantee of adequate skill.
Thanks PLovett.
As long as professional Airline Pilots are remunerated and given the respect by their employers to a level commensurate with their skill and responsibility, I certainly do not have a problem with the model you suggest.
My issue of course is that the "Bruce's" of this world are so disengaged from their pilots, and have so little grasp of the ramifications of a social/economic underclass in the cockpit, that Hell will probably freeze over before we see any of that happen!
As long as professional Airline Pilots are remunerated and given the respect by their employers to a level commensurate with their skill and responsibility, I certainly do not have a problem with the model you suggest.
My issue of course is that the "Bruce's" of this world are so disengaged from their pilots, and have so little grasp of the ramifications of a social/economic underclass in the cockpit, that Hell will probably freeze over before we see any of that happen!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar accuses whistleblower of lying
Jetstar accuses whistleblower of lying
myZOO
Nov 26, 2010 1:02pm
AIRLINE says pilot who publicly raised safety concerns misled the public with numerous untruths.
First Officer Joe Eakins, 31, was fired after criticising the airline’s plan to hire air crews based in Singapore "on wages well below their Australian-based colleagues" and what effect this would have on passenger safety.
His concerns were outlined in an article published last month and he was sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline.
"I am shocked and saddened they have chosen to react this way," he told the Herald Sun.
"I've been a good employee and I'm shocked any company would sack an employee for raising their concerns about safety and industrial issues, especially in the airline industry."
However Jetstar has hit back at his claims, saying they are “untrue”.
"The employee chose to publicly make incorrect accusations on multiple and separate occasions against Jetstar with the effect of misleading the travelling public," the airline said in a statement.
The budget carrier said it sought to resolve the issue with Mr Eakins "on numerous occasions but there was no engagement, nor acknowledgement, than an issued existed".
Jetstar Australia and New Zealand Chief Executive Officer David Hall said the airline has a healthy culture across its which encourages all employees to report and discuss any issues and concerns in relation to safety.
“We will never, nor have, taken action against any employee for raising safety concerns - we welcome genuine engagement regarding safety from any part of our workforce - without fear or favour,” Mr Hall said.
“In the past, and moving forward, our pilots based in Singapore achieve better take home pay in comparison to our Australian pilots.
“Assertions of a 50 per cent discrepancy in pilot pay between Australia and Singapore or circumvention of existing industrial law are patently false.
Mr Eakins has been contacted for comment regarding Jetstar's allegations.
The Australian and International Pilots Association says it is prepared to take the case to the High Court and has not ruled out pursuing industrial action.
Association president Barry Jackson described Mr Eakins as a whistleblower and hero to the Australian aviation community.
"The Australian aviation sector is at a crossroads," Mr Eakins had said in the article.
"Not only are the dreams of the youngsters who look skyward at risk, but the institutions that created our reputation for safety through well trained experienced pilots is under threat, which is bad news for all Australians."
Earlier this month a Jetstar training captain also questioned the airline's training methods and resources.
Geoff Klouth, a Jetstar pilot for four years and commercial pilot since 1987, outlined his concerns at a senate inquiry into aviation training and standards.
He said that as a result some flight attendants have been completed their training without having operated on the airline’s A321 aircraft, leaving them unsure how to “arm” the doors.
''They have been unable to 'arm' doors. Arming the doors is necessary to allow for the automatic deployment of the emergency escape slide if the aircraft has to be evacuated,'' he said in his submission.
Klouth also raised concern about the increasing number of flight attendants who are based in Singapore and Bangkok yet operate domestically on international flights.
“The foreign based crew all speak English but the ability to be understood in an emergency is an aspect of their training that is not effectively assessed.”
He said the increasing pressure airlines are under to cut costs may threaten air safety.
“The CEO of Jetstar requires a ten percent reduction in the airline costs per year. In a safety sensitive industry this will result in a reduction of the safety margins that have contributed to Australia’s aviation safety record.
myZOO
Nov 26, 2010 1:02pm
AIRLINE says pilot who publicly raised safety concerns misled the public with numerous untruths.
First Officer Joe Eakins, 31, was fired after criticising the airline’s plan to hire air crews based in Singapore "on wages well below their Australian-based colleagues" and what effect this would have on passenger safety.
His concerns were outlined in an article published last month and he was sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline.
"I am shocked and saddened they have chosen to react this way," he told the Herald Sun.
"I've been a good employee and I'm shocked any company would sack an employee for raising their concerns about safety and industrial issues, especially in the airline industry."
However Jetstar has hit back at his claims, saying they are “untrue”.
"The employee chose to publicly make incorrect accusations on multiple and separate occasions against Jetstar with the effect of misleading the travelling public," the airline said in a statement.
The budget carrier said it sought to resolve the issue with Mr Eakins "on numerous occasions but there was no engagement, nor acknowledgement, than an issued existed".
Jetstar Australia and New Zealand Chief Executive Officer David Hall said the airline has a healthy culture across its which encourages all employees to report and discuss any issues and concerns in relation to safety.
“We will never, nor have, taken action against any employee for raising safety concerns - we welcome genuine engagement regarding safety from any part of our workforce - without fear or favour,” Mr Hall said.
“In the past, and moving forward, our pilots based in Singapore achieve better take home pay in comparison to our Australian pilots.
“Assertions of a 50 per cent discrepancy in pilot pay between Australia and Singapore or circumvention of existing industrial law are patently false.
Mr Eakins has been contacted for comment regarding Jetstar's allegations.
The Australian and International Pilots Association says it is prepared to take the case to the High Court and has not ruled out pursuing industrial action.
Association president Barry Jackson described Mr Eakins as a whistleblower and hero to the Australian aviation community.
"The Australian aviation sector is at a crossroads," Mr Eakins had said in the article.
"Not only are the dreams of the youngsters who look skyward at risk, but the institutions that created our reputation for safety through well trained experienced pilots is under threat, which is bad news for all Australians."
Earlier this month a Jetstar training captain also questioned the airline's training methods and resources.
Geoff Klouth, a Jetstar pilot for four years and commercial pilot since 1987, outlined his concerns at a senate inquiry into aviation training and standards.
He said that as a result some flight attendants have been completed their training without having operated on the airline’s A321 aircraft, leaving them unsure how to “arm” the doors.
''They have been unable to 'arm' doors. Arming the doors is necessary to allow for the automatic deployment of the emergency escape slide if the aircraft has to be evacuated,'' he said in his submission.
Klouth also raised concern about the increasing number of flight attendants who are based in Singapore and Bangkok yet operate domestically on international flights.
“The foreign based crew all speak English but the ability to be understood in an emergency is an aspect of their training that is not effectively assessed.”
He said the increasing pressure airlines are under to cut costs may threaten air safety.
“The CEO of Jetstar requires a ten percent reduction in the airline costs per year. In a safety sensitive industry this will result in a reduction of the safety margins that have contributed to Australia’s aviation safety record.