We must never become complacent – Dick Smith

[gordonfvckingramsay]

so it cannot be argued that it is our regulator that is keeping us safe.

There is no doubt our safety record was earned in blood. Whether the regulator had anything to do with that is all in the past, but the problem is that nowadays CASA are not standing in the way of a backwards slide. I can quite categirically say that when an Australian airline has a major accident, it will not be an accident by pure definition, the causal factors will have been reported by a pilot/engineer etc as having a likelihood of causing an accident and the people with safety oversight will have deemed it a non threat.

Someone said in an earlier post that we should stop referring to the word “safe”, we should also stop referring to the word “accident” as there are very few true accidents in aviation. Almost all causal factors have been reported and then denied due to lack of evidence that they pose a threat.

We personify a normalisation of deviance in Australia.

[777Nine]

Originally Posted by cattletruck

With a record like this
BB solves JT 610 crash (post #6)
how does a LLC continue to make money after damaging 13 expensive hulls?
I guess the answer is it's simply the wrong people are running that airline with no ability or capability or care to fix it.
We must never become like that.

Third world wages, turn a blind eye to everything, don't say anything if it is out of place, don't question authority. Catch my drift? I also think what keeps LLCs in Indonesia going is not only their massive domestic market, but South East Asia in general. They have a different attitude towards safety than we do and the general populace will continue to fly with them. You must remember, the average punter wants the cheapest possible flight, seldom are their interested things like the maintenance record of a company, its procedures, its training etc.

[LeadSled]

Torres, Gordonetc,
I could not agree more.
And for those of you who think we are pretty good at "committing aviation" in Australia, have a very close look (with your rose coloured glasses removed) at US accident/incident figure versus Australia, using ICAO DEFINITIONS, not Australian PR polished figures --- you might learn something, if you can open your eyes to the obvious.
Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

the average punter wants the cheapest possible flight, seldom are their interested things like the maintenance record of a company, its procedures, its training etc.

The average punter more than likely assumes that all of that is the same for airlines, because the "government makes them do it". Where they perceive the cheap fares come from is: reduced face to face staff, reduced services on the aircraft, paying extra for things like luggage allowance, food and beverages, In-flight Entertainment, etc that the expensive ticket has included. That is where they will think the airline is saving money. They just think the full cost carriers are ripping people off.

[George Glass]

Well,Leadsled,I dont know what your background is (mine is 30 years fly jets)but the only reason I'm wasting my time commenting on this website is that professional Pilots get pretty fed up with enthusiastic amateurs and know-nothing clowns commenting on issues that they know nothing about.Including Dick Smith Again I ask; What complacency? Dicks assertion is baseless.The mob I work for could be reasonably accused of over-training. I appreciate that the web is what it is.But why do so many people feel the need to comment on issues they f@#k all about?

[Nulli Secundus]

Is that really you Dick? I thought you got out of aviation?

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by George Glass

Well,Leadsled,I dont know what your background is (mine is 30 years fly jets)but the only reason I'm wasting my time commenting on this website is that professional Pilots get pretty fed up with enthusiastic amateurs and know-nothing clowns commenting on issues that they know nothing about.Including Dick Smith Again I ask; What complacency? Dicks assertion is baseless.The mob I work for could be reasonably accused of over-training. I appreciate that the web is what it is.But why do so many people feel the need to comment on issues they f@#k all about?

George Glass,
Enough hours over more years than you, on a variety of ATPLs by whatever name, just about everywhere but China (except just in and out a few times) and long experience as an instructor, to know what I am talking about.

Although I admit that apart from a slew of light aircraft, I haven't flown anything as small as a B737.

And unlike you (wherever you are) complacency is rife at a Government level in Australia, and is far too evident in airline managements, and a broad generation of Australian commercial ( in many cases I am very hesitant to use the word "professional") pilots employed by airlines ----- in large part because they have been told how good they are so often.

The statistics do not support such abundant self-satisfaction.

They believe it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And "normalisation of deviance" is the order of the day.

And six months consolidated incidents from a major Australian airline should pull anybody up short ---- far too many of them include one (or more) of the tec. crew exhibiting less than optimal performance ( to put it it in managementspeak). Too many of the maintenance incidents show similar unsatisfactory patterns.

As for over training ---- there is "training" and effective training ----- there is a big difference. And it is far too big a subject to even scratch the surface here.

And, as a matter of interest, there is, within CASA, a group that says that neither CASA, nor the Australian aviation community, is sufficiently mature for performance based (outcome based) regulation, therefor Australian aviation must have ultra-prescriptive detailed regulation for CASA to micromanage every facet ---- which they cannot, in fact, achieve, but that is a significant contributor to our shambles of a regulatory base.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

Arthur D, it is almost as if you believe that if all the regulations are followed that aviation will be “safe”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, look at ETOPS operations. Under ETOPS there can be an engine failure and the aircraft can keep flying as a single engine aircraft for many hours to landing. Is there a chance that the second engine could fail? Of course there is. If this is over a remote ocean at night, the consequences will be serious.

One day it will probably happen because the ETOPS equation is based on probability.

[megan]

Under ETOPS there can be an engine failure and the aircraft can keep flying as a single engine aircraft for many hours to landing

When looked at along side the limitations placed upon the operation of single engine aircraft in fare paying pax operations it does seem a bit of an anomaly.

One day it will probably happen because the ETOPS equation is based on probability

It probably will, and I wonder what recommendations the report would make. Have extremely vague memory of an uncontained failure during take off in an under wing twin engine type and it took out the other. Maybe just an old brain misremembering.

[Torres]

Well,Leadsled,I dont know what your background is (mine is 30 years fly jets)but the only reason I'm wasting my time commenting on this website is that professional Pilots get pretty fed up with enthusiastic amateurs and know-nothing clowns commenting on issues that they know nothing about.

But why do so many people feel the need to comment on issues they f@#k all about?

Well, George I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead. I don't know you from Adam but I suspect LeadSled's aviation credentials and achievements most probably outshine your probably quite credible credentials and experience.

I wonder whether you may be one of those I referred to back in my post # 19?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Comparatively, we are statistically less likely to be harmed flying by Airline aircraft in Australia than Indonesia. That is a fact.

It is a fact...and a fact used to justify the erosion of acceptable standards across the board. That is the nature of complacency; "she'll be right, it won't happen to us, we're too safe"

The reason we are safer, is because we have a mature system of oversight and safety management in Australia.

Reported something unsafe lately? I recently reported an unsafe/illegal procedure and it was deemed to be a minor issue; a minor issue that has brought aircraft down in the past in other countries.

This is why the FAA and the Europeans banned Indonesian carriers

But Australia didn't.

Previous commentators have suggested that there is a lack of ‘proper’ accountability in Australia. I would suggest those in doubt read Section 28 of the Act, in particular 28BE. Directors cannot escape their accountability. If they choose to ignore operational risk, they do so at their own peril

You forget the peril the paying public are in just as their lives are taken from them. It's a bit late when there is a hole in the ground, the bonus is in the bank and the Directors are safely living in a country without an extradition treaty. I wouldn't put much faith in the Directors being held accountable while there is a legal system that lacks a spine. Don't forget, the Directors can mandate all sorts of dangerous things, it is still you who is legally responsible if you choose to do it.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by megan

When looked at along side the limitations placed upon the operation of single engine aircraft in fare paying pax operations it does seem a bit of an anomaly.It probably will, and I wonder what recommendations the report would make. Have extremely vague memory of an uncontained failure during take off in an under wing twin engine type and it took out the other. Maybe just an old brain misremembering.

Megan,
I can recall several, they were all, fortunately, four engine aircraft that took out the engine beside it.
The worst, to my mind, was the El Al freighter at Amsterdam.
Early days of the B747 QF had a double failure at YSSY , a birdstrike ---- seagulls?. Fortunately, the aircraft was light. Same for ANZ at Christchurch early '90s, the aircraft was light.
In piston day, there were several examples of a runaway prop taking out an engine on the other side of the aircraft.
The only double failures (and no re-start) in a twin that comes to mind are: an SAS MD82 --- ice ingestion, not initially mechanical failure per se. Same same with a B737 in US, hail/heavy rain, landed on the levy bank beside a river. Not to mention the "Adventure on the Hudson". Maybe CASA should take action against unregulated birds.
But that is from an imperfect memory, not a comprehensive record.
Tootle pip!!

[Global Aviator]

Originally Posted by LeadSled

Megan,
I can recall several, they were all, fortunately, four engine aircraft that took out the engine beside it.
The worst, to my mind, was the El Al freighter at Amsterdam.
Early days of the B747 QF had a double failure at YSSY , a birdstrike ---- seagulls?. Fortunately, the aircraft was light. Same for ANZ at Christchurch early '90s, the aircraft was light.
In piston day, there were several examples of a runaway prop taking out an engine on the other side of the aircraft.
The only double failures (and no re-start) in a twin that comes to mind are: an SAS MD82 --- ice ingestion, not initially mechanical failure per se. Same same with a B737 in US, hail/heavy rain, landed on the levy bank beside a river. Not to mention the "Adventure on the Hudson". Maybe CASA should take action against unregulated birds.
But that is from an imperfect memory, not a comprehensive record.
Tootle pip!!

Drop it into Google, there have been a few!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

and I wonder what recommendations the report would make.

The report would say the that the ETOPS rules be reviewed to see if the probability (ie risk) is still acceptable. In terms of "safety", ultimately not, but commercially, certainly. Nothing will change over one incident.

[73qanda]

I feel like our Australian industry leaders are tootling along assuming that past performance predicts future performance all the while chipping away at the training budget and adding more and more training load/subjects/requirements. While the training departments are working harder with less, the flight and duty limits are being targeted with more sophisticated software and new technology creates opportunities for gross errors that would have been difficult to make using a 2kg paper chart book. Opportunities for regular hand flying of visual approaches are less than they were and those under thirty probably had an auto pilot from 200hrs on. Add to this the ground staff being less experienced in aviation and under more time pressure year on year as split duties and third party contractors become the norm and we are more exposed to risk than many understand. I suspect that a large % of Airline executives don’t really understand how to achieve safety but are pretty good at managing systems.....that’s not a good place to be, we need real understanding at the helm in order to make sensible decisions around flight safety.
In short, I think Dick is right and we need more leaders driving to work concerned about whether they are getting everything right, not less.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by 73qanda

I feel like our Australian industry leaders are tootling along assuming that past performance predicts future performance all the while chipping ---------
In short, I think Dick is right and we need more leaders driving to work concerned about whether they are getting everything right, not less.

73qanda,
In short summary, as a previous poster pointed out, all the conditions of latent failure are in place in Australia.
The probability of all the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up is getting greater.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

we need more leaders driving to work concerned about whether they are getting everything right, not less.

We need more action by the regulator to maintain standards of an increasingly busy job. While some of you are saying companies should be doing the right thing, society has changed. Everybody's out to make a hard-earned buck, the bogans don't choose $$ over a safe operation, and the only way declining pilot standards will be maintained or elevated back to acceptable will be by the regulators upping the requirements.

[Chocks Away]

...and sadly Cpt Bloggs, the regulator aint worth a pinch if s#*t now!
I raised an issue over Medicals back awhile ago and the only time I got a response was after I went to the media and things happened fast then. I received an email and my medical 6am the Friday the story was posted in The Australian! A few in AVMED lost there jobs, medicals now processed in 3 days etc etc.
Since when did Australia become a place like China/Asia by which you need to shame people in public, to get an honest result... instead of once being "the yard stick" which many people looked up to?
CASA have screwed the pooch big time with the prohibitive litigiousness, costs & red tape, that to try and start an airline; get your Instructors Rating or even just be compliant in GA is utter and total b#ll.
73qanda covers it well, in that those trying to steer the ship, have no idea what the ship is for or it's workings! Many sirens are blaring away but they are oblivious to them or their reasons why.
Such examples include crewing experience shortfalls; crewing numbers shortage; Fatigue Management systems; Safety Management; Engineering quality assurance; Rostering "maximisation"...

I'll expand on that last point as it's a classic example and a big reason why many experienced crew hemorrhaged away from VB (back in the day) and is a great example - Kronos rostering came in to fix all the issues and iron out a massive Domestic roster at first (thence International later). First few months... brilliant! 75-80% satisfaction rating as everyone could lodge their preferences and the Canadian computer system would spit out the best optimum on given work rules. Everyones happy... sweet... until HR start pressing the "override button" to extend duties to max. Result? Discord, complaints... then resignations, slow at first but then a stream.
The lesson for desk jockeys & HR is that Flight & Duty Limitations ARE NOT A GOAL TO REACH but a MAXIMUM limitation by which you will lose and cost you money. Examples to see are littered everywhere on a daily basis throughout the globe.
Sadly, like the Banking & Financial Industry, their regulators - ATSIC & APRA have been "asleep at the wheel" or on holidays.
It's all very nice to hand over responsibility to the operators for many of the programs but CASA need to get a spine and start policing those who don't have their Fatigue Management Systems, their Quality Assurance; Part142; Safety Management Systems in place already... otherwise you're just as bad and corrupt as your Northern neighbors.

[megan]

Australian industry leaders are tootling along assuming that past performance predicts future performance

Ain't that the truth. An operator went for three decades without an accident or injury, when management was tackled about the lack of compliance they pulled out the chestnut "we've never had an incident or accident, so we're doing things right". Should frame that email.

[machtuk]

Anytime I see a thread that Dick has started or even added to I enjoy the reading the replies etc, love the few same suspects that run Dick over by bus cause he gives an opinion different to them, that's entertaining:-) TEM, that's the 'IN' word these days, there's industries set up around it & is a subject that has a mythical aspect to it. In my opinion two of those threats are ATC & CASA, we are lucky (if that's what you want to label it as) here in OZ that the WX is mostly benign, training is reasonable & the skies not crowded but we do have the aforementioned two threats/risks.
Continue on Dick, you do add value to our aviation scene despite what some say:-):-)