Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
on your FM dial
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grease-monkeys riding bicycles (part II)
Ladies, Gentlemen, and monkeys riding bicycles,
The first 108 posts of this thread can be found here.
AN LAME,
I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am concerned that you cannot read.
You claim :
Yet what I actually said was :
You are putting words into my mouth – and getting it wrong.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that your incorrect interpretations of the ICAO SARPs and Australian CARs have been entirely unavoidable since you seem to have a propensity to see words that are not actually on the page.
It’s going to be increasingly difficult to engage in a rational discussion if one party has a tendency to see things that are not really there.
You continue :
I repeat, I suggest that you are in a minority of one in regard to your interpretation of the ICAO SARPs – specifically, in your interpretation that an airline jet must be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.
I don’t see that ANY of the “apparent engineering background contributors” nor ANY of the “flying fraternity” have stated that they agree with your rather peculiar interpretation of the ICAO SARPs.
Please specify which of the “apparent engineering background contributors” and “flying fraternity” you say agree with your interpretation that the ICAO SARPs require a that a licenced aircraft engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft prior to each and every flight.
Pilots fly the planes – I think we are in agreement on that part. Licenced engineers fix the planes – I think we would agree on that too. And I know that all pilots have a great deal of respect and indeed gratitude for engineers that fix the planes.
But you have intimated that pilots are incapable of conducting “walk around” inspections to a satisfactory standard, and that, in any case, a “walk around” inspection should properly be regarded as “secret engineers business” (like “secret women’s business”, perhaps )
Given that pilots are required to attain a level of competence in conducting “walk around” inspections as part of their initial training on type, and given that many pilots are required to conduct “walk around” inspections as part of their everyday tasks, your “utmost respect” would seem to be not quite as “utmost” as you might have us believe.
Do you recognise that your lack of respect for the professional competence of pilots in performing their required duties might rub people up the wrong way, or is it something that you do without realising?
AN LAME – you seem to be pursuing three separate lines of argument.
(1) That it is a legal requirement under ICAO SARPs that a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft before each and every flight.
(2) That a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet before each and every flight for safety reasons. You have suggested that pilots are incapable of conducting this inspection to a satisfactory standard, and you have suggested that there will be adverse safety outcomes - ie accidents and/or incidents – if a licenced engineer does not perform the inspections.
(3) That the job of the “walk around” inspection rightfully belongs to the licenced engineers because that is the way it has always been done in Australia.
On argument (1) I suggest that you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It is my view that your interpretation of ICAO SARPs is flawed. If it is not flawed, then why haven’t you, nor the ALAEA, nor anyone else challenged CASA in the Federal (or any other) Court?
On argument (2) I suggest that your safety concerns – if in fact they are genuine – are unfounded. The evidence from the mature and much larger aviation markets overseas simply does not support your assertions. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Argument (3) is simply an industrial relations issue – in effect a demarcation dispute. Demarcation disputes, in and of themselves, have nothing what so ever to do with safety.
Actually, you never inquired as to why I believe the ALAEA has been unscrupulous and aggressive. Once again, I think you are seeing words that aren’t there.
Your query was :
And to that, my reply was :
To answer your original query more directly, I don’t know, nor do I care, what the ALAEA’s unscrupulous and aggressive behaviour makes the AMWU, TWU or “an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?”
I guess that if the ALAEA wishes to lower its level of behaviour to that of the AMWU, or TWU, or the Painters and Dockers if you want to go the whole hog, then that is entirely its prerogative.
You seem to want to engage me on ’89 issues. You will continue to fail. I couldn’t give a rats bottom about ’89 issues.
To answer your new query, I believe that the ALAEA’s behaviour has been unscrupulous because they have been telling deliberate fibs and being knowingly misleading in their dealings with the media by pretending that :
(a) The current approved practice in Australian jet airlines is that a licenced engineer must ALWAYS perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is demonstrably untrue.
(b) That Australia would be out of step with current approved practice overseas if Australia did not require that a licenced engineer must perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is also demonstrably untrue.
(c) That the ALAEA’s motivation for its current CASA lobbying and media campaign is a benevolent concern for the safety of flight – when in reality the ALAEA’s true motivation is simply to feather the nests of itself and its members – ie a significant and obvious vested interest.
The ALAEA has been overly-aggressive because it has attempted to rail-road both the airline employers and the regulator into complying with its own industrial demands by means of a misleading public scare campaign – a scare campaign that has endeavoured to hoodwink the flying public into believing a series of lies and half-truths.
To be entirely frank, the ALAEA’s behaviour has been more akin to the kind of industrial thuggery that one might expect from a trade union representing a group of uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers – rather than a group of licenced aircraft engineers. In this respect, perhaps I may have simply over-estimated the level of professionalism of the licenced engineers?
I do disagree with their argument, but I disagree more with their methods.
The first 108 posts of this thread can be found here.
AN LAME,
I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am concerned that you cannot read.
You claim :
You say that I am 'in a minority of one' in my interpretation of not only the regulatory requirements but also the benefits, common sense, and risk management aspect of having a LAME carry out transits for RPT operations.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and I can accept that this may come as a shock to you since you have invested so much time and emotional energy developing your line of reasoning, but in regard to your interpretations of the ICAO requirements, you are in a minority of one.
ICAO SARPs do NOT require that an aircraft be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.
ICAO SARPs do NOT require that an aircraft be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that your incorrect interpretations of the ICAO SARPs and Australian CARs have been entirely unavoidable since you seem to have a propensity to see words that are not actually on the page.
It’s going to be increasingly difficult to engage in a rational discussion if one party has a tendency to see things that are not really there.
You continue :
If that was the case...I would not be supported by ALL of the apparent engineering background contributors and a fairly sizeable number of our flying fraternity as well.
I don’t see that ANY of the “apparent engineering background contributors” nor ANY of the “flying fraternity” have stated that they agree with your rather peculiar interpretation of the ICAO SARPs.
Please specify which of the “apparent engineering background contributors” and “flying fraternity” you say agree with your interpretation that the ICAO SARPs require a that a licenced aircraft engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft prior to each and every flight.
I have the utmost respect for professional pilots...but at times that respect does not appear to be reciprocated.
But you have intimated that pilots are incapable of conducting “walk around” inspections to a satisfactory standard, and that, in any case, a “walk around” inspection should properly be regarded as “secret engineers business” (like “secret women’s business”, perhaps
)Given that pilots are required to attain a level of competence in conducting “walk around” inspections as part of their initial training on type, and given that many pilots are required to conduct “walk around” inspections as part of their everyday tasks, your “utmost respect” would seem to be not quite as “utmost” as you might have us believe.
Do you recognise that your lack of respect for the professional competence of pilots in performing their required duties might rub people up the wrong way, or is it something that you do without realising?
AN LAME – you seem to be pursuing three separate lines of argument.
(1) That it is a legal requirement under ICAO SARPs that a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft before each and every flight.
(2) That a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet before each and every flight for safety reasons. You have suggested that pilots are incapable of conducting this inspection to a satisfactory standard, and you have suggested that there will be adverse safety outcomes - ie accidents and/or incidents – if a licenced engineer does not perform the inspections.
(3) That the job of the “walk around” inspection rightfully belongs to the licenced engineers because that is the way it has always been done in Australia.
On argument (1) I suggest that you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It is my view that your interpretation of ICAO SARPs is flawed. If it is not flawed, then why haven’t you, nor the ALAEA, nor anyone else challenged CASA in the Federal (or any other) Court?
On argument (2) I suggest that your safety concerns – if in fact they are genuine – are unfounded. The evidence from the mature and much larger aviation markets overseas simply does not support your assertions. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Argument (3) is simply an industrial relations issue – in effect a demarcation dispute. Demarcation disputes, in and of themselves, have nothing what so ever to do with safety.
You still haven't answered my query as to why you believe the ALAEA is unscrupulous and aggressive.
Your query was :
By the way, if the ALAEA is ' an unscrupulpous and aggressive union', what does that make the AMWU, or the TWU or dare I say it, an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?
I have not attempted to justify the actions of any union. Unions had a place in the 1800s in England when twelve year old boys were working by candle-light 18 hours a day down the coal mines and getting inadequately fed and substandard shelter in return. But those times are long gone.
I guess that if the ALAEA wishes to lower its level of behaviour to that of the AMWU, or TWU, or the Painters and Dockers if you want to go the whole hog, then that is entirely its prerogative.
You seem to want to engage me on ’89 issues. You will continue to fail. I couldn’t give a rats bottom about ’89 issues.
To answer your new query, I believe that the ALAEA’s behaviour has been unscrupulous because they have been telling deliberate fibs and being knowingly misleading in their dealings with the media by pretending that :
(a) The current approved practice in Australian jet airlines is that a licenced engineer must ALWAYS perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is demonstrably untrue.
(b) That Australia would be out of step with current approved practice overseas if Australia did not require that a licenced engineer must perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is also demonstrably untrue.
(c) That the ALAEA’s motivation for its current CASA lobbying and media campaign is a benevolent concern for the safety of flight – when in reality the ALAEA’s true motivation is simply to feather the nests of itself and its members – ie a significant and obvious vested interest.
The ALAEA has been overly-aggressive because it has attempted to rail-road both the airline employers and the regulator into complying with its own industrial demands by means of a misleading public scare campaign – a scare campaign that has endeavoured to hoodwink the flying public into believing a series of lies and half-truths.
To be entirely frank, the ALAEA’s behaviour has been more akin to the kind of industrial thuggery that one might expect from a trade union representing a group of uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers – rather than a group of licenced aircraft engineers. In this respect, perhaps I may have simply over-estimated the level of professionalism of the licenced engineers?
Is it simply that you so vehemently disagree with their argument
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
Please ignore the BIK thread. Seems monkeys play a big part in his life...now if only he could sing and stop grabbing his crotch.
For those that wish to continue discussing this topic in a professional manner please do so.
Geek.
For those that wish to continue discussing this topic in a professional manner please do so.
Geek.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to play King Solomon here 
BIK_116.80 posted the continuation first, but Oz Geek got the title more correct, so they're merged as we are not having two bites at it.
Might I make the observation that BIK_116.80 is entitled to respond to the "monkeys" issue, which if I recall correctly, was raised by the engineers.
Oz Geeks post is contradictory, on the one hand he passes a derogatory comment and on the other he pleads for professionalism.
Why don't we just concentrate on the professional discussion bit eh.
BIK_116.80 posted the continuation first, but Oz Geek got the title more correct, so they're merged as we are not having two bites at it.
Might I make the observation that BIK_116.80 is entitled to respond to the "monkeys" issue, which if I recall correctly, was raised by the engineers.
Oz Geeks post is contradictory, on the one hand he passes a derogatory comment and on the other he pleads for professionalism.
Why don't we just concentrate on the professional discussion bit eh.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK
Seeing as you're not playing the man
... I respect your right to hold an opinion even if that opinion is that my views are incorrect.
I was going to start quoting your quoting of my quotes however the fact is, I can't be bothered. Of course you will most likely take that as a sign of defeat, which I can assure you is not the case. The level of detail which you go into in your lengthy responses is IMHO a debate which needs to be carried out face to face.
Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time... I don't particularly care
Having been involved in RPT for twenty years , I am of the opinion that the LAME's contribution to the safety and efficiency of the Australian industry is a significant resource that is currently under threat by those who would remove a 'slice of Swiss Cheese ' from James Reason's accident model... in the name of economic rationalism. You may take this as a personal affront on behalf of all the professional pilots out there... you appear to desire to do so. But if I may speak TO all those pilots ' I have the utmost respect for your skills, training and professionalism. However, in an industry which is moving to competency based training you have not received that training. That is not to say that you cannot be trained. (And then BIK may get the Industrial posture that he is so keen on developing) However at this point in time, and until otherwise, I believe the LAME is the appropriately qualified person.'
And as I have said in the past (BIK will be able to quote me chapter and verse I'm sure - in or out of context) there is a broader issue down the track if this continues - and that will be the commercial pressure on Tech Crews to carry defects because of a lack of an Engineering presence.
Cheers
'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much. If I can paraphrase another old saying 'Small things annoy small minds')
Seeing as you're not playing the man
... I respect your right to hold an opinion even if that opinion is that my views are incorrect. I was going to start quoting your quoting of my quotes however the fact is, I can't be bothered. Of course you will most likely take that as a sign of defeat, which I can assure you is not the case. The level of detail which you go into in your lengthy responses is IMHO a debate which needs to be carried out face to face.
Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time... I don't particularly care
Having been involved in RPT for twenty years , I am of the opinion that the LAME's contribution to the safety and efficiency of the Australian industry is a significant resource that is currently under threat by those who would remove a 'slice of Swiss Cheese ' from James Reason's accident model... in the name of economic rationalism. You may take this as a personal affront on behalf of all the professional pilots out there... you appear to desire to do so. But if I may speak TO all those pilots ' I have the utmost respect for your skills, training and professionalism. However, in an industry which is moving to competency based training you have not received that training. That is not to say that you cannot be trained. (And then BIK may get the Industrial posture that he is so keen on developing) However at this point in time, and until otherwise, I believe the LAME is the appropriately qualified person.'And as I have said in the past (BIK will be able to quote me chapter and verse I'm sure - in or out of context) there is a broader issue down the track if this continues - and that will be the commercial pressure on Tech Crews to carry defects because of a lack of an Engineering presence.
Cheers
'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much. If I can paraphrase another old saying 'Small things annoy small minds')
on your FM dial
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time...
'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much...
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME;
I think you cannot really assert that your, and others' views are not worthy of BIK's time - I would say that BIK invested significant time and effort in the previous (lengthy) reply.
To my mind (and I'm not on either side, so regard myself as somewhat neutral), he makes some telling points.
Oz Geek, if his reply was not in a professional manner, please explain what would be?
I assume that you both accept that a well-thought-out and well-argued position is valid? Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - if so I will not deign to reply - that truly would not be worth anyone's time.
I think you cannot really assert that your, and others' views are not worthy of BIK's time - I would say that BIK invested significant time and effort in the previous (lengthy) reply.
To my mind (and I'm not on either side, so regard myself as somewhat neutral), he makes some telling points.
Oz Geek, if his reply was not in a professional manner, please explain what would be?
I assume that you both accept that a well-thought-out and well-argued position is valid? Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - if so I will not deign to reply - that truly would not be worth anyone's time.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groaner
Just so we don't misunderstand anyone here.
I did not say that Oz Greek was not being professional in his call for professionalism, just that his or anyones "monkey" remarks do not "add" to the debate.
So lets get on with it shall we, sans the bicycles and monkey routines shall we.
And just coz I like seeing it
"Play the ball not the man, lest you get injured."
Just so we don't misunderstand anyone here.
I did not say that Oz Greek was not being professional in his call for professionalism, just that his or anyones "monkey" remarks do not "add" to the debate.
So lets get on with it shall we, sans the bicycles and monkey routines shall we.
And just coz I like seeing it
"Play the ball not the man, lest you get injured."
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As somebody who spent many years working in line maintenance in Syd, I am perplexed by the desire of some tech crew to see L.A.M.E.'s removed from the tarmac (the major carriers have been trying it for years). It may well pass, unfortunately, that a lot of experience and knowlege will be flushed off the tarmac in the near future, mainly in the drive to trim costs. Only after the engineers are gone and there is an incident or an accident after something was missed on a turnaround, will it dawn on those of you who are so keen to see the engineers go. That is, when something does go wrong, the first response of major airlines in this country has generally been not," what happened and how can we prevent it from happening again "but, "what happened and who can we screw". With the engineers gone, that will place the tech crew very much in the managements firing line (even more than you currently are). Don't believe me? Wait till something happens (and I certainly hope nothing does but, the law of averages will probably catch up with you at some point.)
To all the engineers that may be affected. Fear not, there will always be plenty of overnight work and if that's not your cup of tea, then Heavy Maintenance isn't so bad (that's where I've found work after sep 2001). Or you could be one of the lucky few "Super LAME's" left on the tarmac to apply M.E.L.'s, carry out fuel drains and basically keep your operation going with a box of bandaids and one arm tied behind your back. By all means keep up the good fight but, in the short term things don't look too good. Long term though I wouldn't be surprised to see a quiet return to the tarmac for the LAME. I hope so, for the safety of the travelling public in this country.
Cheers,
CC.
To all the engineers that may be affected. Fear not, there will always be plenty of overnight work and if that's not your cup of tea, then Heavy Maintenance isn't so bad (that's where I've found work after sep 2001). Or you could be one of the lucky few "Super LAME's" left on the tarmac to apply M.E.L.'s, carry out fuel drains and basically keep your operation going with a box of bandaids and one arm tied behind your back. By all means keep up the good fight but, in the short term things don't look too good. Long term though I wouldn't be surprised to see a quiet return to the tarmac for the LAME. I hope so, for the safety of the travelling public in this country.
Cheers,
CC.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz Geek
Where the hell did I say I promise to stop posting? 
Yet I never do?!?!?
89 posts in just under two years.....
Mate, I think your name sums you up. Why don't you read my (what is it now, 3? maybe 4?) posts in this topic again and think about it.
For your info, AN LAME and I have been down this topic extensively in the past. I don't mind at all if has a friendly dig at me, after all, I worked with him for many years. We know where we stand.
GTG!
GTG You continue promising to stop posting, yet you never do. The only posts that are "pilot v LAME" are posted by pilots and I must say your generalism reflects very badly on the majority of very professional pilots I have had the pleasure to work along side.
Yet I never do?!?!?
89 posts in just under two years.....
Mate, I think your name sums you up. Why don't you read my (what is it now, 3? maybe 4?) posts in this topic again and think about it.
For your info, AN LAME and I have been down this topic extensively in the past. I don't mind at all if has a friendly dig at me, after all, I worked with him for many years. We know where we stand.
GTG!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still can't work out why you flyboys are so anti!!!
It's no skin off your nose if we do transits, we're already there anyway and it gives you more time in the 'deck to do what you really need to do!!!
Why are you guys so against it???????
K
Hey Cruncher
I now realise that the answers to my maintenance woes had been worked out years ago by those with bigger tails!!
K
It's no skin off your nose if we do transits, we're already there anyway and it gives you more time in the 'deck to do what you really need to do!!!
Why are you guys so against it???????
K
Hey Cruncher
I now realise that the answers to my maintenance woes had been worked out years ago by those with bigger tails!!
K
Last edited by Kanga767; 4th Mar 2003 at 09:15.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: To your left
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just engineers - CASA too!
Been busy and not had a chance to catch up with this thread. I'll have to post tomorrow as I saw a newspaper article about
CASA issuing a formal warning to Virgin re pilots not doing adequate daily/turnaround inspections.
I'll find the clip and post it in the morning for those that may be interested - unless of course someone out there has it handy and can do the honours.
Good to see everyone can maintain a civil conversation
Been busy and not had a chance to catch up with this thread. I'll have to post tomorrow as I saw a newspaper article about
CASA issuing a formal warning to Virgin re pilots not doing adequate daily/turnaround inspections.
I'll find the clip and post it in the morning for those that may be interested - unless of course someone out there has it handy and can do the honours.
Good to see everyone can maintain a civil conversation
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG,
Sorry, took that as meaning you have had your say and would not post again...obviously your happy to continue to add your 2 cents anytime someone disagrees with you. You must have plenty of spare change.
Your relationship with AN LAME warms the cockles of my heart...it really does.
As for the thread topic...
I have seen nothing really new here since we discussed this topic many many months ago. So I have been content ... to occasionally check in and hear the old Pilot V LAME argument and who's better than who blah blah blah. Thats my 2 cents worth.
Your relationship with AN LAME warms the cockles of my heart...it really does.
As for the thread topic...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kanga,
I do not know ANY pilots that want to see the engineers off the tarmac. (not where I work anyway, nearly 400 pilots)
We want you there as much as you want to be there.
You must remember, its only a very minority (only a few actually) who have the time, or are bothered enough to post their opinion here.
I do not know ANY pilots that want to see the engineers off the tarmac. (not where I work anyway, nearly 400 pilots)
We want you there as much as you want to be there.
You must remember, its only a very minority (only a few actually) who have the time, or are bothered enough to post their opinion here.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travelling Toolbox,
This the item you mean?
(QUOTE)
AAP Friday February 28, 07:50 PM
Australia's aviation watchdog cracked down on Virgin Blue after surveillance revealed shortcomings in its maintenance checks. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) summoned Virgin representatives to a meeting in Brisbane and issued them with a formal notice over the breaches.
CASA said it was within its guidelines for pilots to conduct the maintenance checks but they were not being thoroughly carried out. "We have had a series of discussions with Virgin Blue today about the issue of turnaround checks," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.
"The issue for us is the pilots have got to do these checks properly and what we have found in the course of audits and some surveillance of Virgin Blue is that some of these checks are not being done as thoroughly as they should be by the pilots."
The audit was carried out earlier this month and the checks were placed under surveillance for several days this week.
There was no evidence passenger safety was at risk at any time, but the safety shortcomings were serious enough for a formal warning to be issued, CASA said. "We've got no evidence that anything went wrong with the aircraft because they were subject to shortcuts," Mr Gibson said.
Virgin Blue has undertaken to provide pilots with refresher training courses and issued an email bulletin reminding pilots of safety procedures and the need to carry out all tasks thoroughly.
It will also formally write to its pilots outlining the same points.
Mr Gibson said CASA was satisfied that if those measures were undertaken, Virgin could continue to use pilots to carry out the checks.
Virgin Blue commercial head David Huttner said CASA and the company had come to agreement on the issue. "We had a meeting with CASA to discuss their concerns, and we have agreed with CASA to some amendments to our system," he said.
"There will also be a review process in the coming months.
"But CASA has agreed with that, our pilot system will be continued."
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said by using pilots to conduct pre-takeoff safety checks, airlines were watering down an aviation safety system currently among the best in the world. The union's federal executive this week endorsed a series of industry-wide stopwork meetings to consider the issue, starting in Brisbane on March 10.
Virgin maintains the airline has always adhered to safety regulations set by both the aircraft manufacturer and CASA.
But the airline is on notice that it will be watched. "What we are going to do is keep a higher level of surveillance of Virgin Blue in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months to make sure these checks are being done properly," Mr Gibson said.
(ENDQUOTE)
Best regards,
airsupport.
I would prefer to keep out of this lively debate IF it is just going to get personal, as usual.
However it would appear to me that many Pilots are not that happy with this new idea either, and would prefer the status quo.
I happened to be in the Airservices Australia Offices at Brisbane Airport yesterday, have a guess what they were discussing?
Seems most ATC people think it is an unnecessary reduction in safety.
As for the general public, I have had 2 people who are nothing to do with the Industry, but fly as passengers a lot, ask me in the last few days, had I heard of this and what I thought of it?
They both also thought it was a ridiculous exercise in penny pinching, and was making their travelling less safe.
Even IF they all have it wrong (which I don't think they do), there will have to be some smooth talking to convince all these people that safety is NOT being compromised.
This the item you mean?
(QUOTE)
AAP Friday February 28, 07:50 PM
Australia's aviation watchdog cracked down on Virgin Blue after surveillance revealed shortcomings in its maintenance checks. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) summoned Virgin representatives to a meeting in Brisbane and issued them with a formal notice over the breaches.
CASA said it was within its guidelines for pilots to conduct the maintenance checks but they were not being thoroughly carried out. "We have had a series of discussions with Virgin Blue today about the issue of turnaround checks," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.
"The issue for us is the pilots have got to do these checks properly and what we have found in the course of audits and some surveillance of Virgin Blue is that some of these checks are not being done as thoroughly as they should be by the pilots."
The audit was carried out earlier this month and the checks were placed under surveillance for several days this week.
There was no evidence passenger safety was at risk at any time, but the safety shortcomings were serious enough for a formal warning to be issued, CASA said. "We've got no evidence that anything went wrong with the aircraft because they were subject to shortcuts," Mr Gibson said.
Virgin Blue has undertaken to provide pilots with refresher training courses and issued an email bulletin reminding pilots of safety procedures and the need to carry out all tasks thoroughly.
It will also formally write to its pilots outlining the same points.
Mr Gibson said CASA was satisfied that if those measures were undertaken, Virgin could continue to use pilots to carry out the checks.
Virgin Blue commercial head David Huttner said CASA and the company had come to agreement on the issue. "We had a meeting with CASA to discuss their concerns, and we have agreed with CASA to some amendments to our system," he said.
"There will also be a review process in the coming months.
"But CASA has agreed with that, our pilot system will be continued."
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said by using pilots to conduct pre-takeoff safety checks, airlines were watering down an aviation safety system currently among the best in the world. The union's federal executive this week endorsed a series of industry-wide stopwork meetings to consider the issue, starting in Brisbane on March 10.
Virgin maintains the airline has always adhered to safety regulations set by both the aircraft manufacturer and CASA.
But the airline is on notice that it will be watched. "What we are going to do is keep a higher level of surveillance of Virgin Blue in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months to make sure these checks are being done properly," Mr Gibson said.
(ENDQUOTE)
Best regards,
airsupport.
I would prefer to keep out of this lively debate IF it is just going to get personal, as usual.
However it would appear to me that many Pilots are not that happy with this new idea either, and would prefer the status quo.
I happened to be in the Airservices Australia Offices at Brisbane Airport yesterday, have a guess what they were discussing?
Seems most ATC people think it is an unnecessary reduction in safety.
As for the general public, I have had 2 people who are nothing to do with the Industry, but fly as passengers a lot, ask me in the last few days, had I heard of this and what I thought of it?
They both also thought it was a ridiculous exercise in penny pinching, and was making their travelling less safe.
Even IF they all have it wrong (which I don't think they do), there will have to be some smooth talking to convince all these people that safety is NOT being compromised.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz Geek,
Sounds like you're doing the same buddy. Ever heard of right of reply?
Yes about the topic.......
GTG
AN LAME, tried sending you a PM, but your inbox is full......
...obviously your happy to continue to add your 2 cents anytime someone disagrees with you. You must have plenty of spare change.
Yes about the topic.......
GTG
AN LAME, tried sending you a PM, but your inbox is full......
I reckon that the majority of pilots are happy to have engineers continue doing transit checks..BUT when the engineers - or more appropriately their union starts calling it a safety issue in the press we take offence.
I for one do not believe that the removal of engineers is a SAFETY issue. The inference is that the Pilots - the ones who strap their behinds into the aeroplane - are incapable of doing the walkaround - which quite clearly is not the case.
The ALAEA can squawk as loudly as it likes just DON'T call it a safety issue cause it isn't!
THAT is why the pilots are getting anti.
PS Having engineers follow you around when you are doing a walkaround to see if they can trip you up is just petty and not worthy of a professional.
If you are an engineer and doing this - please stop it - because it makes you look petty and is just getting the pilots more offside.
I for one do not believe that the removal of engineers is a SAFETY issue. The inference is that the Pilots - the ones who strap their behinds into the aeroplane - are incapable of doing the walkaround - which quite clearly is not the case.
The ALAEA can squawk as loudly as it likes just DON'T call it a safety issue cause it isn't!
THAT is why the pilots are getting anti.
PS Having engineers follow you around when you are doing a walkaround to see if they can trip you up is just petty and not worthy of a professional.
If you are an engineer and doing this - please stop it - because it makes you look petty and is just getting the pilots more offside.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC Online
ABC News - Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares
Posted: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:52 AEDT
Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has begun hearing how changes to Virgin Blue's pre-flight safety system are allegedly compromising public safety.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has been summoned to the commission after calling a stop-work meeting for next Monday.
Virgin Blue has decided that apart from the first check of the day, all other plane inspections should be conducted by pilots.
But the association's Michael O'Rance says downgrading aircraft engineers' role in preflight safety checks is dangerously lowering standards.
He says the association will detail six critical safety incidents over the past month in which public safety was compromised under the new guidelines, and his members welcome the chance to put their case to the IRC.
ABC News - Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares
Posted: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:52 AEDT
Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has begun hearing how changes to Virgin Blue's pre-flight safety system are allegedly compromising public safety.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has been summoned to the commission after calling a stop-work meeting for next Monday.
Virgin Blue has decided that apart from the first check of the day, all other plane inspections should be conducted by pilots.
But the association's Michael O'Rance says downgrading aircraft engineers' role in preflight safety checks is dangerously lowering standards.
He says the association will detail six critical safety incidents over the past month in which public safety was compromised under the new guidelines, and his members welcome the chance to put their case to the IRC.