Just in defence of the poor Dog ,
I dont think Dog P...ss is as corrosive as a spilled can of coke.
A while ago i had to replace some panels under the floor, becouse someone spilled coke in the back. :\

Islander Jock
Your comments about journalists may not be appropriate in this case. I believe the heckler column in the SMH is not written by journalists - it is open to anyone to submit a story and perhaps get published.

Not dog related but...

Are not some passengers more likely to require a moisture absorbent mat?

What about the ole footy teams...

Projectiles are dangerous... Remember that one Sheepie:O

The point is that there are rules there for a reason, maybe this has highlighted the fact that the rule has never been enforced upon you before.

In the NT it was made illegal to carry an animal unrestrained in the back of a ute - reason animals safety and or proectile animals.

Wouldn't it be in the interest of the Lab to be placed in a shoulder/leg harness (similar to the walking harness) and be restrained to the base of the chair (like the oxy bottle is). After being placed on a moisture absorbent mat? This would cause no discomfort and would abide by the rules...

Woof woof woof...

In the airline that I work for there is no specific mat supplied - which is a problem in it's self.

Dogs as projectiles - then if they are their restraint would have to be approved like anything else to a standard - it isn't.

Dog bodily fluid as a corosive agent damaging aircraft - Not likely to be any more corrosive than what I have seen coming from humans - urine foces (spelline?) vomit or spileed food. Also - the areas that any fluid will be exposed to is not metal - it's composite structure (eg pax compartment flooring) - so it's not an issue

The above points make me once again ask WHAT ARE THE REGS TRYING TO DO

and WHATEVER IT IS - THEY ARE MISSGUIDED.

I also agree CYA is a good policy - but daily we tread a line between safety CYA and reality.

Go figure.

My 2 cents worth.

Pullock, good point about the restraint not being approved, we need to toughen up those regs.
Could you also post a list of which regs we should follow and which ones we should ignore.
Getting harder isn't it? You might call it covering your arse, but agree with them or not, they are there to be followed.

We have read a number of reasons why the dog should have been restrained, including the regs, safety etc.

Now, can anyone provide a sensible reason why it should not have been restrained? Or is someone just trying to stir the pot?

High Altitude,

your post brought back a few memories for me.Iused to work for a charter company in the kimberely years ago and on a joy flight(yeah you guessed it to the bungles)one of my pax decided he needed to go to the toilet,and procceeded to take a dump in his shirt.

He then wrapped it up(you can imagine the smell)and tried to pass it up to me whilst asked me what I would like him to do with it.

YOU CAN IMAGINE MY REPLY!!!!!

after that little episode I always made sure everyone I had on long joyflights had been to the toilet.

cheers

One thing I dont understand is why would the dog be hurt if restrained properly(choker chain around the neck(I think not).

Surely someone with enough common sense would consider using a webbing harness that fits around the dogs body,but hey thats just me.
Maybe the guy in concerned was holding the door when the common sense was issued.

Also as already posted by someone else with commonsense and can read the regulation 256 is fairly self explanetary,and maybe just maybe the reason why the proffessional crew on the flight in question didnt contact you was because they couldnt be bothered trying to explain something so obvious to a moron.

If your original post was a wind up then youve achieved your goal,and stirred the pot.(congratulations you are an excellent journo,and just in case you are not clear on this ,it is not a compliment).

If its not a wind up then mate I feel very sorry for you.


CHEERS

2) Subregulation (1) does not apply to a dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:

(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and

(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and

(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.

I am no aviation lawyer but it seems the main criteria from this reg, is keeping the dog on the mat. Not keeping it from becoming a projectile.

Now some food for thought, "restrained in a way" no where does this reg say physically restrained. What about "SIT", "STAY"? A well trained dog will not deviate from a command under any circumstances.

Having said all that, cheers to the Captain cause if it's in the company ops manual our hands are tied!!

I think I have rambled enough now, off to the bar.

I am a practical person but at the end of the day...penalty 25 units.

Captain Pedant u star
 

dear capt Pendant have u ever bothered to read reg 256 or do QANTAS just not worry about it. To quote

reg 256 Intoxicxated persons not to act as pilots etc. or be carried on aircraft.
(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.

this reg seams pretty clear cut, so i hope that capt Pendant did not let anybody on his aircraft that was intoxicated. i hope this narrow minded indvidual went around the cabin smelling everyones breathand giving then the sobriety test.

Well if captain Pendant did allow intoxicated people on his a/c he is playing russian roulette as many other people have alreday stated, or he was just unfarley picking on the disabled in our community and if that is the case well shame on u and shame on u QANTAS

The Full Monty....
 

Did everyone read The Full Monty's post.....

The poor captain was just the victim of a poor publicity stunt designed to discredit one of our peers.

Captain Pedant (if that's the real spelling of his name), tried to make the best of a bad situation that may have been nothing more than a CASA Inspector staging a violation.

I am getting sick and tired of hearing these tails of woe about guys that don't get into Qantas and then think it's their right to rip at a QF guy any chance they get. I actually knew a guy like that many years ago who did go to CASA! What a nightmare he must have been!!

As a captain of a turbojet flying domestically and internationally out of the USA, I have four reasons to follow the regs and determine safety of flight. Count your bars...1..2...3...4!

I'm stuck on the first post where the blind journo settles in with his book .... !?

Well, obviously he's reading in Braille! Either with a Braille book or one of those Braille machines.

I think it was said before - people who write in the Heckler column are not journalists! It's like writing a letter to the editor, only longer, and they're apparently supposed to be funny (and to their credit, a lot of them are). I'm not necessarily defending journalists here, but it's not entirely their fault this time. Sure, the editor still published this rubbish, but...

About standards for these animal restraints - is it really the purpose of the CARs to outline such standards? Wouldn't that be more suited to the AIPs, CAOs or another such document that is not considered to be "legislation"? Is there an Australian Standard, set by Standards Australia? Or an international standard set by ICAO or IATA? I'm no aviation lawyer, either, but maybe we will find such standards in other documents (no, I haven't looked, but maybe someone who has easier access to those documents can). If there is no such standard set generally, perhaps airlines should take it upon themselves (if they have not already) to make such standards in their own operating procedures and supply the equipment on request. How would this be any different to how they supply equipment like wheelchairs?

Perhaps Mr. Innes, however ignorant (if that is the right word) he may be about the existence of CAR 256A(2)(c) has raised an important issue about the assistance visually impaired travellers.

Oz Mate!