Regulator fails Jetstar crew on safety
 

Mon "Melbourne Age"

Regulator fails Jetstar crew on safety
By Scott Rochfort
June 28, 2004

Jetstar may face delays with the launch of its fleet of Airbus 320s after the aviation safety regulator "failed" the Jetstar crew delivering the first of the aircraft from France.

Casting doubts on Jetstar's ability to bring its first A320 into service on July 20, Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspectors questioned the expertise of the budget airline's crew after it was flown from the Airbus factory to Melbourne on Monday.

"There were certain issues raised by us in relation to the operation of that flight which Jetstar are addressing," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

CASA would not specify the problems, only to say they were not "show stoppers".

Despite Jetstar still being without the necessary air operators certificate (AOC) to put its A320s into commercial service, Mr Gibson said: "The process of upgrading the certificate to include the A320s is progressing satisfactorily."

Jetstar's present AOC only allows it to operate Boeing 717s.

Set to take delivery of 23 A320s by mid-2006, the 177-seat aircraft will gradually replace Jetstar's fleet of 14 125-seat Boeing 717s over the next two years and will form the backbone of the airline's plans to eventually expand beyond the east coast of Australia.

The airline's corporate relations manager, Simon Westaway, said he was confident the first Jetstar A320s would enter service by July 20.

When asked about the Jetstar crew being failed on the delivery flight, Mr Westaway said: "We think it's inappropriate to comment on matters between the regulator and the licence holder."

Jetstar is set to hold a series of "proving" flights for the aircraft out of Sydney this week. In order to obtain an AOC, Jetstar must prove it can carry out all the necessary procedures to safely operate a fleet of A320s; from flying, maintenance, keeping records and having adequately trained crew.

Virgin Blue encountered similar problems with its own launch four years ago, when it was forced to resubmit its AOC papers.

The first Jetstar A320 is slated for services from Sydney to the Sunshine Coast, and Sunshine Coast to Avalon airport near Geelong. Jetstar plans to add one A320 to its fleet each month, before using the aircraft to expand westward later in the year.

Already operating on 14 destinations along the east coast, Jetstar plans to use the A320 to open up new destinations such as Alice Springs, Ayers Rock, Darwin, Broome, Townsville and Adelaide after November.

There are suspicions Jetstar will eventually replace Qantas domestic services on lower yielding non-capital city routes dominated by holiday travellers. The launch of Jetstar one month ago has already seen Qantas pull out services to Hamilton Island, Proserpine and the Sunshine Coast.

Amid talk Qantas could one day just concentrate on routes with higher yielding business traffic (Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne), the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation's managing director, Peter Harbison, said: "Whether or not it comes [down to] capital city routes will be just a matter of playing it day by day."

But Mr Harbison predicted more cheap airfares, given Qantas's desire to claw back some of the 34 per cent market share Virgin has snared since the collapse of Ansett.

"I'm quite sure that Qantas has got the real intention to get their market share back to 80 per cent, or 75 per cent at least," he said.

Added to the huge amount of capacity coming into the market with the delivery of Jetstar's A320 fleet, Mr Harbison said there was no doubt the Qantas offshoot would need to offer discount fares to attract passengers.

==========================================

Interesting... VERY interesting!

Sort of corroborates a few things some have said PERHAPS.

I assume that the delivery flight of the inaugural A320 would HAVE to have been done by the A320 type specialist. Now, that'd be A.S would it not? :yuk:

"[i]Jetstar may face delays with the launch of its fleet of Airbus 320s after the aviation safety regulator "failed" the Jetstar crew delivering the first of the aircraft from France.

Casting doubts on Jetstar's ability to bring its first A320 into service on July 20, Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspectors questioned the expertise of the budget airline's crew after it was flown from the Airbus factory to Melbourne on Monday.

"There were certain issues raised by us in relation to the operation of that flight which Jetstar are addressing," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

CASA would not specify the problems,

WTF do journo's encourage that Harbison character.

What sort of informed intellectual comment is A self proclaimed consultant should ba able to offer predictive informed advice. Not some ar$e covering, bet hedging, wishy washy statement that a high school student could make up.

It's about as useful as a meteorologist saying "it will rain" to a farmer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[/RANT]

CS on another midnight linguistic tirade. :hmm:

How surprising, NOT............ ;)

Standing by for beaucoup ranting and raving by all the experts who know all about operating a jet but nothing about operating a jet airline. :zzz:

Can't wait for someone to suggest it wouldn't have happened if they paid them more. :hmm:

Not necessarily itchy. Many have suggested that these guys should heve held out for more money thus creating a better bargaining situation for all pilots in Oz. But that doesn't really have much to do with this little hiccup, does it?

Keg has suggested previously that the major problem that QF pilots have with the Impulse pilots, is that they are acceptable to the QF Group only on an income which is significantly below the going rate. Well, now it comes back to bite them. If indeed these guys and gals were rejected by QF, then there remains a possibility that it was for a reason.

So this really has nothing to do with pay, but everything to do with standards. I know my family won't be jumping on a Jetstar flight for the forseeable future.

Spot on Yorik, Where's our mate Chucky?

Slightly confused guys, so bear with me...

1) Impulse gets purchased by QF to operate as Qantaslink, and now, Jetstar.

2) Whilst I know of some pilots who have applied to Qantas (and some have got in, some haven't), I doubt ALL have applied, in particular the 89-er's who are with us (and please, let's not go down the 89 road with this thread...)

3) Does calling these pilots 'John West rejects' actually achieve anything? No. So why bother? It's done - true, I don't necessarily agree with the agreement they made, but it's done.

4) Would there be the debate that there is about the altered Agreement if these guys were NOT part of the QF Group? QF would have used the T&C reached by these pilots as the benchmark for large-narrow bodied a/c anyway...whether or not they were part of the QF Group.

5) Aren't they in the process of reaching a Career Progression-style agreement where for every 6-ish commands, there's one for someone from QF and vice versa? Last thing I heard about their IPC and AIPA.

Guys - it's done. You need to move on and try to do the best with what's provided. Calling each other names only demeans the point you're each trying to make.

For goodness sake grow up you lot and stop your back stabbing.
If anyone has information regarding why this occurred then let them say so. The reasons for failure may be a lesson to the aviation community.
Otherwise just go away

Flyspray. Nice post. Plenty to contribute yourself, not. This is a rumour network, isn't it? Thats what the name says? Then how about you allow a little discussion, without your own brand of censorship?

The fact that CASA has found reason that these people aren't operating correctly makes a fairly profound statement, doesn't it?

Yorik,

(And YES I know I'm repeating myself, but then so are these clowns!)

Didn't CASA have a little to say about your mob when you parked one on the fairway?

And YES, it DID make a profound statement, one that's been largely ignored by egos like yours.

how in the world would some CASA looser know even the front end of a jet, let alone critise the safety. Personally I would like to know the facts. But when you get some looser who never got out of GA (refer to DJ loosers) saying these things, hmmmmmmmm welll????

bring it on you bitches and scabs!!!! sont forget the loosers who could only get out of GA to DJ by paying for a job....

bring it!!!

and if my spelling is wrong who gives a toss, flying a 747 doesnt need grammer, it needs ANC!!!!

go figure.

QF and wanking it,

This has to be a wind up. Nobody could be THAT stupid.

If it's not, then it's no wonder that your mob parked a 747 on a fairway in BGK.
It's been said before, and no doubt it will be again. Just because a pilot was rejected by an airline doesnt mean he was not good enough. He was just not good enough on the day, that is out of the group of interviewees, he wasn't one of the top, or what the panel saw as the top. In another group he might stand out and the position would be quite different.

As well as that he may have had an off day in the sim and didn't fly the NDB approach well or something similar. Of course, a QF typoe like you would never have a bad day. Maybe a bad hair day, but not a bad day.

Now I've seensome awfully bad pilots who did get in, and some very good ones who didn't, so your logic is cocked up.

With your attitude it surprises me that they didn't knock yoju back because of a lack of maturity.
Spelling? You're right in that you don't need to be able to spell well to fly a 747, or a kite for that matter, but you do need a degree of intelligence and I'm not sure you possess much of that commodity.

ys120fz, there`s no need to try to explain what you have to jerk-offs like QFandlovinIT - whom I sincerely doubt IS a QANTAS pilot.
He`s a wind-up merchant, trying to put QF pilots in a bad light.

But you`ve just GOTTA love his classicYou would HAVE to have 2 dicks, QFandlovinIT:p

QF and pulling it
 

There is no doubt about it pal, you have just lifted your skirt and shown the world what a half wit you are. I pity the skipper that has to put up with your crap, on a pond hop. O yes I know, how is it I can tell you are an S/O or at best a F/O that slipped through the filters. Go figure………………………Don’t think about it for to long though my little buddy, I don’t want to read about you.

Arrrr that feels better.
:E

What's the African National Congress got to do with this thread?:}

As opposed to "Tighter":}

Chill, Mo-Fo's:cool:

ys120fz wrote: I've written before that every airline believes it's recruiting process is the best. It doesn't mean it actually is. Fortunately, other airlines around the world prefer the qualities that another may not.;) and are just as "safe":ok:

It's a big world out there. Enjoy!

Thank you Mr Jarse.

You're quite right of course, timing is everything, although may I make the observation that what may slip through the airline filters very rarely gets past the denizens of PPRuNe unscathed.:} :ok:

Was it Oscar Wilde (he gets blamed for nearly everything), GBS, it might have even been Danny or Rob, who said "let no turn go unstoned":p

YorikHunt and QFandtuggingitlotsIT - what a pathetic pair of gutter snipes.

I don't recall there being any questions on the QF employment assessment tests regarding ones ability to correlate safe operation of a motorplane with income.

How disgraceful to suggest that any professional pilot would operate his/her aircraft less safely simply because the pay scale is lower than his/her peers.

If so, could you please suggest how much more you would like to be paid to stop leaving your aircraft doors behind at the aeorbridge - pornstar are doing iut much cheaper, and I doubt you will be able to compete.

mmmmmm

Apart from the press 'data', can anyone say what the hell CASA didn't like about the J* operation? They were there for 6 or so sectors.

There's an argument to say if there was someting they picked up, they should've got off on the spot and grounded the show??:rolleyes:

G'day ;)

Well, thats not a very nice post carpe. BTW, isn't that a fish?

I don't recall suggesting that Impulse pilots intentionally operate their aircraft less safely than Qantas simply because they are paid less. In fact, if you go back and read my original post you will see exactly the opposite is true. There is nothing INTENTIONAL about it.

I have simply stated that they operate less safely because many of these pilots (not all!) have been rejected, for one reason or another. That doesn't mean that they dont try their best. It just means that their best isn't good enough.

Now you can run down the QF selection process all you like, but if just one of these chaps was turned down for a valid reason, and is now operating with Jetstar, then that makes the Jetstar operation less safe. There can be NO argument about that.

And the fact that the guys are acceptable only on a lower pay scale really stinks to high heaven. Or QCC perhaps.

QF must have changed its selection then Yorik. Last I heard it was 45 mins in a sim with one person, a bit of IQ stuff to see if you are a stable extrovert and a face to face chat with the odd tech qu thrown in.

Not a single opportunity to show how to perform under pressure of emergency, how to interact with other crew, how much you study and can recall relevant stuff, etc.

You cannot deduce that a person who misses out on QF is a less safe flying pilot as no QF pilot is assessed on safe flying ability.

Get over it.

BTW. There are many pilots out there who missed out on Cathay and are now in QF. So by your reasoning that makes QF less safe than Cathay?

YOU need to read what I said over again CS. QF may not get it right ALL the time. BUT if they got it right just once, JUST ONCE, then that person now flying for Jetstar makes that operation less safe, and is an accident waiting to happen. And I happen to know a couple of the guys flying for Jetstar. Good blokes, but one of 'em is simply dangerous in an aeroplane. Frightens the crap out of me, knowing what could happen.

But what do I know, right? I'm a product of the QF system. According to most on here, that makes me a freak, a product of a flawed recruiting system who's arrogance means that we should really place our aerobridges on golf courses, because 99.9% of the time, thats where we park 'em. Spare me.

And further, I'm not allowed to say anything. Because if I stated this on qrewroom, I'd face vilification from anyone in management, because it highlights their incompetence, I'd face vilification from AIPA, because it highlights their incompetence, and I could kiss my otherwise satisfactory career goodbye. Problem is, I say my piece here and the lunatic fringe tell me that because I'm QF, I'm not worthy (somehow?).

So go ahead and ban me Woomera. Can't have people stating the truth here, can we?

Yorik Hunt

You are a classic testament of a flawed system. You are an example of one who slipped through the net. I know your character and personality. Private School education (no offence to others I have it as well). Cadetship at a young age. Lived a sheltered life with no hard worn trail. Things came easy to you. So much so you developed your arrogance and you have deduced that you are somehow special to have had such an easy road.

You would not have the balls because you know you would be vilified and quite rightly so if you posted on Qrewroom. Do yourself and your collegues a favour and stop posting this garbage. I know a quite fair few ex Impulse drivers in your company who are average or the norm. Not outstanding but the norm and all are good blokes. You on the other hand, well I do not like your character and I am happy to know I do not even work with people that are like you.

Well it isn't just management. Strange you admit everyone else is wrong but you are right.


Grow up and think before you post.

And therefore if they got it wrong JUST ONCE, QF is therefore less safe, right?

(Actually, that explains a few things!! FORE!!)

There's a perfect example of the lunatic fringe telling me how substandard I am - I must BE, because I would dare to critisise their organisation. Yet - here are those who would not have their own organisation logically critisised, doing their own critisising right back again. Hypocracy in the extreme.

adama. You are wrong there on every count of my background and heritage. You are correct though, I wouldn't have the balls to tell everyone on Qrewroom, because I wouldn't put my family through the sh1t that accompanies it. Thats logical and fair, right? So, if you think that, then you give us your name here, or even on Qrewroom if you think that is reasonable. No? Haven't got the balls, right? That makes it much worse that you would say such things of me, when you clearly haven't the character either.

Wiz? Your logic defeats comprehension, however because Jetstar is unfortunately part of the QF group, then Yes, QF is less safe. But I wouldn't have a problem with putting my family on QF mainline. Jetstar - NO WAY! And we are back to the golf course analogy? No wonder it is very hard to respect you lot.

And Yorik

Your user name is offensive , how long did it take you to think that one up.
BTW...a spell checker might help you

Thank you Hanoi. My brother Rex thanks you too. Blame my parents.

Yorik,
There is a common trend here. May I suggest you pull your head in a grow up.:yuk:

No no little Yorik, that doesn’t make you a freak. But the rest of your bleating does.

'Your a'
I see you've created your new alias - now all of 8 posts. Which one of the banned ones are you?
Whoever you are, you are a whimp. You preach from a position of anonymity here but not game to repeat same when you are identified on qrewroom.
If "your family" (not that I think you'd have any offspring) are anything like you, I'm sure J* wouldn't want put up with them anyway
:p :p :p :p

Geez, come on don't waste your time being baited by this Yorker, he could be a QF guy he could not be, either way he just feeds on your bites. By the way he sounds I doubt he is in any airline, just wasting his time here, remember "As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent."

Anyway it was about a jetstar flight , any info on that?

Like I said before. All back stabbing and dribble.
Is there any one out there that can state,or rumour if you like, as to what occured to cause this embarassing failure.

Actually, I couldn't give a rats about bites from clear lunatics. I am interested in making a point.

And that point is this - Jetstar (read IPG) is an organisation which has a clear intent of undermining pay and conditions in Australian aviation. But the side effect is that the airline is dangerous.

Watchdog, OK then my friend. You first. Who are you then? Or are you a 'whimp'?

Yorik, I know you cant respond anymore on pprune, but if you'd like to start a post on Qrewroom mainline titled YORIK...I will respond to you!

Flyspray,
quite right, this post is off at a tangent.

I think that what Simon Westaway has stated is fair in that J* shouldn't be commenting about what occurred between the licence holder (ie pilot) and the regulator. I find it a little inappropriate that CASA public relations even issues media statements on this....for example if Chief Flying Instructor Joe Bloggs busts an MDA on his CASA I/R renewal does this go to CASA media for publication? No! It could even be differing viewpoints or even a personality conflict between the officer and the candidate rather than a performance standard.
Different story if an operator, say, doesn't carry out service bulletins eg. B767 engine pylon crack inspections etc

Watchdog

You said "I find it a little inappropriate that CASA public relations even issues media statements on this."

Maybe CASA was getting in first before the J* spin doctors changed the story from J* ops not being up to snuff, to a delay by CASA.

I know which one looks worse for J*.

TBT

Alas poor Yorik etc.
Page one nearly gets it right re A. S. so I hear!! But now I also hear one and the same has gone to pick up the next delivery??
Am I right or am I right?
What was the problem??

I have it from good authority that it wasn't A.S. He passed his check yesterday with CASA.

Now, you blokes are flying airplanes, right?

But you can't spell wimp, right?

God help us all! :confused:

It is a matter of record that there are pilots working for QANTAS now who have in the past been found unacceptable by QANTAS.

These same pilots, who qualified for their long service leave not so long ago, have managed to do the job just fine as well as getting paid very handsomely.

Are their some who are really suggesting that it would now be dangerous to board a QF 737 just because the pilot was at one time rejected by QANTAS.

Utter rubbish!!

Yorik,

With luck you'll be first out the door when the IPG guys take all the mainline jobs. :hmm: