|
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience?
CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing" Is it really?:confused: |
And there I was working on captaincy and decision making when I should have been working on my aeros. Thats a couple of decades of my career I wont get back.:uhoh:
|
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience?
CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing" Is it really? Wynsock! I am now p*ssed off that I've spent 80K on learning how to fly, I should have just got a playstation or xbox. |
Look I am no Rat fan but the Village have kicked an own goal here.
Why was their submission only TWO pages? Why did they send a third tier Exec? They just didn't treat it seriously and from my vision of the hearing this pissed off the Senators. Sorry guys but you have to get this right if you want to come out as a winner. Senator comments re the Rat CEO were inexcusable and may have played into Rat hands. |
For those that missed it today.
The topic of discussion came around to the QF32 in Singapore & the experience of the particular crew on the day. AJ commented that any other airline & the outcome may have been a lot different. When questioned whether a JQ cadet in the right hand seat would have given the PIC the sufficient support to produce a favourable outcome. Or, if a serious fault existed with a PIC incapacitated. M.R responded he would have complete faith (or similar term) in the competency of the 200 hour cadet. :yuk: Does anyone know whether the issues "On Notice" to be answered by 11th March will go public? I believe it will indicate what strategy the company intends to pursue which would otherwise be commercially & Industrially sensitive information. MC |
After catching bits of todays webcast I am absolutely astounded that our country runs as well as it does.
McGauran showed the comprehension abilities of an 8 year old. Heffernan sounded way out of his depth. Xenophon's level of understanding made those two look like amateurs. I expected insightful questions that might produce constructive answers. Maybe I saw the wrong parts. |
Hi All
Do you think a 200hr, 500hr or 700hr cadet could safely navigate & land this A/C ? let alone in extremely deteriorated weather conditions and Thunderstorms, then an emergency such as engine failure. With the incapacitation of the Captain. YouTube - Cockpit view of a jet landing into Tegucigalpa Honduras TGU |
Do you think a 200hr, 500hr or 700hr cadet could safely navigate & land this A/C ? let alone in extremely deteriorated weather conditions and Thunderstorms, then an emergency such as engine failure. Air travel saw safest year on record in 2010 -IATA | Reuters The FACTS are that just about ANYONE can be trained to operate a modern, western built aircraft. Technology has improved and continues to improve to the point that it is no longer necessary to have operators with highly developed "raw" flying skills.. One accident per 1.6 million flights (and even less in Australia) is an acceptable risk. The FACT is that the 'profession' of pilot is and will continue to be READJUSTED (downwards). |
incoming :=
|
As a fellow Gen Y Compylot, I have to say...you have no F#(@*#N idea what you're talking about...so sit down before you hurt yourself.
You can train a monkey to push the right buttons in the right sequence and write the required hieroglyphics on the take off data card, but when the shiser hits the fan, no doubt the monkey is going to run and hide for his nearest banana. The poor captain is going to run the entire show, WITHOUT the required support from the FO because he has absolutely no experience to draw back from. The captain knows how to handle a situation, not because he's been through the simulator more times than the FO...it's because he's actually been SCARED. He knows FEAR...he know's his limitations, and knows when the pucker factor is going to be just enough before he has to pull back and draw on his EXPERIENCE to find another way out of a pickle. I can guarantee no amount of simulator flying is going to make things safer. You comment that raw skill is not necessary. I'd like to see you say that to the crew of QF 32. Not even the most sadistic checkie could come up with a more dreadful scenario for a check than what those boys EXPERIENCED... Again, as a fellow Gen Y I say go back in your box...your ignorance is nausiating...:yuk: Fuel-Off :ok: |
Compylot
The Air India Express 812 accident in 2010 comes to mind. So just about anyone clown can be trained to fly these western built B738's. They just about fly themselves these days do they? The 158 fatalities on board were due to a runway excursion / pilot error. Anway, thread drift. Back to the clowns at Canberra. |
I see aircraft is back...
|
Compylot,
Hilarious post. Thank you for the great laugh. I always enjoy reading the posts of an academic Gen Y with next to no life experience. My only wish is that when a smoking hole does occur it will be your DNA they are scraping out of the right hand seat and trying to identify you by the one fragment of fingernail remaining. I am happy to make the phone call to your parents informing them also ! Message to CEO's. Congratulations, your up and coming Gen Y program is coming along nicely. Kiddies who live in their parents basement and drive mum's Datsun 120Y who now also sit in the right seat of a passenger jet with no comprehension of history, safety or technology ! Good work. |
The Senator asked the CASA fellow something like, "These cadets joining Jetstar may have 300 hours and as little as 200 hours. Doesn't that worry you? The low level of experience? CASA replied, "No, Its a only hand-eye coordination thing" It's a very sad state of affairs when asked an obvious safety question, CASA (the SAFETY REGULATOR IN AUSTRALIA) regurgitates the rhetoric of airline management's cost-cutting policy. I used to have zero respect for CASA. But now I have even less... how does that work? |
Why not allow the industry to self police itself and rename casa the caaa (civil Aviation Administration Authority).
If yesterday was anything to go by the Senators will hopefully see that the whole management of safety at all levels within the industry is lacking and impose an emergency bill requiring an immediate increase to the hours to 1500 until such time that it can be sorted out. I believe it is this type of scenario that prompted the U.S to try and play it safe. If cadet schemes produce better quality multi crew pilots then let's restrict the amount an airline can charge a cadet for their training to 60,000 dollars with a guaranteed job (bonded for remainder of training costs) and see how popular the cadet programmes are then. On the whole the evidence received yesterday was tainted by those seeking to protect the commercial interests of their organization instead of focussing on what is best for the Australian aviation industry in terms of safety. |
I saw most of it. It seemed to me the stuff about Qantaslink stick-shakers not being reported to the authorities and Jetstar changing the go-around procedures before it nearly cost them a jet was pretty interesting, and there has been no media on this apart from Sandilands.
Yesterday made me realise how useless the papers are when you are trying to get a grip on what on going on. |
The Kelpie Is A Genius
On the whole the evidence received yesterday was tainted by those seeking to protect the commercial interests of their organization instead of focussing on what is best for the Australian aviation industry in terms of safety. The other two Senators, well they'd be lucky to be able to spell their own names. |
Kelpie did indeed offer an accurate summary - it was also intersting that in context the issue of training CC also emerged in several questions.
What was apparent from the QF/JQ/DJ/CASA performances is the aggregate across-the-board deterioration in RPT standards and governance. One key aspect Senator Xeno will have to grapple with is that if his bill gets up - who will be the responsible entity to enact it? - CASA and to a slightly lesser extent the ATSB have demonstrated inability despite their broad and generous Ministerial delegations - (CASA yesterday missed the whole point of foreign carriers & the AOC pass the parcel game plan) Perhaps an idea would be for an empowered panel made up of operationally relevant people to provide governance and accountability of safety reporting and resolution?? - not the usual patsy appointees - but an expert panel with real hands on people pilots, CC, legal etc etc., The panel would need legislative platofrm to provide it with powers of discovery where necessary and would operate as a house of review - that is it would scrutinise the findings/decisions of CASA and the ATSB where required. Sort of an ICAC for aviation safety? Club-Canberra will hate it but it might just be the only thing that can turn around the erosion of Australian Air Safety. AT |
Perhaps an idea would be for an empowered panel made up of operationally relevant people to provide governance and accountability of safety reporting and resolution?? - not the usual patsy appointees - but an expert panel with real hands on people pilots, CC, legal etc etc., |
Why the Senate needs to recall Qantas executives
Why the Senate needs to recall Qantas executives February 27, 2011 – 10:43 am, by Ben Sandilands Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, Jetstar group CEO Bruce Buchanan and the Qantas head of safety, John Gissing, should be recalled for further examination by the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety. In what was a day packed full of surprises on Friday, the committee members heard and discussed some very important insights into their terms of reference, as well as Senator Nick Xenophon exposing a series of serious ‘stick shaker’ incidents involving Qantaslink turboprops, and Senator Bill Heffernan outing what Plane Talking understands was a seriously amateurish incident in a Jetstar A330 that nearly landed at Singapore Airport last year with its wheels up. Xenophon and Heffernan have ‘scooped’ the media with those disclosures, and the committee has been promised written replies concerning them which one would expect will be made public, since they are of immense relevance to the travelling public. But the senators also ran out of time to fully explore some of the issues, some of which are unlikely to be completely resolved by the dozens of questions on notice taken by those who appeared. Some pilots are understood to have contacted the members of the committee concerning pay and conditions figures quoted by Bruce Buchanan in his testimony on Friday morning. However another issue that needs attention is the actual submission Qantas made to the hearing concerning the circumstances in which a Jetstar A320 nearly crashed at Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport on July 21, 2007, while making a missed approach in fog at the end of a flight from Christchurch with about 140 people on board. The bottom of the fuselage of that jet came to within six metres of the ground as the confused pilots attempted to make the jet climb away from the airport. In their testimony to the committee both the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, and the CEO of CASA, John McCormick, said the prime factor in that incident was the changing by Jetstar of the standard operating procedures for a missed approach some two weeks before the incident. Yet the Qantas submission to the inquiry makes no mention of this, and tries to blame the pilots. This in itself is a nonsense, as Qantas and Jetstar are responsible for piloting standards. The ATSB final report makes it clear that the pilots were confused because they had been instructed to check the throttle settings (which had been incorrectly set) much further down the check list that required by the manufacturer. There are several critical elements in this. It was illegal for Jetstar to change the standard operating procedures for the missed approach. It was illegal for Jetstar to fail to conduct a safety systems management evaluation of the changes and the airline also failed to keep any written records that the ATSB could find in relation to these changes. To quote from an earlier report: Before 1998 Australia allowed unique flight manuals, and thus their incorporated standard operating procedures or SOPS, to be devised by its airlines and approved by the equivalent of CASA today. But since then, the only approved flight manual, or AFM, for any type of airliner flown by an Australian carrier is the one published by the manufacturer and approved by the certification authority in the jurisdiction that applied to it. Boeings thus have AFMs which are approved by the US authority and adopted by convention by other aviation regulators, and Airbuses have AFMs approved by the European authorities. If Jetstar wanted to change any of its SOPs in relation to its A320s it was under strict legal obligation to obtain the approval of both Airbus and its certification authority. A formal variation of the certification paperwork in Australia would then ensue. None of these steps were taken by Jetstar. It made a change to the SOP applying to missed approaches by an A320 that meant the pilots were no longer required to immediately confirm the correct flight mode of the jet. That mode should have been to put the jet into its go around mode by engaging the TOGA or take-off and go-around engine power detent. In fact they selected a lower, inadequate and potentially dangerous setting. The ATSB report also says: The operator had not conducted a risk analysis of the change to the procedure and did not satisfy the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system (SMS) or of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. These failures on the part of Joyce and Gissing were matters that brought Australia close to its first crash by an Australian registered jet airliner. They are inexcusable failures, and they would not have come to light but for media persistence. What CEO of an airline and what head of safety for that airline would be ignorant of their reporting obligations in law, or ignorant of the rules concerning changes to standard operating procedures? Did they seriously think the committee would accept a submission that blamed those events on the pilots other than themselves, as the heads of the airline and of its safety respectively? Perhaps they did. In Friday’s hearing Alan Joyce made an unsuccessful attempt to rewrite history by claiming that it wasn’t a media report, including one of mine in Crikey on September 11, 2007, which lead to the incident being fully investigated by the ATSB. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.