Therein lies an important point; the regulations used to be a reasonable safety net, but now they are a target pursued (or lobbyed against) by unreasonable people.

Ansett pilots accepted the CAO 48 trial partly on management word that the long duty days would be occasional; for disruptions and a couple of problem sectors. What actually happened: crews were routinely rostered to the limit, and expected to extend for disruptions. I recall an FOs anecdote flying with a management Captain faced with the need to extend – Captain: "I'm management – I guess we should extend". FO: "You're management – why don't you follow the rules".

This reads like crew welfare is a high priority: In reality, it's more like a dairy farmer using best practice to get a few more drops of milk from each cow just short of killing them (well, at least until long-service nears).

My hope: the Senate realises airlines are no longer run by reasonable people, and regulates accordingly – the 1500 hour rule is probably a good start.

Flarearmed

Probably the conclusion that the US Senate came to and why they did it!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

DominicYPGV
 

Being a pilot is mainly a decision making job. A very wise CFI once told me this:-

"Good decisions come from experience, experience comes from making bad decisions"

Hence I don't support cadetships in any way, shape, or form. I'd sooner see a pilot make a fatal decision and prang a C206 rather than a A320. (I'd rather not read about a crash at all!)

Of course there are all the other reasons that cadetships are nasty. E.g. IR laws, cost saving etc.

I take it that if the Senate are minded to not introduce the 1500 hours rule then they will also recommend that the minimum requirements for GA and high / low capacity charter work undertaken on behalf of the many Government Agencies will also be reduced accordingly.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Cadets are not the problem, I work with and are friends with cadets that have been through the QF cadet scheme and they are very competent operators. Not better, not worse, just very competent like most of us with experience in aviation.

The problems begin with cadet programs when unscrupulous execs see this as another way of cutting costs by bypassing experience, charging the cadet exorbitant fees and bonds and paying a pittance. And as I said before, you can bet that they will identify more cost savings in the training program over time until all the cadet will eventually graduate with is the minimum CPL and a basic endorsement. Which I am sure at a royal commission would be described by Dumb and Dumber as meeting "industry standards" :yuk:

Airlines currently run on KPI's, and it is dangerous. Until this culture is finished with they cannot be trusted to govern there own safety standards. CASA, and the government for that matter, need to be stronger and not be seen as another employee on the payroll. Until such a time, airline minimum requirements for Aircrew must be considerably increased for the good of all traveling Australians.

Cost cutting and safety go hand in hand in aviation.

Sorry, not in high capacity jet operations it isn't.

Pretty much everything has been decided and laid down in a manual by either your company, the aircraft manufacturer or the regulator.

The PIC gets to choose final fuel load (based on rules laid down and experience) and which meal to eat, which leg to fly. That is the reality. Anyone who tells you anything different has their hand on it.

I do agree with your sentiment though...

Icarus,

Experienced pilots get paid for what they can do, not what they do.

Your statement may be true to a point about day to day airline operations but the reality is when the sh#t hits the fan management are the first to pat each other on the back because the experience of the crew have saved the day and their KPI driven bonus has been saved.

Maybe these incidences are becoming less and less, but would you gamble on your families lives as part of the traveling public that that trend will continue?

Things usually go in cycles and regularly come back to bite us on the ass.

How long do you really wait?
 

Krusty,

I think your implications about the windshear event do not reflect the facts.

The crew pursued all available information before deciding to take-off and only did so in the belief that neither they nor their aircraft was at risk.

The AIPA reps stressed to the Senate Committee that they both believed that the crew acted responsibly and professionally - it was the system that failed to have all the information available and that should be investigated further.

Stay Alive,

Icarus, we still have high capacity RPT flying into non-towered aerodromes. The sh!t I saw today in the circuit from VFR-on-top traffic circuit entry vs high capacity RPT would make your hair stand on end.

Icarus that's extremely short sighted. Day to day ops are governed by SOPs. Thats why airlines are so safe. But these don't cater for every scenario and nor can they. They can't tell you exactly what to do in an emergency when you're required to think outside the square. The whole reason why captains are given the power to overide them if required to uphold safety is because procedures cannot encompass all scenarios. Every flight is different. A monkey can follow standard procedure, so can a low hour pilot. It's when it all hits the fan you need experience. Hence the senate enquiry. That's being said without a 'hand on it'.

I Don't know what is worse... The fact that this industry is going towards the 'idea' of cadetship schemes.. after all that's all they are "SCHEMES" a way to make money.. simply put its easy for them to hire in house from kids with silver spoons in their mouths if they are willing to pay 35K for an A320 endorsement.. or 18k for a job to fly as an FO on a dash 8 with little to no progression in some time.

If I had a dollar for the number of pilots I know that disagree with these so said schemes... pilots that have already paid well above what we should be for a commercial pilot licence only to have to slug it out in GA for the hope of one day getting into an airline, I would have enough money to sue these hypocritical, money hungry, business fed companies and make the Australian public aware of the ongoing and continued safety risks that are imposed by adding a kid, more so with 200 hrs flying a jet capable of putting it on the ground when.. like the incident on the DHL a321 that lost all hydraulics and with the added safety net of and experience crew landed safely with little but not controlability... now add into the equation a 200 hr cadet pilot that doesnt know how to spell the word situational awareness let alone have the experience to apply CRM...which being implemented in ATPL flight exams must mean that it is an important attribute to have..?! no?

Bottom line if the media.. which they do in many areas had as much pull as they could have to spread the word on these issues that are currently being descussed I would happily take these 1000+ posts and send them to ACA god only knows that a real story like this should be trumped on the news for who has the cheaper groceries in your suburb?!

aviation... started from a simple 6o sec flight in history through passion but will evidently end as how could the wright brothers done what they did but reducing the cost...:ugh:

Sunfish, I agree with a lot of what you say but you are so very wrong saying "You do not get this feeling in Three hundred tonnes of aircraft, however exactly the same forces are at work".

Having flown ga and now those 300 tonners I can tell you exactly the same 'seat of the pants' reactions occur.

If you think experience ONLY comes from making bad decisions then you're closing off your mind to probably 99% of the information through which you can increase your experience levels. That you base your decision to not support a cadetship on a flawed premise means that you're ending up with a flawed outcome. How do I know this? Not all cadetships are the same, not all cadets are the same, not all cadets come from the same background, not all cadets go through an identical career path post cadetship.

The irony is that your post actually proves your CFI's point. You've made a bad decision with respect to your premise, hopefully you'll be able to now increase your experience due to your poor decision. :ok:

Re the CASA audit:

Jetstar is correct that the 12 observations are merely that and do not require action or compliance. HOWEVER, as all good managers know 9or should know) This audit's observation will very likely be a strong focus for the next audit, and lack of action or response can very quickly trigger RCAs. The May audit, if it happens, should be interesting.

On another tack, it's about time that eligible managers from CASA, ASA, ATSB, as well as relevant Department execs and Legislators renounced their membership of the QANTAS Chairman's Lounge. This is a blatant conflict of interest if ever there was one!

One word: Rubbish.

Second comment. Blatant generalisation without a shred of evidence supported by ATSB incident/ accident reports in any statistically significant number.

Jetstar flight crew feared death | News.com.au

Jetstar crew feared for their lives, inquiry told
Jet 'would not climb, :=stalled:sad: for several minutes'
Pilot, first officer 'were convinced they would crash':D

Richard Woodward, the A380 captain representing the Australian International Airline Pilots' Association, said it was strange the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had closed an inquiry given that the incident was so serious.
"He (the pilot) was quite concerned and thought that they were going to die because of the severe weather event. It (the plane) actually stopped climbing for quite some period of time," Capt Woodward said.

That article about jetstar crew fearing death has come up a handful of time in the last 3 pages.. You really must be sound asleep 1a.

flyhardmo - sorry jetlag

I think your CFI was wrong. One of the adages I have always believed in for aviation (slightly paraphrased to fit the above quote) is that you learn from the experiences of others because you won't live long enough to experience them all yourself. Besides, it is cheaper that way.

The talk from airline executives about safety being the number 1 priority is male bovine excreta. I recall a talk given in a CASA seminar on safety management systems by the former head of the USAF safety division. He advised never travelling on an airline that advertised safety as being their priority because it means they haven't properly considered the safety issue. If safety was their first priority they would never take an aircraft out of the hanger. What he said was necessary was a very robust risk management approach to flying.

What we are seeing with the Jetstar approach to cadetships, which I understand Jetstar have contracted with the suppliers to be the cheapest form of training that is available, is a complete abandonment of proper risk management principles. Unlike a lot here I believe the cadetship approach can work, it has in many other places of the world with far worse flying conditions and crowded airspace than Australia, as it also did with QANTAS given that the entry point to the airline was a second officer position.

It strikes me that there are two models for low-cost carriers, the original which is Southwest Airlines and its b@rst@rd love-child, Ryanair. It is interesting that Southwest has never to my knowledge taken cadets and still has applicants falling over themselves to get a job there, whereas Ryanair has set the standard for pillaging cadets and now has a queue at the exit door and is still advertising for direct-entry captains.

It is also interesting to note that there is an increasing toll of incidents and accidents with Ryanair. I know Southwest had a hull loss at Midway Chicago but given the intensity of their operations I think their safety record to be better than Ryanair.

Somehow I think the Ryanair model, which I believe Jetstar have adopted is ultimately self-defeating as well as being dangerous. The Senate would do well to take this into their considerations.

PLovett,

You may be suprised to know that many here think Cadetships can work and are a good thing, just not in its present format.

Cadetships should not be about:

* fleecing applicants for a whole brief case of Mummy and Daddys money,
* used as a means to lower employment standards within the industry.
* used as a means to employ a captive and quite compliant workforce ( a quite compliant workforce is not essentially a safe workforce ),

Cadetships should be about ( IMHO, like the QF cadetships was ):

* succession planning,
* providing quality training ( "spending lots of money on training" and "providing quality training" are not always the same thing or directly related ), and,
* used in 2nd officer positions, I would hate to be PIC in an aircraft with a Cadet beside me who is experiencing a rough night on one engine for the first time.....

How can "Cadets" and "Direct Entry" Pilots be on the same seniority list ?.