Forget legal, how about moral?

[The Bunglerat]

Irrespective of the legalities, a couple of recent conversations with some flying buddies have given me pause to reflect on the moral obligations an operator has to provide its drivers with safe equipment, appropriate to the task.

To be more specific: In six years of flying IFR, I have been fortunate to only have a close encounter of the third kind with thunderstorms on two occasions. In my opinion, it was two times too many, and I feel for anyone stuck at the controls of a light, piston-engine aeroplane, having to contend with such miserable conditions. On the other hand, it may be ice - for which I've had a lot more experience in this regard. However I'm lucky that I have now moved on to a position in the industry where I no longer have to sit at the lower levels and put up with this crap.

Nevertheless... Whatever the weather may be, every day (and especially at night) pilots all over the country are being sent out in appalling conditions - in aircraft that have barely legal IFR instrumentation, and certainly nothing in the way of a stormscope, radar, or de-icing equipment to provide some additional measure of protection. One mate of mine recently told me a story where he was doing a night-freight run. The ARFOR looked ugly enough, but the view out the front window was even worse, with heavy rain and lightning activity along most of his planned track. Needless to say, he had none of the aforementioned equipment onboard the aircraft to offer him any consolation, and yet he knew that to cancel the run would likely result in him being out of a job the following day.

In just about any other industry, employers would be raked over hot coals for not providing their employees with safe equipment and a safe working environment. Yet this is clearly not the case in the aviation industry - certainly not in GA.

Anyone care to offer their two-cents?

[tinpis]

Needless to say, he had none of the aforementioned equipment onboard the aircraft to offer him any consolation, and yet he knew that to cancel the run would likely result in him being out of a job the following day.

He needs another job.

[ballsdeep]

Originally Posted by The Bunglerat

In just about any other industry, employers would be raked over hot coals for not providing their employees with safe equipment and a safe working environment. Yet this is clearly not the case in the aviation industry - certainly not in GA.
Anyone care to offer their two-cents?

I agree completely. Some of the very agerage part time work I have done in between flying, has demonstrated amazing OHAS practices, and as you said every thing is safety this and safety that. And when it comes to flying we are forced to fly clapped out old shaggers, in appalling weather for a dollar a day.

I think it still comes down to the fact that we as pilots are stupid enough to fly under these circumstances, and if we don’t someone else will be waiting in line to take the controls and be wrapped. Purely because of the carrot dangling in their face which is the airlines. I know it has been said time and time again, but we need to unite and take a stand for this ****, but as you know we don’t, and still plug away with our flying. A few years later we make it to the airlines, and forget about the poor soul, flying an over weight navajo to Hobart in bad WX, ice etc etc, and the cycle continues.

[DirectAnywhere]

Gee, it's a good question and one that I imagine will generate a fair bit of debate.

Unfortunately, I would imagine the standard reply will be that it's command prerogative whether to take the aircraft or not with the forecast conditions and equipment levels.

As far as CASA is concerned the exerting of undue pressure with regard to job security, future promotional prospects etc. is of little interest provided the flight is undertaken "legally".

This exercise of command judgement under adverse pressure only seems to be taken into consideration when the ATSB publishes its findings into some accident or other. The recent tragedy into Hotham for example is one that springs to mind where commercial pressures were considered a factor. This appears not to have been considered previously in spite of CASAs extensive monitoring of the pilot in question prior to the accident.

To CASA's credit though in instances where gross negligence has been proved (Monarch is one that comes to mind) they acted - albeit after the fact.

I guess fortunately most times pilots get themselves out of these hairy situations with little more than a need for a change of underwear. Unfortunately, you also get sitautions as with the chieftain near Coonabarabran last year where four (?) people ended up spread over a paddock because of such an instance.

I guess it's like most things these days. Everybody is under pressure to get the job done at the cheapest possible price. Until the travelling public and the regulator accept that the price of higher safety is more expensive travel - rather than cost cutting other areas - nothing will change. I guess we have to consider as professionals what accident rate is "acceptable" and whether we as pilots are willing to accept that or lobby CASA and the Government to change the rules to improve our level of workplace safety.

Conversely, there should be a knowledge that at present, Charter aircraft are not required to be equipped to the same standard as RPT aircraft.

Provided the operator is providing the minimum legal required level of equipment either under the CAOs or some MEL/ PUS system, they are bulletproof in terms of their OH+S obligations.

Legal? Yes? Moral? That's a question far too philosphically advanced for me to even consider!

[mince]

Simple. If in doubt, delay departure until weather improves, or don't go at all. Sure your boss might rant and rave a bit, but I would hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10 they will trust your judgement and won't fire you. If he does, find another job. They are out there.

As my boss once said to me, 'the world won't end if joe bloggs doesnt get his mail tomorrow, but you may end if you try and fly through that cell...'

[wdn]

the fact is though, not enough planes drop out of the sky due to pilots

being sent out in appalling conditions - in aircraft that have barely legal IFR instrumentation, and certainly nothing in the way of a stormscope, radar, or de-icing equipment to provide some additional measure of protection.

for anyone to care.

aviation is very safe. whether its due to equipment or people or just the big ol' sky is irrelevant to the travelling public.

most companies are morally bankrupt and understandably so, when their motive is profit. i heard a rumor that Woolworths is the second biggest owner of pokies in NSW after the Casino. BAL rips everyone off blind yet they help Angel Flight. they're all full o' ****e.

if the answer to the question of whether it is morally wrong to equip aircraft as the poster suggests is yes, i have to ask "so what?" what difference will it make?

until the driving factor of human behaviour changes from self advancement to self improvement nothing is gonna change.

is it morally wrong for you, Mr The Bunglerat, to fly the aircraft as you describe with pax on board if you think its dodgy? if not, then why expect anyone else to change?

[bushy]

Duty of care.

Pilots also have a duty of care to pax, aircraft, people living under the flightpath etc. If you flew "an overloaded navajo" in order to get experience to look for another job then you can blame yourself. You have acted irresponsibly. If you have done this then you are not the sort of pilot who will get an airline job. Those traits will go with you wherever you go. And potential employers look for such things.

If you cannot find an operator who does things right then maybe it is time to re-assess.

[compressor stall]

I remember getting reamed by the ops manager for turning back. The flight was one way on min fuel as no holding on the TAF and wx above alt minima. One third of the way out, FS called up with TAF AMD - BKN004 with tempo CBs. I couldn't make anywhere else with fuel that did not have below alt minima.

After much ranting and raving, offloaded some freight, put on appropriate fuel and all was OK (and the wx WAS ****e!). Later provided both TAFs and reasoning to the CP, along with statement that it would have been illegal/reckless etc for me to continue under the circumstances and heard no more from anyone.

Management tasks you to do something. If you can't do it legally or safely, you have to be able to justify why to CP/management. That is part of your responsibility as a line pilot.

[gaunty]

compressor stall

Gets it in one;

Management tasks you to do something. If you can't do it legally or safely, you have to be able to justify why to CP/management. That is part of your responsibility as a line pilot.

It is that simple.

DirectAnywhere

Provided the operator is providing the minimum legal required level of equipment either under the CAOs or some MEL/ PUS system, they are bulletproof in terms of their OH+S obligations.

with respect, the other leg of that argument in so far as the pilots obligation to his/her employer is that the pilot can/will operate the flight up to but not beyond the extent to which the equipment supplied by the employer will allow.

See compressor stall above.

Further;

I guess we have to consider as professionals what accident rate is "acceptable" and whether we as pilots are willing to accept that or lobby CASA and the Government to change the rules to improve our level of workplace safety

You don't need to do anything of the sort, all you have to do is operate according to the existing rules.

When 9.5 out of 10 flights in winter do not complete because the aircraft has no known icing or has to carry return fuel or any of the hundred reasons due to an inadequately equipped aircraft, the operator will get the message, likewise in summer if you have to divert or even return because of that line of TS on track and you dont have an adequate radar, the operator will get the message.

CASA can only prosecute the pilot if he/she operates the aircraft beyond the capability of the CASA approved installed equipment. The pilot is the ONLY "johnny on the spot" in so far as operation of the flight is concerned.

See compressor stall above.

I am not suggesting the operators have clean hands, far from it, but the buck really stops with the PILOT IN COMMAND.

When you accept the flight as PILOT IN COMMAND it is your responsibility to conduct the flight LEGALLY. If you cannot then as PILOT IN COMMAND it is your responsibility to terminate, divert or cancel the flight accordingly.

More rules aren't going to fix ANYTHING if you dont stick to the ones we've got.

Can't argue with bushy's

If you cannot find an operator who does things right then maybe it is time to re-assess.

.

Think that one through to its logical conclusion, then go beat up on the pilots who are prepared to, not the operator.

I don't suppose many young pilots out there have worked out that the operator needs you more than you need them in this regard.

Otherwise why bother to go to all the trouble and considerable expense of learning the rules, being examined and otherwise put through the hoops by the regulator, if you dont intend and are in any event required by the privileges of your license to abide by them.

[M.25]

This thread reminds me of a time when I worked for one of ‘those’ bosses. One time I decided to cancel a fairly lucrative charted due weather. When I broke the news to the boss I thought that he was going to blow a valve, and that my employment was going to at least be very miserable from thereon in. Presenting TAF’s and ARFOR’s as evidence didn’t help my case one little bit - “They’re always wrong anyway” he would argue. I never heard the end of it, but I always stood my ground on the issue.
To my amazement, on my last day with the company the boss approached me and shook my hand. He praised me highly for standing my ground on the issue and confessed that I was one of the very few pilots who had ever worked for him that allowed him to sleep whilst I was on a job. I had actually gained a huge amount of trust and respect.
We have to fly most days of the week, most weeks of the year, possibly for the rest of our lives. You might get away with taking an unnecessary risk once, twice or even a thousand times….but one day you will come unstuck….and for what?!

[prospector]

http://www.caa.govt.nz/ then click on whats new

12 Jul 06 Coroner Recommendations: Accident 6 June 2003, Aircraft: Piper Chieftain, registered ZK-NCA, Operator: Air Adventures New Zealand Ltd

Status of Actions as at 27 Jun 06

It is to be regretted that these recommendations that come from coroners courts very seldom seem to be acted upon. And it is even more regrettable that the coroner has to make such obvious recommendations to the organisation responsible for overseeing the safe operation of public transport aircraft.

[tinpis]

LOL...print a copy of this thread and keep it in yer nav bag for the boss.

[gaunty]

tinpis me old.

M.25

“They’re always wrong anyway”

is true, they can be worse as well as better.

that I was one of the very few pilots who had ever worked for him that allowed him to sleep whilst I was on a job

everybody wins.

prospector shades of CAA/CASA pre Seaview/Monarch.
I seem to recall a certain GA advocacy org praising the daylights out of NZ regulatory and industry cooperation and crying for a move by Oz in that direction.

How do you separate law enforcement from safety enforcement and how do you enforce safety.

IMHO safety is a state of mind backed up by proven and continually tested procedures, the law side of the equation is only the punishment for the lack of motivation.

[tinpis]

LOL...heehee gaunty Katherine to a Darwin brick the boss looks at it and says
..."Well I like number 1 , Mr tinpis suggestion best"

[transonic dragon]

I must say that up until recently I haven't copped any heat for canning a flight due weather or unserviceability. Sorry to say that a couple of months ago I was threatened with my job by the owner of the company after reporting a fault in the aircraft which required a ferry flight under CASA permit. Legitimate problem, but I was expected to "carry" it. No way, dude.

I'd always thought I would have no qualms about walking out on a job where this sort of crap went on, but it's most definitely a different story when you're confronted with it for real. I think there's no doubt that your career would suffer if you left over these sorts of incidents, no matter how well you could justify your actions. The dodgy operators (ie most of GA) stick together, and would always believe the word of a fellow shonky owner over a humble liney (ie don't touch this bastard - he's a trouble maker). It's one thing to get on one's high horse and say that Capt X should just look for another job, but it's just not that clear-cut, particularly for the low-timers who have just cracked their first job, or for those like me who are just cracking the twin time. Of course, we pilots are part of the problem too for not taking a united stand, but let's be honest and accept that that will never happen in GA.

The other part of the problem is CASA, which not only tailors the rules to cater for the lowest common denominator - ie the minimum possible equipment for IFR, rather than realistic safety - but is also clearly against the pilot as far as reportage goes. I recall a time when CAIRs had operators running scared, and there was a definite improvement, if only in morale of the drivers. Now the confidentiality is gone completely, and the pilot is branded by CASA for reporting incidents, because you're always assumed to be complicit with the dodgy operation, no matter how well you can cover your butt. With the voluntary self-report system we have now requires dates, times, aircraft rego, etc and is published on the internet for god's sake. Confidentiality/anonymity is absolutely gone, and the dodgy brothers love it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked into it, and it seems that this is the case currently (ie confidential reporting a thing of the past). It's a sad story which has been going on since the advent of commercial aviation, and the poor pilot is still in trouble no matter what.

[Centaurus]

When you decide not to fly an aircraft that is clapped but legal, just remember the old truism: "Aviation is full of of unemployed highly principled pilots."

[M.25]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

When you decide not to fly an aircraft that is clapped but legal, just remember the old truism: "Aviation is full of of unemployed highly principled pilots."

Aviation is full of a lot of things.

Although ‘go-no go’ and ‘continue-turn back’ decisions are never made lightly in a commercial situation, sometimes they have to be made in the interest of safety and/or legality.
An aircraft with minimum IFR equipment can be perfectly safe most of the time, but if your area is littered with embedded CB’s and heavy rain, it is the PIC’s decision as to whether the flight can be conducted safely. No one is going to tell you not to go, this is why you are called a commercial pilot, and it is exactly what you were employed for. An operator should be able to roster you for a flight and expect that it will be carried out safely and efficiently without having to watch over your shoulder. Any wally can just blast off into sky - this has been demonstrated many times. If you intentionally fly into unsafe weather, then you are not doing your job. There are descent operators out there that support this.

[The Bunglerat]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

When you decide not to fly an aircraft that is clapped but legal, just remember the old truism: "Aviation is full of of unemployed highly principled pilots."

...And that pretty much sums it up. Do the right thing, stand your ground, and end up in a queue at Centrelink.

In starting this thread, I never for one moment intended to promote a scenario that absolved the PIC of his part in the decision-making process. It should go without saying that ultimately it is the pilot who should be making the final call.

Nevertheless, whilst I don't doubt there are some reputable operators who support their pilots' decisions in such circumstances, experience has taught me that for every decent guy in this industry, there are ten scumbags lined up in front of him - employers and employees alike.

I've never had a problem standing my ground when I'm not happy about something (and have lost a job or two over it as well - although I still sleep soundly at night). I'm concerned for the younger, inexperienced guys out there who want to do the right thing, but are victims of coercion and abuse when they do. There might be a few crusty old GA veterans out there who will argue that a few nasty encounters with thunderstorms and icing are character-building experiences, that "it'll put hairs on your chest and make a man out of you."

Bollocks. Like I said before, that sort of employer attitude in any other industry would have the OH&S police cutting off their balls in no time. But of course there'll be a few macho drivers out there who like to promote the same attitude as well as their employers (thinking it will win them points), and the rest will fall into line without so much as a peep, just to avoid rocking the boat and alienating themselves.

So maybe more of us should be asking CASA: Why are the lives of 170 pax + crew in a 737 worth more than the life of a young kid hauling night freight in a Chieftain or Aero Commander? Why is it mandatory for certain aircraft to be equipped with a serviceable radar and not others?

If the operator won't insist on providing pilots with suitable equipment to make their job safer, who will?

[the_regulators]

Listen to these sob stories

What a bunch of pussies

[tinpis]

Yeh in my day I had to do night freight between two capital cities in a clapped out 402 no navaids that worked no AH just a compass and bat and ball and one dodgy donk that couldnt be throttled or it would shake the airframe apart.
(I lasted one night)

Next week was my turn doing the tourist shuttles in the 310.
Arrives over destination hullo?.... wheels no worky.... onto the company VHF do this do that yada yada... "and leave them down when yer get em there."
Three or four wheels down shuttles later I had enough.
Was putting the chocks in when ****E ! ! one of the gear doors is missing ! !
I told the boss I didnt think I went too fast and blew off the door he said ..
"Mate what sort of preflight did you do this morning that doors been missing for over a year?"

(Prize for anyone can guess the company its long gone. )

And yer tell the young ones that these days and they dont believe ya.