I wonder...?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Pinged" for a "frayed seat belt", according to casa's Aviation Ruling 1/2004 = $8,500. (50 penalty units)
Doesn't matter if no-one is in the seat either.
Doesn't matter if no-one is in the seat either.
Last edited by Trent 972; 17th Jan 2013 at 07:03.
Haven't heard it used like that before Blackhand, we must run in different circles 
And yes Mach E Avelli, I got that one!!
Ouch Trent972, I mean ok, if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!
And yes Mach E Avelli, I got that one!!
Ouch Trent972, I mean ok, if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ixixly, "badly frayed" may be too much. Chafing and fading of seatbelts are sufficient to require replacement.
AWB 25-2 Issue 1, 4 April 2003 includes this description...
AWB 25-2 Issue 1, 4 April 2003 includes this description...
Recommendation
Remove from service and destroy all seat belts and shoulder harness webbing when it reaches 10 years time in service.
Implement inspection procedures to ensure that safety belts and shoulder harness assemblies, particularly those in the pilot and co-pilot positions, are maintained during the recommended ten-year service life to a standard that requires prematurely faded, chafed, or otherwise damaged or chemically contaminated seat belt webbing to be replaced with serviceable assemblies.
Remove from service and destroy all seat belts and shoulder harness webbing when it reaches 10 years time in service.
Implement inspection procedures to ensure that safety belts and shoulder harness assemblies, particularly those in the pilot and co-pilot positions, are maintained during the recommended ten-year service life to a standard that requires prematurely faded, chafed, or otherwise damaged or chemically contaminated seat belt webbing to be replaced with serviceable assemblies.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there are some issues showing up in the pointy ends of the shiny jets with new pilots joining the ranks and showing some bad habits.
In making enquiries, could CASA now be looking at the testing grounds for GA ...
I hear that last week CASA were ramping every person ...
Could this be, ultimately, a tightening of flying standards?
firstly a pilot that would log 3.5 hours sitting on his/her arse doing nothing with the engine running. Secondly a company accepting this as a 'box tick.' Thirdly an aviation 'system' that allows this as logable time. Fourthly, I'm no LAME but with no airflow over an air cooled engine, the possibility of damage? There's probably a fifth, sixth, seventh etc
Ixixly
if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!
if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!
Saw an owner whinge about a LAME going ahead without permission and replacing a belt that was so old it fractured when it was folded in half.
Centaurus,
Abysmal....
Many cases of towers away from home fields phoning schools and asking if they knew one of their aircraft was sitting at the base of their tower idling away for several hours with the student sitting in there. I nailed a couple of these over the years based on overly large MR/FT splits.
Heard of one group who got together and played soccer while chocked aircraft ran at power...until one jumped the chocks...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhand, I wonder .... If a private pilot hiring an aircraft, is subsequently 'ramped' by casa, and found responsible for flying with a faded/chafed seat belt, and 'pinged' with a $8500 fine, reasonable?
Do you really think everyone that hires an aircraft in which a seat belt looks to have even the slightest amount of fading/chafing, should enter it as a defect in the MR?
If not, then how much fading/chafing is allowed, just a little bit or 28 of the 50 shades of grey? Or should we get a LAME to appraise the belt condition prior to each and every occasion?
The problem lies in what is one mans idea of fair and reasonable, against what some casa person, trying to make a name for himself, thinks is an offence of strict liability and punishable by a fine equivalent to 30 weeks of a working mans take home pay.
Do you really think everyone that hires an aircraft in which a seat belt looks to have even the slightest amount of fading/chafing, should enter it as a defect in the MR?
If not, then how much fading/chafing is allowed, just a little bit or 28 of the 50 shades of grey? Or should we get a LAME to appraise the belt condition prior to each and every occasion?
The problem lies in what is one mans idea of fair and reasonable, against what some casa person, trying to make a name for himself, thinks is an offence of strict liability and punishable by a fine equivalent to 30 weeks of a working mans take home pay.
Last edited by Trent 972; 18th Jan 2013 at 02:47. Reason: ignoring Creampuffs is better for my health and wellbeing.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent 972
Do you mean subsequent to the pilot endorsing the MR?
As a generalisation, an owner and maintenance organisation ignoring a damaged seatbelt could indicate deeper underlying issues.
I am yet to deal with any of the Pedant AWIs you are refering to, can anyone relate an actual incident?
I would also surmise, that if the seat was not accupied, it would be subject to an NCN on the registered operator/owner, not the poor private pilot.
Do you mean subsequent to the pilot endorsing the MR?
As a generalisation, an owner and maintenance organisation ignoring a damaged seatbelt could indicate deeper underlying issues.
I am yet to deal with any of the Pedant AWIs you are refering to, can anyone relate an actual incident?
I would also surmise, that if the seat was not accupied, it would be subject to an NCN on the registered operator/owner, not the poor private pilot.
Last edited by blackhand; 18th Jan 2013 at 02:55.
Leave it to us halfwits, BH
Trent
I’m a big fan of taxes on the stupid. And when I see people rejecting the obvious solutions, I immediately think ‘ka-ching’.
Item 22 of the Daily Inspection list in Schedule 5 (you said private and let’s assume no SOM or MMS) says:
Ramp check of an aircraft flown solo by Bloggs, private hirer, finds frayed back seat pax seatbelt not placarded or endorsed. Daily is signed.
Did Bloggs sign for the daily? If yes, Bloggs has a problem. If no, whoever signed the daily has a problem, and Bloggs has a problem only if he saw the defect during his pre-flight and didn’t endorse it/placard it.
So come on Trent: What have you been pinged for? Why is it that you think CASA FOIs fine private hirers $8,500 for a having a rear seat belt that’s one shade too close to dark grey?
You strike me as being someone who’s been drinking a little too much Leaddied Kool-Aid.
BTW: The amount of money collected from CASA infringement notices is on the public record. How many millions do you reckon it is?
Trent
I’m a big fan of taxes on the stupid. And when I see people rejecting the obvious solutions, I immediately think ‘ka-ching’.
Item 22 of the Daily Inspection list in Schedule 5 (you said private and let’s assume no SOM or MMS) says:
(22) Check that the seat belts, buckles and inertia reels are free from damage, secure and functioning correctly.
Did Bloggs sign for the daily? If yes, Bloggs has a problem. If no, whoever signed the daily has a problem, and Bloggs has a problem only if he saw the defect during his pre-flight and didn’t endorse it/placard it.
So come on Trent: What have you been pinged for? Why is it that you think CASA FOIs fine private hirers $8,500 for a having a rear seat belt that’s one shade too close to dark grey?
You strike me as being someone who’s been drinking a little too much Leaddied Kool-Aid.
BTW: The amount of money collected from CASA infringement notices is on the public record. How many millions do you reckon it is?
Last edited by Creampuff; 18th Jan 2013 at 03:03.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blackhand, first of all you'll have to define 'damage'.
Which one of those 50 shades of grey I referred to? I was asking you if it's #1 or #25 or #49 or whichever one, because we mere mortals don't know until after casa has decided whether to take enforcement action or not.
If it's #1, then in this country, aviation is doomed.
Somewhere around #22 would be fair, don't you think?
edit
That might be your experience, but it is not what the rules allow for. The rules allow for the wielding of the 'big stick' months before the establishment of proof of guilt.
Hello Creamy, you keep saying 'trust me', "we're from the government, we're here to help". You can read it on casa's website, therefore it must be true.
AH AH AAH BULLSH!T.
There are enough people around to know that while casa has 'quite a few good men', they also have more than their fair share of industry retards.
Just look towards the top.
Bye the way, I'm just being 'ornery' to get even for (mainly) you screwing up the Barrier thread.
Which one of those 50 shades of grey I referred to? I was asking you if it's #1 or #25 or #49 or whichever one, because we mere mortals don't know until after casa has decided whether to take enforcement action or not.
If it's #1, then in this country, aviation is doomed.
Somewhere around #22 would be fair, don't you think?
edit
That might be your experience, but it is not what the rules allow for. The rules allow for the wielding of the 'big stick' months before the establishment of proof of guilt.
Hello Creamy, you keep saying 'trust me', "we're from the government, we're here to help". You can read it on casa's website, therefore it must be true.
AH AH AAH BULLSH!T.
There are enough people around to know that while casa has 'quite a few good men', they also have more than their fair share of industry retards.
Just look towards the top.
Bye the way, I'm just being 'ornery' to get even for (mainly) you screwing up the Barrier thread.
Last edited by Trent 972; 18th Jan 2013 at 03:24.
C'mon people, the subject here is whether or not the current crop of pilots are causing the airlines grief when they get into a jet.
Maintenance now has its own thread.
Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.
Back on topic, why would a pilot's prior background cause grief at an airline unless the person a) was unsuited to the task anyway and b) did not receive the necessary training and 'attitude' adjustment? If foreign airlines can produce acceptable jet First Officers in less than 300 hours total, surely our lot can beat the occasional cowboy into shape. If said cowboy is keen on an airline career he/she will take the beatings with pleasure.
Maintenance now has its own thread.
Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.
Back on topic, why would a pilot's prior background cause grief at an airline unless the person a) was unsuited to the task anyway and b) did not receive the necessary training and 'attitude' adjustment? If foreign airlines can produce acceptable jet First Officers in less than 300 hours total, surely our lot can beat the occasional cowboy into shape. If said cowboy is keen on an airline career he/she will take the beatings with pleasure.
Excellent suggestion, Mach.
Ahhh, partially. The C&T system cannot reasonably (read as realistically) be expected to retrain every single facet of a pilot's technique in the initial induction period. The best that can be expected is to catch and standardise the most important and safety related behaviours (and there will be some conjecture as to what that constitutes).
To remove the responsibility of GA (and I am including initial flying training in this definition) for producing RPT line pilots makes no sense. All that indicates to me is complacency as to the standard of instruction/mentoring in these early levels and not just in training, but by chief pilots and base managers as well.
If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors. Sorry if this seems like a plug, but guys like Brian Weston, Alan Dunbar, Tub Matheson and Ken Ames (those who know them will attest) are absolute treasures and the amount of knowledge these guys posess and have passed on to other pilots is invaluable. I would love to see guys like GG return to instructing with their level of experience to pass on, but where's the incentive (besides being say too old to maintain a command spot on international ops - not you specifically, GG)?
If they are showing some "bad habits", then this has nothing to do with what they did in G.A. or where they came from. At fault is the training and checking by the jet operator.
To remove the responsibility of GA (and I am including initial flying training in this definition) for producing RPT line pilots makes no sense. All that indicates to me is complacency as to the standard of instruction/mentoring in these early levels and not just in training, but by chief pilots and base managers as well.
If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors. Sorry if this seems like a plug, but guys like Brian Weston, Alan Dunbar, Tub Matheson and Ken Ames (those who know them will attest) are absolute treasures and the amount of knowledge these guys posess and have passed on to other pilots is invaluable. I would love to see guys like GG return to instructing with their level of experience to pass on, but where's the incentive (besides being say too old to maintain a command spot on international ops - not you specifically, GG)?
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 19th Jan 2013 at 03:00. Reason: Shpellun
Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.
Anyway, in my opinion MIHC and Cynical are correct. I’d merely add that “correct habits” should not be confined to flying techniques.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C&T system cannot reasonably (read as realistically) be expected to retrain every single facet of a pilot's technique in the initial induction period.
If it is too hard to "retrain" pilots, or exorcise "bad habits", then the C&T system needs to take a different approach (e.g, cadet schemes).
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Howard Hughes, may I ask what you mean by "Pinged"? just purely out of interest, we talking a rap on the knuckles, stern talking to or something else?
If it is too hard to "retrain" pilots, or exorcise "bad habits", then the C&T system needs to take a different approach (e.g, cadet schemes).
With regard to cadet schemes, personally, I would much rather the FO up the front of the burner my wife and kids were on came with 1500 hours worth of experience than 300. What did happen to Xenephon's questions about the industry anyhoo?
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 20th Jan 2013 at 01:55.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: on the beach :-)
Age: 50
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.
just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.
Or …
The regulator might pick up and nip in the bud some behaviour or misunderstandings or ignorance that results in avoidable risks.
Or …
The regulator might find information to indicate that certain instructors and schools produce pilots who should not be let loose on the world.
You may have noted that some of the posters in this thread have suggested that some schools, and their instructors, conspire to falsify logbook entries.
Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through the prosecution process), so that my loved ones aren’t put at greater risk than they should be.
Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers.
The regulator might pick up and nip in the bud some behaviour or misunderstandings or ignorance that results in avoidable risks.
Or …
The regulator might find information to indicate that certain instructors and schools produce pilots who should not be let loose on the world.
You may have noted that some of the posters in this thread have suggested that some schools, and their instructors, conspire to falsify logbook entries.
Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through the prosecution process), so that my loved ones aren’t put at greater risk than they should be.
Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers.
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Jan 2013 at 08:45.