Daily Telegraph: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rijswijk NL
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safety going down the drain
I've read the conversation going on in this thread.
Interesting! Some guys are close to the mark and it is beyond me why people get so offensive if someone else doesn't share their views.
On the whole I agree with what is said about subtle pressure being applied by management to accept small (and sometimes not so small) defects. It happens more often than we want to admit and sometimes we do it ourselfes without any pressure because we (the crew) have become too brainwashed to see the difference.
IMHO the pressure will only get worse. As long as Joe Public wants to have his vacations in Ibiza or Cancun or some other tropical place for next to nothing Airlines will be pressured to lower their costs so they will pressure their crew and so on and so on.
The part I have missed in this thread is the quality of the crew. These days airlines (regular/locos/charter) don't even want to pay for training. They even make money by asking exorbitant ammounts for type-ratings.
That way they keep their cost level down and in doing so put more pressure on other companies that hire and train their own crew. Shouldn't some government organisation that looks into fair competition look at that sort of practice? Hiring someone just because he/she can fork up a small fortune to pay for a type-rating can never get you the best crew there is.
Interesting! Some guys are close to the mark and it is beyond me why people get so offensive if someone else doesn't share their views.
On the whole I agree with what is said about subtle pressure being applied by management to accept small (and sometimes not so small) defects. It happens more often than we want to admit and sometimes we do it ourselfes without any pressure because we (the crew) have become too brainwashed to see the difference.
IMHO the pressure will only get worse. As long as Joe Public wants to have his vacations in Ibiza or Cancun or some other tropical place for next to nothing Airlines will be pressured to lower their costs so they will pressure their crew and so on and so on.
The part I have missed in this thread is the quality of the crew. These days airlines (regular/locos/charter) don't even want to pay for training. They even make money by asking exorbitant ammounts for type-ratings.
That way they keep their cost level down and in doing so put more pressure on other companies that hire and train their own crew. Shouldn't some government organisation that looks into fair competition look at that sort of practice? Hiring someone just because he/she can fork up a small fortune to pay for a type-rating can never get you the best crew there is.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To an outsider reading threads like this they would have to conclude that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. But what exactly?
They would identify three types of characters here:
Those who see no evil, hear no evil.
Those who see no evil, but hear of lots of it.
And those who see, hear and suffer at the hands of evil.
Learmont, Rubik, 411A etc are members of the former. In fairness they can only comment on what they know and it appears they know little of the real story. It is a little more complex than petty snags.
I am part of the second group. I know people in other outfits and have heard reliably some pretty shocking stuff.
The people I hear the stories from are part of the third group.
It is too simplistic now to split everything into Loco v Frills carrier. Lots of the traditional carriers are taking their ideas from Loco and not all Loco are low standard.
The members of the former group who post here claiming it either doesn't happen or that the crews involved are somehow defective are doing a major disservice to their industry. They clearly dont understand the situation and instead of questioning the abilities of those involved should have a good look at themselves. Suggesting everything is fine because there is a regulator also shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the industry.
The worst cases leave the pilots in a 'Catch 22' situation. If they blow the whistle to the media or whoever ( forget the IAA etc. ) they risk their livelihoods if they fail. If they succeed they could improve safety but seriously damage their companies' in terms of sales and share price and ultimately lose their job. No pilot want to bite the hand that feeds them either.
In the worst cases the pressures invloved are daily and relentless. Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date.
They would identify three types of characters here:
Those who see no evil, hear no evil.
Those who see no evil, but hear of lots of it.
And those who see, hear and suffer at the hands of evil.
Learmont, Rubik, 411A etc are members of the former. In fairness they can only comment on what they know and it appears they know little of the real story. It is a little more complex than petty snags.
I am part of the second group. I know people in other outfits and have heard reliably some pretty shocking stuff.
The people I hear the stories from are part of the third group.
It is too simplistic now to split everything into Loco v Frills carrier. Lots of the traditional carriers are taking their ideas from Loco and not all Loco are low standard.
The members of the former group who post here claiming it either doesn't happen or that the crews involved are somehow defective are doing a major disservice to their industry. They clearly dont understand the situation and instead of questioning the abilities of those involved should have a good look at themselves. Suggesting everything is fine because there is a regulator also shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the industry.
The worst cases leave the pilots in a 'Catch 22' situation. If they blow the whistle to the media or whoever ( forget the IAA etc. ) they risk their livelihoods if they fail. If they succeed they could improve safety but seriously damage their companies' in terms of sales and share price and ultimately lose their job. No pilot want to bite the hand that feeds them either.
In the worst cases the pressures invloved are daily and relentless. Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire D'Income, what is it about most statistics that 87.34% of them are made up on the spot? 
WHere do you dream these stats up? Safety has never been better. Every single 'researched' statistic that has been published shows that safety is better than it has ever been. Even with the four or five crashes that have happened in August are a blip that will hardly even be visible in the running average of statistics. Why is it that aviation insurance brokers are stating that despite the recent accident flurry the costs to airlines will continue to decrease? That after August has become the most expensive month in terms of hull losses since early 2002?
What is being discussed here is whether pilots are being pressured to take risks? Everything we do as pilots involves risk. Even the safest operator is taking 'calculated' risks every time an aircraft is dispatched. I do not know of one single pilot who would 'knowingly' take-off if he believed there was a high risk of arriving first at the scene of an accident.
Many companies that operate two sector patterns such as IT operators, do not have engineering cover readily available downroute. Quite often their pilots will carry a minor defect that is allowable in the MEL back to base before entering it in the Tech Log. It happens all the time but that doesn't mean that they will carry a serious defect. For example, if one of the floor emergency lights is inop and the MEL allows dispatch, do you think that the crew are going to enter it into the Tech Log downroute and then wait for hours for an engineer to sign it off as acceptable? If this happens at your airline and you are not happy about it then you are free to MOR it or CHIRP it if you feel intimidated by your managers.
With regard to 'no delay bonuses' [sic] there is nothing wrong with a company that offers its crews an incentive to improve their on time performance. No one is suggesting that the pilots would risk their and their passengers lives for a simple bonus. It is there to incentivise the crew to make sure that the turnarounds are expedited as it is usually cock-ups with ground staff and services that screw up on time performance. Having worked for a company that offered an OTP bonus, there was never any pressure whatsoever on the flight crew to do anything that would jeopardise safety. It just made us all, flight deck crew and cabin crew, aware of other peoples incompetence that could have an effect on our earnings and we were able to highlight areas where performance could be improved. It never impinged on safety though. I'm sure the CAA would have pounced on the company if they believed it had a detrimental effect on safety.
The people you should be aware of are those managers who are under the misguided impression that 'fuel league' tables are somehow a good method of getting crews to take plog fuel or less. It's one thing to educate crews about excessive fuel uplift and another to intimidate them into carrying less. One company I use to work for actually published the de-identified list of pilots who took more than plog fuel. That manager was eventually removed and it was pointed out to him that it would be much better to produce a list of fuel burnt rather than fuel uplifted. There would always be one or two pilots who thought they were clever and would try and outdo each other on fuel uplift until one day one of them arrived back at LGW to unforecast LVP ops and landed from a CATIIIb with less than CMR. Not clever.
Overall though, I don't believe that most pilots, certainly here in the West, are pressured to take unnecessary risks. If it was a real problem then the statistics would show it. It's just a pity that the CAA will not even begin to investigate any claims until they have proof. A bit like denial that you've been bitten until you actually feel the pain. Of course, by then it's too late. Some allegations need preliminary investigation, even if only to rule out that further investigation is necessary.
Thanks to a handful of ruthless individuals safety within aviation has regressed by 30 years. It will take something major the bring it back up to date.
What is being discussed here is whether pilots are being pressured to take risks? Everything we do as pilots involves risk. Even the safest operator is taking 'calculated' risks every time an aircraft is dispatched. I do not know of one single pilot who would 'knowingly' take-off if he believed there was a high risk of arriving first at the scene of an accident.
Many companies that operate two sector patterns such as IT operators, do not have engineering cover readily available downroute. Quite often their pilots will carry a minor defect that is allowable in the MEL back to base before entering it in the Tech Log. It happens all the time but that doesn't mean that they will carry a serious defect. For example, if one of the floor emergency lights is inop and the MEL allows dispatch, do you think that the crew are going to enter it into the Tech Log downroute and then wait for hours for an engineer to sign it off as acceptable? If this happens at your airline and you are not happy about it then you are free to MOR it or CHIRP it if you feel intimidated by your managers.
With regard to 'no delay bonuses' [sic] there is nothing wrong with a company that offers its crews an incentive to improve their on time performance. No one is suggesting that the pilots would risk their and their passengers lives for a simple bonus. It is there to incentivise the crew to make sure that the turnarounds are expedited as it is usually cock-ups with ground staff and services that screw up on time performance. Having worked for a company that offered an OTP bonus, there was never any pressure whatsoever on the flight crew to do anything that would jeopardise safety. It just made us all, flight deck crew and cabin crew, aware of other peoples incompetence that could have an effect on our earnings and we were able to highlight areas where performance could be improved. It never impinged on safety though. I'm sure the CAA would have pounced on the company if they believed it had a detrimental effect on safety.
The people you should be aware of are those managers who are under the misguided impression that 'fuel league' tables are somehow a good method of getting crews to take plog fuel or less. It's one thing to educate crews about excessive fuel uplift and another to intimidate them into carrying less. One company I use to work for actually published the de-identified list of pilots who took more than plog fuel. That manager was eventually removed and it was pointed out to him that it would be much better to produce a list of fuel burnt rather than fuel uplifted. There would always be one or two pilots who thought they were clever and would try and outdo each other on fuel uplift until one day one of them arrived back at LGW to unforecast LVP ops and landed from a CATIIIb with less than CMR. Not clever.
Overall though, I don't believe that most pilots, certainly here in the West, are pressured to take unnecessary risks. If it was a real problem then the statistics would show it. It's just a pity that the CAA will not even begin to investigate any claims until they have proof. A bit like denial that you've been bitten until you actually feel the pain. Of course, by then it's too late. Some allegations need preliminary investigation, even if only to rule out that further investigation is necessary.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arewenearlytrhereyet that was an opinion not a statistic. Remember 30 years ago there were accident free periods also.
I'm talking about flights departing without correct maintenance, fuel, Nav bags, flight plans, rest, de-icing etc. I'm talking about policy/instruction documents appearing/disappearing daily allowing crews perform restricted procedures as weather/notams dictate. I'm talking obout corners cut on quick turnarounds to maintain schedules. I'm talking about No tech log entires whatsoever until after the last flight.
And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening.
I'm talking about flights departing without correct maintenance, fuel, Nav bags, flight plans, rest, de-icing etc. I'm talking about policy/instruction documents appearing/disappearing daily allowing crews perform restricted procedures as weather/notams dictate. I'm talking obout corners cut on quick turnarounds to maintain schedules. I'm talking about No tech log entires whatsoever until after the last flight.
And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm responding to some comments on this thread as a punter, as I feel some have the wrong opinion of paying passengers approach to safety.
When in the USA one of the budget carriers crashed killing many people, I recall seeing a documentary, in which an investigator said that the general public always assumed that aircraft were safe or else "they wouldn't let them fly". This is the reality of the view of most of the general travelling public - they assume that an airline would not be allowed to fly if it wasn't safe. They assume rigorous standards have been set, and MUST always be adhered to.
Some posters earlier indicated that the british public were in love with cheap fares and were prepared to take risks. This really is nonsense. If people book a flight with any airline, they 'assume' that it 'must' be safe otherwise the airline would not be allowed to operate. It is as simple as that.
For my own part, there is one carrier (budget) Ipersonally will not fly on, as they are so nasty and tight fisted at all levels, I suspect they probably do the same with safety. But not many in the general public think like this.
If airlines are cutting corners on safety I think it should be made public, and the relevant airlines exposed - otherwise joe public has to take it on trust that everything is just fine.
When in the USA one of the budget carriers crashed killing many people, I recall seeing a documentary, in which an investigator said that the general public always assumed that aircraft were safe or else "they wouldn't let them fly". This is the reality of the view of most of the general travelling public - they assume that an airline would not be allowed to fly if it wasn't safe. They assume rigorous standards have been set, and MUST always be adhered to.
Some posters earlier indicated that the british public were in love with cheap fares and were prepared to take risks. This really is nonsense. If people book a flight with any airline, they 'assume' that it 'must' be safe otherwise the airline would not be allowed to operate. It is as simple as that.
For my own part, there is one carrier (budget) Ipersonally will not fly on, as they are so nasty and tight fisted at all levels, I suspect they probably do the same with safety. But not many in the general public think like this.
If airlines are cutting corners on safety I think it should be made public, and the relevant airlines exposed - otherwise joe public has to take it on trust that everything is just fine.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots taking Risks
Various contributors have stated the reluctance of pilots to put their career at risk. This is very understandable and in my experience an airline will take extreme measures to end the career of any pilot foolish enough to raise safety issues.
In my own case I raised safety concerns after an accident in which I was injured/incapacitated in flight. When I came out of hospital and began the long ongoing process of recovery the cause of the accident was unchanged despite the airline having been informed by environmental health, the CAA, a doctor and myself of their failings.
I raised the issue through the correct channels and finally after several months I filed a formal grievance as no one was listening and peoples lives were at risk. Three years later, my grievance rejected I had no choice but to go to court. The court described my actions as being in keeping with correct procedures and proper protocols - even the airline eventualy accepted that I acted in solely the public interest. In court the Chief Executive described my actions however as "Outrageous, grossly outrageous" despite them being laid down as a duty in the staff manual. The Airline CEO's evidence was considered by the court to be implausible or his actions were due to "incompetance and maladministration". The DFO was "unbelievable and untruthful" in what he had to say.
They sacked me. I am out of a job and unable to get one. If you want to keep flying keep your mouth shut unless like me you feel peoples lives are more important than one persons career.
The book is being written.
It is dangerous to be right when those in power are wrong - Voltaire.
Andy.
In my own case I raised safety concerns after an accident in which I was injured/incapacitated in flight. When I came out of hospital and began the long ongoing process of recovery the cause of the accident was unchanged despite the airline having been informed by environmental health, the CAA, a doctor and myself of their failings.
I raised the issue through the correct channels and finally after several months I filed a formal grievance as no one was listening and peoples lives were at risk. Three years later, my grievance rejected I had no choice but to go to court. The court described my actions as being in keeping with correct procedures and proper protocols - even the airline eventualy accepted that I acted in solely the public interest. In court the Chief Executive described my actions however as "Outrageous, grossly outrageous" despite them being laid down as a duty in the staff manual. The Airline CEO's evidence was considered by the court to be implausible or his actions were due to "incompetance and maladministration". The DFO was "unbelievable and untruthful" in what he had to say.
They sacked me. I am out of a job and unable to get one. If you want to keep flying keep your mouth shut unless like me you feel peoples lives are more important than one persons career.
The book is being written.
It is dangerous to be right when those in power are wrong - Voltaire.
Andy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voltaire also wrote;
One owes respect to the living; but to the dead one owes nothing but the truth.
And;
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference.
Be virtuous, be strong and tell the truth! ( I said that!)
Andy, you did the right thing but paid the wrong price.
One owes respect to the living; but to the dead one owes nothing but the truth.
And;
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference.
Be virtuous, be strong and tell the truth! ( I said that!)
Andy, you did the right thing but paid the wrong price.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm saying that in my experience, there are no differing moral attitudes nor subtle or even blatant pressures.
We regularly get ignorant posters stating that Low cost airlines are unsafe, with absolutely no justifacation whatever.
We hear of people being bullied, (what physically? Where are they?) of being pressured, (how?) and subtly leaned on (in what way?)"
Rubik 2005
Now read the following quote very carefully:
A Sayers 2005.
To all professional colleagues reading these posts, think very very carefully about what you say on threads like these.
In Utopia all pilots witnessing or experiencing subverse attitudes
would remove themselves from the situation. We are however inhabiting planet earth, for better or for worse.
These situations are therefore probably unstoppable, so please next time, think how you can support your colleague in need.
Rubik, centuries ago there were those who thought the world was flat. Fortunately there were others who were prepared to continue the quest of adventure despite the terrible cost.
We regularly get ignorant posters stating that Low cost airlines are unsafe, with absolutely no justifacation whatever.
We hear of people being bullied, (what physically? Where are they?) of being pressured, (how?) and subtly leaned on (in what way?)"
Rubik 2005
Now read the following quote very carefully:
They sacked me. I am out of a job and unable to get one. If you want to keep flying keep your mouth shut unless like me you feel peoples lives are more important than one persons career.
To all professional colleagues reading these posts, think very very carefully about what you say on threads like these.
In Utopia all pilots witnessing or experiencing subverse attitudes
would remove themselves from the situation. We are however inhabiting planet earth, for better or for worse.
These situations are therefore probably unstoppable, so please next time, think how you can support your colleague in need.
Rubik, centuries ago there were those who thought the world was flat. Fortunately there were others who were prepared to continue the quest of adventure despite the terrible cost.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does the old saying go, something like, "there's none so blind as those who don't want to see." Add to that, "who the cap fits, let him wear it".
Like faire d'income I look back and feel the culture was different. There were statistically more accidents, but that was partly because the machinery was often mean and ornery and the amount of knowledge and information was less.
I think the difference was there was more integrity in both management and flight crew. I admit there were notable exceptions, but by and large my perception was that as long as you honestly gave your best, your management would actually be in your corner if something went wrong. That is not my perception of the current state.
Management by statistics implies that any old 386 chip can run an airline. I think it is far more complex than that and demands men of competence and integrity. This would seem to be a rare combination. Superbeancounters need not apply.
What does seem to be needed in some companies is unions with members who are willing to be committed to seeing the right thing done. Just having a union is of no use unless the membership is prepared to stick together to fight for what is right.
Like faire d'income I look back and feel the culture was different. There were statistically more accidents, but that was partly because the machinery was often mean and ornery and the amount of knowledge and information was less.
I think the difference was there was more integrity in both management and flight crew. I admit there were notable exceptions, but by and large my perception was that as long as you honestly gave your best, your management would actually be in your corner if something went wrong. That is not my perception of the current state.
Management by statistics implies that any old 386 chip can run an airline. I think it is far more complex than that and demands men of competence and integrity. This would seem to be a rare combination. Superbeancounters need not apply.
What does seem to be needed in some companies is unions with members who are willing to be committed to seeing the right thing done. Just having a union is of no use unless the membership is prepared to stick together to fight for what is right.
Paxing All Over The World
As a pax and having worked in commerce (and local govt) in the UK across 27 years, when I saw the thread title, I never doubted that it was true. Or that it was true of EVERY carrier to a greater or lesser degree. It is NOT about LCC and legacy, as anyone can be a bad company.
It is also true that, history builds and the stories of people deciding to leave because the mood was too far against their liking becomes inexorable and that carrier is likely to go further down the 'casual' route. They may not have a major prang before going bankrupt, each company fails in it's own way. Again, be they in ANY line of commerce.
Wig Wag "I do not think the British public have much appetite for stories about potential air disasters."
Indeed they do not! And, once the disaster has taken place, they get airbrushed out. Just a few in the UK over the past 20 years:[list=a][*]Herald of Free Enterprise[*]Several football stadia disasters[*]Kings Cross underground fire[*]Various train crashes due poor maintenance[/list=a]
Faire d'income "And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening."
Yes, of course, that is human nature. In the UK, I think it fair to say, we are 'overdue' for a major prang.
A Sayers I have no doubt as to your tale and I am very pleased to hear that you are writing the book. Whistleblowers are few and far between. At the other end of the scale to your experience, a friend was taken to court by employers and she watched them stand in the UK High Court and lie through their teeth. They won and she lost her job. No lives were lost but it is all part of the same diamond. That is, it shines but it cuts.
It is also true that, history builds and the stories of people deciding to leave because the mood was too far against their liking becomes inexorable and that carrier is likely to go further down the 'casual' route. They may not have a major prang before going bankrupt, each company fails in it's own way. Again, be they in ANY line of commerce.
Wig Wag "I do not think the British public have much appetite for stories about potential air disasters."
Indeed they do not! And, once the disaster has taken place, they get airbrushed out. Just a few in the UK over the past 20 years:[list=a][*]Herald of Free Enterprise[*]Several football stadia disasters[*]Kings Cross underground fire[*]Various train crashes due poor maintenance[/list=a]
Faire d'income "And what I'm really talking about is the people who put guns to the heads of crews to do the above. I'm talking about regulators who have been warned and still ignore the problem. And finally I'm talking about those within the industry who keep their heads buried in the sand and say it isn't happening."
Yes, of course, that is human nature. In the UK, I think it fair to say, we are 'overdue' for a major prang.
A Sayers I have no doubt as to your tale and I am very pleased to hear that you are writing the book. Whistleblowers are few and far between. At the other end of the scale to your experience, a friend was taken to court by employers and she watched them stand in the UK High Court and lie through their teeth. They won and she lost her job. No lives were lost but it is all part of the same diamond. That is, it shines but it cuts.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...while discussing here....another crash
..whilst we discuss our opinions here, another aircraft has crashed because of human/tech failure (apparently!).
It seems again that terrorism is not involved: it is, again, a budget/charter airline involved here, and apparently this is the 7th loss for this carrier...the 7th? Yes, apparently it is officially the 7th loss.
Definitely there is something terribly wrong going on in aviation in recent months, if not in recent days .....
Are all these recent incidents a pure mere coincidence or is this the result of what we have been debating on this forum and especially within this thread in the last few days?
Can some "experts" honestly continue to deny that there is a serious problem within the industry and that safety has not been affected at all by deregulation and especially since the introduction of the LoCo model?
...more LoCo, more competition, more savings, more stress, etc===========>>>>>> less training, worst rosters, less safety, more accidents.
..basically, in this market, expect more accidents!
I really hope to be wrong here...
It seems again that terrorism is not involved: it is, again, a budget/charter airline involved here, and apparently this is the 7th loss for this carrier...the 7th? Yes, apparently it is officially the 7th loss.
Definitely there is something terribly wrong going on in aviation in recent months, if not in recent days .....
Are all these recent incidents a pure mere coincidence or is this the result of what we have been debating on this forum and especially within this thread in the last few days?
Can some "experts" honestly continue to deny that there is a serious problem within the industry and that safety has not been affected at all by deregulation and especially since the introduction of the LoCo model?
...more LoCo, more competition, more savings, more stress, etc===========>>>>>> less training, worst rosters, less safety, more accidents.
..basically, in this market, expect more accidents!
I really hope to be wrong here...
10secondsurvey: After Valuejet (now Airtran) crashed, an FAA Inspoector "allegedly" 
stated that he had expressed concern to his superiors about either the major expansion of the airline, or the airworthiness/complisnce of the airline.
His FAA superiors "allegedly" disregarded his concerns. Since deregualtion accelerated under GOP presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., the FAA has felt the need to avoid adequate supervision of numerous carriers, i.e. the FAA's Western Region
"allegedly" was told to avoid closer scrutiny of Continental during the strike in '83-84. This helped some presidents and their Cabinets avoid public embarassment. This was printed in "Aviation Week & ST" many years ago.
When Valuejet's so-called "VP of Maintenance" testified before Congress after the horrible crash, he implied that due to outsourcing maintenance, it was not the responsiblity of the VP to ensure that regulations were followed. I saw him testify on the 1730 NBC news.
An engine on a Valuejet DC-9 had been overhauled near the 'Bosporus', and when pieces split away from the engine, the aft flight Attendant received some very painful injuries-the airplane was evacuated on the runway in Atlanta.
Eastern Scabs were part of the original pilot group at Valuejet-scabs have no minimum pay requirements nor standards. Their pay and benefits totaled less than what many express truck drivers earned (FEDEX/UPS...)! Scabs do anything that mgmt tells them-what back-up or protection do they have? On each Valuejet flight for one Captain, no contingency fuel was boarded until the Captain called Dispatch and requested/demanded it.
That is from a former Valuejet Captain-one of the FO's I've worked with.
This describes just ONE of the
Airline Darlings of US Deregulation .
stated that he had expressed concern to his superiors about either the major expansion of the airline, or the airworthiness/complisnce of the airline.His FAA superiors "allegedly"
disregarded his concerns. Since deregualtion accelerated under GOP presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., the FAA has felt the need to avoid adequate supervision of numerous carriers, i.e. the FAA's Western Region "allegedly" was told to avoid closer scrutiny of Continental during the strike in '83-84. This helped some presidents and their Cabinets avoid public embarassment. This was printed in "Aviation Week & ST" many years ago.
When Valuejet's so-called "VP of Maintenance" testified before Congress after the horrible crash, he implied that due to outsourcing maintenance, it was not the responsiblity of the VP to ensure that regulations were followed. I saw him testify on the 1730 NBC news.
An engine on a Valuejet DC-9 had been overhauled near the 'Bosporus', and when pieces split away from the engine, the aft flight Attendant received some very painful injuries-the airplane was evacuated on the runway in Atlanta.
Eastern Scabs were part of the original pilot group at Valuejet-scabs have no minimum pay requirements nor standards. Their pay and benefits totaled less than what many express truck drivers earned (FEDEX/UPS...)! Scabs do anything that mgmt tells them-what back-up or protection do they have? On each Valuejet flight for one Captain, no contingency fuel was boarded until the Captain called Dispatch and requested/demanded it.
That is from a former Valuejet Captain-one of the FO's I've worked with.This describes just ONE of the
Airline Darlings of US Deregulation .
Learmount cites airline culture as cause of crashes
Learmount cites airline culture as cause of crashes
Well, it looks to me as though David Learmount is a lot closer to the mark with this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...icle310581.ece
My question is:
How does the culture of the CAA and UK airlines stack up???
Well, it looks to me as though David Learmount is a lot closer to the mark with this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...icle310581.ece
My question is:
How does the culture of the CAA and UK airlines stack up???
How does the culture of the CAA and UK airlines stack up???
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article on the Independent
"It's the same with an aircraft. It's about who operates it, and what their safety standards are. All modern airplanes are safe, but they may not be if they don't get maintained properly and the crews don't get trained properly. In some countries, crews get trained according to the law, but trained to a minimum standard. Whereas the serious airlines of the world train their crews a damn sight better."
This is correct and it is important to remind us all that the AF incident could have had a totally different outcome if the crew responded in a different way. Good training is essential.
Maintenance, Crew, Training: are these 3 essential issues negatively affected by the highly competitive market of the LoCo model and deregulation?
If a LoCo pilot feels demotivated by an extremely stressfull roster (have a look at what Ryanair pilots say about this in their threads!) can this affect the overall safety of an aircraft?
Can fatigue be a factor? Is fatigue more of an issue since deregulation?
Has safety improved since deregulation?
Shalll we expect more and more accidents?
Do we all know that the carriers from those countries which have lower standards than ours often fly over our homes, often use our western airports and often are just simply operating around us?
Maybe deregulation in those countries is having the worst consequences there, but the ATR72 crashed in Italy, the Helios in Greece, it could have easily been the UK, LHR, AMS, FRA, GVA...we cannot just forget that many of these carriers just fly with and around us.
This is why we cannot ignore the recent scary trend. It is affecting us and our sky. Directly.
This is correct and it is important to remind us all that the AF incident could have had a totally different outcome if the crew responded in a different way. Good training is essential.
Maintenance, Crew, Training: are these 3 essential issues negatively affected by the highly competitive market of the LoCo model and deregulation?
If a LoCo pilot feels demotivated by an extremely stressfull roster (have a look at what Ryanair pilots say about this in their threads!) can this affect the overall safety of an aircraft?
Can fatigue be a factor? Is fatigue more of an issue since deregulation?
Has safety improved since deregulation?
Shalll we expect more and more accidents?
Do we all know that the carriers from those countries which have lower standards than ours often fly over our homes, often use our western airports and often are just simply operating around us?
Maybe deregulation in those countries is having the worst consequences there, but the ATR72 crashed in Italy, the Helios in Greece, it could have easily been the UK, LHR, AMS, FRA, GVA...we cannot just forget that many of these carriers just fly with and around us.
This is why we cannot ignore the recent scary trend. It is affecting us and our sky. Directly.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have every sympathy with Mr. Sayers, who lost his job due to undue pressure. The thread has been written as if this was an everyday occurence. If that is the case, then I too would be concerned. I agree, all is not right in the world of aviation, but then take any industry and you will hear the same arguments.
My point was that in spite of or perhaps because of the so called Low Cost carriers emergence in the last ten years, the blame for such events cannot be placed squarely at their doors, as seems to be the case in the earlier posts.
This constant harping and mudslinging in their direction is unwarranted. If it were not the case then many of us who work for said airlines would undoubdtedly already have resigned from them. I have no wish to be the first to arrive at the scene of an accident.
My point was that in spite of or perhaps because of the so called Low Cost carriers emergence in the last ten years, the blame for such events cannot be placed squarely at their doors, as seems to be the case in the earlier posts.
This constant harping and mudslinging in their direction is unwarranted. If it were not the case then many of us who work for said airlines would undoubdtedly already have resigned from them. I have no wish to be the first to arrive at the scene of an accident.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik this is taken from a Government paper.
They agree with me......this isn't "any industry"
"Why aviation is different from other sectors of UK industry
The key feature making aviation different from other sectors of UK industry is safety criticality.
It is true that safety is also important for other transport sectors,
but the failure of a key system during aircraft operation is more likely to lead to catastrophic results.
It is widely accepted that human error rather than technical
failure is the most likely cause of future accidents".
So despite knowing about the issues facing us, we still have to put up with the likes of certain management regimes calling shots that are not aligned with this statement.
Until that changes accidents will keep on happening.
They agree with me......this isn't "any industry"
"Why aviation is different from other sectors of UK industry
The key feature making aviation different from other sectors of UK industry is safety criticality.
It is true that safety is also important for other transport sectors,
but the failure of a key system during aircraft operation is more likely to lead to catastrophic results.
It is widely accepted that human error rather than technical
failure is the most likely cause of future accidents".
So despite knowing about the issues facing us, we still have to put up with the likes of certain management regimes calling shots that are not aligned with this statement.
Until that changes accidents will keep on happening.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yamaha, you seem to imply that if all these phantom managers toed the critical safety line then accidents would stop happening. I think not. Also, you give the impression that there are many comanies out there pusruing this short sighted approach to safety, cutting corners and pressurising pilots left, right and centre. I say, tell me who they are then we can all avoid working for them, they go out of business and we are all flying in a safer world. Name them and shame them, very simple really.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...breaking news on the ATR72 accident...
The engineers in Tunis replaced the faulty fuel indicators with the ones for the ATR42, the plane was instead the ATR72.
These indicators are very similar and they actually work on the ATR72 as well: only one problem, they actually indicate a sensibly higher level of fuel in the tanks. The aircraft run out of fuel and had to try an emergency landing in water.
This incidents confirms the following, as somebody else said here:
" am indebted to the colleague who draws the attention to the Aer Arann incident but I think a caution is in order. A culture of not writing fault logs, terrible pressure to meet demands in bad weather, pressonitis, overwork, underpay, a confusion facing backwards of left and right, illegible or unmarked fuel panel controls and confusing total with total per tank in conjunction with no ladders to see, uneven ground and a difficulty of communicating with the refueller. How common is this? [Do not answer, I know]"
Welcome to the new deregulated, LoCo, budget, charter etc aviation business.
From the "Times" (London):
"Captain Tsolakis is investigating claims that some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft’s fitness to fly. He is also keen to question Mr Irwin about his radio conversation with the pilot. Mr Irwin told police that the conversation was “confused” and the pilot was difficult to understand. ".
If some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft fitness to fly,*( pls note the engineers had concerns and not the cleaners!) this demonstrates again that in some airlines there is no pressure at all, and everything is going so well, safety is first, always. In fact that aircraft was grounded...yes, but unfortunately with souls on board.
Why you all say there is too much pressure on pilots, engineers, etc in modern commercial aviation?
Is it pressure a Captain who cannot communicate in English with the FO?
Of course not, because they could understand each other in normal ATC communication...but not in a real emergency?
Are we all going mad here?
It is all clearly under control, please shut up and never say there is a problem with air safety. Everything is fine, the stats are with us.
Scary. Scary. Scary.
...to be continued I am afraid.
So sad.
These indicators are very similar and they actually work on the ATR72 as well: only one problem, they actually indicate a sensibly higher level of fuel in the tanks. The aircraft run out of fuel and had to try an emergency landing in water.
This incidents confirms the following, as somebody else said here:
" am indebted to the colleague who draws the attention to the Aer Arann incident but I think a caution is in order. A culture of not writing fault logs, terrible pressure to meet demands in bad weather, pressonitis, overwork, underpay, a confusion facing backwards of left and right, illegible or unmarked fuel panel controls and confusing total with total per tank in conjunction with no ladders to see, uneven ground and a difficulty of communicating with the refueller. How common is this? [Do not answer, I know]"
Welcome to the new deregulated, LoCo, budget, charter etc aviation business.
From the "Times" (London):
"Captain Tsolakis is investigating claims that some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft’s fitness to fly. He is also keen to question Mr Irwin about his radio conversation with the pilot. Mr Irwin told police that the conversation was “confused” and the pilot was difficult to understand. ".
If some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft fitness to fly,*( pls note the engineers had concerns and not the cleaners!) this demonstrates again that in some airlines there is no pressure at all, and everything is going so well, safety is first, always. In fact that aircraft was grounded...yes, but unfortunately with souls on board.
Why you all say there is too much pressure on pilots, engineers, etc in modern commercial aviation?
Is it pressure a Captain who cannot communicate in English with the FO?
Of course not, because they could understand each other in normal ATC communication...but not in a real emergency?
Are we all going mad here?
It is all clearly under control, please shut up and never say there is a problem with air safety. Everything is fine, the stats are with us.
Scary. Scary. Scary.
...to be continued I am afraid.
So sad.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bedford
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newspaper wants details of pilot abuse
The UK Sunday Telegraph is looking for any details on pilot fatigue, roster abuse, company pressure, engineering failures etc: etc:.
If you have any genuine complaints, preferrably with evidence, we are looking for details. Anonymity is assured.
Please call David Harrison on
0207 538 7423 or mobile: 07770 381255
Let's make flying safer.
If you have any genuine complaints, preferrably with evidence, we are looking for details. Anonymity is assured.
Please call David Harrison on
0207 538 7423 or mobile: 07770 381255
Let's make flying safer.