Daily Telegraph: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A posh villa in Rome
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Daily Telegraph today has an article titled 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'.
David Learmounts comments to the Telegraph are:
The full article text is:
Commercial demands attacked after spate of air crashes. Charles Starmer-Smith reports:
Pilots spoke out this week about the commercial pressures they were under to fly even when their planes have technical faults. Their comments came in the wake of three major air crashes this month.
The commercial pressure on pilots has increased enormously
Last year, which was declared the safest in history for air travel, there were 428 fatalities; already this year more than 550 people have died in commercial flights.
In the past month, three fatal crashes - in Venezuela, Greece and Italy - have resulted in 297 deaths.
Belgian pilots claimed that the financial pressures placed on pilots to take off, even in planes with minor technical malfunctions, had increased significantly.
Under European Union laws introduced in February, the amount of compensation airlines must pay passengers if a plane is delayed or cancelled rose considerably.
The claims were made in the Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad after 121 people died when their Helios Airways plane hit a hillside in Greece on Sunday, after losing cabin pressure, and after 160 people were killed when a West Caribbean Airways plane crashed in Venezuela on Tuesday when both engines failed.
Helios admitted there had previously been problems with the air pressure system on the plane. Interviews with one of the pilot's mothers indicated that her son may have been aware of such problems before taking off.
"The commercial pressure on the shoulders of pilots has increased enormously," said Filip van Rossum, a former Sabena pilot. "The profit margins in the aviation sector are paper-thin, the competition is fierce and the aviation industry is sensitive to rising oil prices.
"Keeping a plane on the ground costs money, and aviation bosses want their pilots to keep their planes flying for as long as possible."
Van Rossum's views were echoed by the Colombian Pilots' Association, which said its members had repeatedly warned the country's Civil Aeronautics Board about the inadequate safety procedures of West Caribbean Airways, before Tuesday's crash.
As six of the airline's seven planes had been grounded for maintenance work, the aircraft that crashed in Venezuela had flown for nearly 20 hours continuously to cover the company's remaining routes.
The Colombian Civil Aviation Authority said it had fined the airline on several occasions for offences ranging from pilots not getting sufficient rest between flights to a lack of proper aircraft maintenance and pilot training. The airline has been put under "special watch" because of its financial difficulties.
There are also fears that EU regulations on passenger compensation could result in pilots with major scheduled airlines coming under pressure to take risks for commercial reasons.
Under the new rules, airlines are obliged to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets, as well as flying them home, if a delay lasts longer than five hours. They are also obliged to meet hotel costs if the delay continues overnight. In some cases the cost of a cancelled flight could go above £100,000.
"One area that must not 'give' is flight safety," said Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association. "We need to ensure that any attempts to avoid compensation do not affect flight safety, and that there is no attempt to force planes to take off when it is inappropriate."
A leading aviation expert has dismissed such fears, arguing that because of the huge choice of carriers available, airlines cannot afford to cut corners.
"There is so much choice on nearly every route that airlines need to show that their safety records are unblemished, or travellers will opt to fly with another airline," said David Learmount, editor of Flight International.
"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."
David Learmounts comments to the Telegraph are:
A leading aviation expert has dismissed such fears, arguing that because of the huge choice of carriers available, airlines cannot afford to cut corners. "There is so much choice on nearly every route that airlines need to show that their safety records are unblemished, or travellers will opt to fly with another airline," said David Learmount, editor of Flight International.
"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."
"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."
Commercial demands attacked after spate of air crashes. Charles Starmer-Smith reports:
Pilots spoke out this week about the commercial pressures they were under to fly even when their planes have technical faults. Their comments came in the wake of three major air crashes this month.
The commercial pressure on pilots has increased enormously
Last year, which was declared the safest in history for air travel, there were 428 fatalities; already this year more than 550 people have died in commercial flights.
In the past month, three fatal crashes - in Venezuela, Greece and Italy - have resulted in 297 deaths.
Belgian pilots claimed that the financial pressures placed on pilots to take off, even in planes with minor technical malfunctions, had increased significantly.
Under European Union laws introduced in February, the amount of compensation airlines must pay passengers if a plane is delayed or cancelled rose considerably.
The claims were made in the Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad after 121 people died when their Helios Airways plane hit a hillside in Greece on Sunday, after losing cabin pressure, and after 160 people were killed when a West Caribbean Airways plane crashed in Venezuela on Tuesday when both engines failed.
Helios admitted there had previously been problems with the air pressure system on the plane. Interviews with one of the pilot's mothers indicated that her son may have been aware of such problems before taking off.
"The commercial pressure on the shoulders of pilots has increased enormously," said Filip van Rossum, a former Sabena pilot. "The profit margins in the aviation sector are paper-thin, the competition is fierce and the aviation industry is sensitive to rising oil prices.
"Keeping a plane on the ground costs money, and aviation bosses want their pilots to keep their planes flying for as long as possible."
Van Rossum's views were echoed by the Colombian Pilots' Association, which said its members had repeatedly warned the country's Civil Aeronautics Board about the inadequate safety procedures of West Caribbean Airways, before Tuesday's crash.
As six of the airline's seven planes had been grounded for maintenance work, the aircraft that crashed in Venezuela had flown for nearly 20 hours continuously to cover the company's remaining routes.
The Colombian Civil Aviation Authority said it had fined the airline on several occasions for offences ranging from pilots not getting sufficient rest between flights to a lack of proper aircraft maintenance and pilot training. The airline has been put under "special watch" because of its financial difficulties.
There are also fears that EU regulations on passenger compensation could result in pilots with major scheduled airlines coming under pressure to take risks for commercial reasons.
Under the new rules, airlines are obliged to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets, as well as flying them home, if a delay lasts longer than five hours. They are also obliged to meet hotel costs if the delay continues overnight. In some cases the cost of a cancelled flight could go above £100,000.
"One area that must not 'give' is flight safety," said Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association. "We need to ensure that any attempts to avoid compensation do not affect flight safety, and that there is no attempt to force planes to take off when it is inappropriate."
A leading aviation expert has dismissed such fears, arguing that because of the huge choice of carriers available, airlines cannot afford to cut corners.
"There is so much choice on nearly every route that airlines need to show that their safety records are unblemished, or travellers will opt to fly with another airline," said David Learmount, editor of Flight International.
"According to the historical trend, what we have seen this year is just a blip. Safety levels have never been higher."
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on beerdrinker this is certainly the case in the UK where everything is bought on the basis of the cheapest price wins the deal. What makes me laugh is then then complain about poor quality of service, why are they surprised!
The problem with aviation journalism is that, whilst most aspects of the industry are accessible to the public, the pilot in the cockpit most definitely is not.
It seems almost impossible for the true concerns of the airline pilot to be accurately voiced by the media. A doctor might publicly criticise the NHS and keep his job. Any pilot who spoke out would very rapidly face the censure of employers and quite possibly the CAA. Whenever an aviation issue reaches the press we regularly hear the voices of Moody, Granshaw and Learmount.
However, it is the pilot in the cockpit flying a full time tiring roster who really knows the issues affecting safety.
How often do you see a letter in the press from an airline Captain discussing safety concerns? Never. I would love to write an article for a broadsheet on the pressures in the cockpit. However, it would be far too risky for my family so I am effectively gagged.
The problem for the aviation journalist writing about cockpit issues is that he has to second guess what is really happening. I once had an accident investigator say to me that 'the hardest thing is to know what is in the mind of the pilot'. My experience of Fleet Managers is that, as soon as they wind down from the pressures of the cockpit and take on other roles, they become detached and unrealistic about the real issues of the coal face. Ever tried explaining a complex delay to a manager who doesn't want to hear facts?
David Learmount seems to me to try damn hard to get close to the truth but in so doing he is sometimes very wide of the mark. And herein lies the problem. It is highly frustrating for those who know what the real problems in the cockpit to hear them misrepresented - hence the angst on these pages.
I'll bet that David Learmount (thoroughly decent chap that he is) actually doesn't have the confidence of a single line captain.
In these contentious times who can blame either pilot or journalist for that?
It seems almost impossible for the true concerns of the airline pilot to be accurately voiced by the media. A doctor might publicly criticise the NHS and keep his job. Any pilot who spoke out would very rapidly face the censure of employers and quite possibly the CAA. Whenever an aviation issue reaches the press we regularly hear the voices of Moody, Granshaw and Learmount.
However, it is the pilot in the cockpit flying a full time tiring roster who really knows the issues affecting safety.
How often do you see a letter in the press from an airline Captain discussing safety concerns? Never. I would love to write an article for a broadsheet on the pressures in the cockpit. However, it would be far too risky for my family so I am effectively gagged.
The problem for the aviation journalist writing about cockpit issues is that he has to second guess what is really happening. I once had an accident investigator say to me that 'the hardest thing is to know what is in the mind of the pilot'. My experience of Fleet Managers is that, as soon as they wind down from the pressures of the cockpit and take on other roles, they become detached and unrealistic about the real issues of the coal face. Ever tried explaining a complex delay to a manager who doesn't want to hear facts?
David Learmount seems to me to try damn hard to get close to the truth but in so doing he is sometimes very wide of the mark. And herein lies the problem. It is highly frustrating for those who know what the real problems in the cockpit to hear them misrepresented - hence the angst on these pages.
I'll bet that David Learmount (thoroughly decent chap that he is) actually doesn't have the confidence of a single line captain.
In these contentious times who can blame either pilot or journalist for that?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beerdrinker
Be careful with that sort of phrase. You are critcising one of the pprune boys club and therefore will get villified, threatened with legal action and have your whole career called into question. That's if your post isn't edited by the mods as this one was.
Is it not true that certain low cost carriers do anything to save a few quid, and that comes in all forms of savings including technical issues, MEL interpretation etc.
I'm told personally and on here some LoCo pilots are under enormous commercial pressure to cut corners.
I think the fact they don't have more accidents is more fortune than anything else.
But of course what do I know.
I'm only a professional pilot, not a journalist.
Be careful with that sort of phrase. You are critcising one of the pprune boys club and therefore will get villified, threatened with legal action and have your whole career called into question. That's if your post isn't edited by the mods as this one was.
Is it not true that certain low cost carriers do anything to save a few quid, and that comes in all forms of savings including technical issues, MEL interpretation etc.
I'm told personally and on here some LoCo pilots are under enormous commercial pressure to cut corners.
I think the fact they don't have more accidents is more fortune than anything else.
But of course what do I know.
I'm only a professional pilot, not a journalist.
Last edited by behind_the_second_midland; 24th Aug 2005 at 19:20.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: venus
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
btsm
Am right with you. Bet you get obliterated though!
I am soo careful with whom I fly if I'm paying for it myself.
The trg/standards thread is also quite interesting after you take out the people who obviously don't give a damn about SOPs.
Am right with you. Bet you get obliterated though!
I am soo careful with whom I fly if I'm paying for it myself.
The trg/standards thread is also quite interesting after you take out the people who obviously don't give a damn about SOPs.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...pressure...
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this.
Nobody is trying to say that LoCo means Low safety but the pressure is definitely there in some cases, obviously not only within LoCo companies: denying this is simply criminal.
Pilots who have been in the industry for many years have often noticed a change in "policy" in recent years, and some engineers can confirm this too.
The pressure is not limited to one country or one carrier, it is just a general industrial change which has affected the commercial aviation industry in recent years, especially after privatisations.
Pressure can be present in many forms, direct or indirect, e.g. rosters, scheduling, motivation, HR etc.
Example: a tough roster can indirectly put too much pressure on pilots, and this might affect safety.
As simple as that.
Nobody is trying to say that LoCo means Low safety but the pressure is definitely there in some cases, obviously not only within LoCo companies: denying this is simply criminal.
Pilots who have been in the industry for many years have often noticed a change in "policy" in recent years, and some engineers can confirm this too.
The pressure is not limited to one country or one carrier, it is just a general industrial change which has affected the commercial aviation industry in recent years, especially after privatisations.
Pressure can be present in many forms, direct or indirect, e.g. rosters, scheduling, motivation, HR etc.
Example: a tough roster can indirectly put too much pressure on pilots, and this might affect safety.
As simple as that.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: LANDS END
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are other professionals who disagree with the state of the industry.
It will never change though because in all my years of flying one never really wanted anything to do with the other.
However I think there is a lot to be concerned about in this engineers press release. If todays situation is really as bad as both pilots and engineers seem to think it is, then why aren't you working together to solve it instead of wasting energy criticising an individual who has the right to free speech?
This is the release:
"The Association of Licenced Engineers must disagree with David Learmount’s comments regarding safety in the article “Pilots 'under pressure to take risks” Daily Telegraph 23/8/2005.
The fact is that the regulators have been warned now for some time that the safety scales are becoming unbalanced. The financial wizards are running the show at the moment to the detriment of safety. Of course the effects of this will not be seen overnight but once they bite, it will be a difficult, lengthy and extremely cost intensive process to reverse the trend. You cannot adequately train flight or ground personnel for this industry overnight.
More and more reports are showing that incidents are on the increase. Incidents are only a short step away from accidents. In a never ending quest to save money, maintenance is being squeezed to the limits and beyond. The average passenger hasn't a clue about the standard or quality of on-going maintenance and so this really has no effect on his decision with whom he should fly. Furthermore if passengers did react to a safety record when making that decision, then unfortunately that would indicate that it is already too late and innocent people have already suffered.
The ALAE accepts that the statistics probably support David’s statement but please do not be fooled by them. Maintenance cuts will not be noticed by the average passenger who will pay massive detail to the quality of his seat and in-flight entertainment yet is oblivious to the overrun "A" check or the delayed engine maintenance or the ever growing deferred defects list or the unqualified signatory or the ignored corrosion, and, and, and. He does however put his faith in the professionals within the industry who year after year have been told to turn the heating down a little to save money and become more efficient. Well it is about time that people realised, yourself included David, that maintenance engineers have had to turn the heating down so often, that they are on the verge of switching it off completely.
The problem of course with this type of situation is that, if we wait too long the results will be disastrous and prolonged. The warning signs are already there but are being ignored.
This situation also highlights a basic human weakness, despite human factors training, that of allowing history to repeat itself. Exactly the same scenario has already been witnessed within the rail industry. The association for one can still remember those union warnings about training and standards that fell upon deaf ears.
We all now know who got it right at the expense of the fare paying passenger. I think we would both agree that the effects of this industry getting it wrong will be far worse".
It will never change though because in all my years of flying one never really wanted anything to do with the other.
However I think there is a lot to be concerned about in this engineers press release. If todays situation is really as bad as both pilots and engineers seem to think it is, then why aren't you working together to solve it instead of wasting energy criticising an individual who has the right to free speech?
This is the release:
"The Association of Licenced Engineers must disagree with David Learmount’s comments regarding safety in the article “Pilots 'under pressure to take risks” Daily Telegraph 23/8/2005.
The fact is that the regulators have been warned now for some time that the safety scales are becoming unbalanced. The financial wizards are running the show at the moment to the detriment of safety. Of course the effects of this will not be seen overnight but once they bite, it will be a difficult, lengthy and extremely cost intensive process to reverse the trend. You cannot adequately train flight or ground personnel for this industry overnight.
More and more reports are showing that incidents are on the increase. Incidents are only a short step away from accidents. In a never ending quest to save money, maintenance is being squeezed to the limits and beyond. The average passenger hasn't a clue about the standard or quality of on-going maintenance and so this really has no effect on his decision with whom he should fly. Furthermore if passengers did react to a safety record when making that decision, then unfortunately that would indicate that it is already too late and innocent people have already suffered.
The ALAE accepts that the statistics probably support David’s statement but please do not be fooled by them. Maintenance cuts will not be noticed by the average passenger who will pay massive detail to the quality of his seat and in-flight entertainment yet is oblivious to the overrun "A" check or the delayed engine maintenance or the ever growing deferred defects list or the unqualified signatory or the ignored corrosion, and, and, and. He does however put his faith in the professionals within the industry who year after year have been told to turn the heating down a little to save money and become more efficient. Well it is about time that people realised, yourself included David, that maintenance engineers have had to turn the heating down so often, that they are on the verge of switching it off completely.
The problem of course with this type of situation is that, if we wait too long the results will be disastrous and prolonged. The warning signs are already there but are being ignored.
This situation also highlights a basic human weakness, despite human factors training, that of allowing history to repeat itself. Exactly the same scenario has already been witnessed within the rail industry. The association for one can still remember those union warnings about training and standards that fell upon deaf ears.
We all now know who got it right at the expense of the fare paying passenger. I think we would both agree that the effects of this industry getting it wrong will be far worse".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?
I really believe this is the real question we should ask ourselves, without prejudice and open to change our minds if needed.
I am not certain we will find a clear unique answer to this dilemma, but just avoiding the question is not the right attitude of some LoCo pilots.
Somebody on this forum does not even want to ask this crucial question, accusing me and others of trying to speculate that LoCo means Low safety.
I just want to ask the very simple question: are the LoCo under more pressure than other carriers?
Being LoCo the driving force of the increased competition, can we be absolutely sure 100% that this is not putting LoCo pilots under more pressure?
Is it allowed to ask this question to those pilots or am I offending them?
They are the only ones who can clearly answer here.
We know what their Managers would say, we do not really trust those people anymore, the only answers we need must come from the LoCo pilots. They know the truth.
See also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=186156
I am not certain we will find a clear unique answer to this dilemma, but just avoiding the question is not the right attitude of some LoCo pilots.
Somebody on this forum does not even want to ask this crucial question, accusing me and others of trying to speculate that LoCo means Low safety.
I just want to ask the very simple question: are the LoCo under more pressure than other carriers?
Being LoCo the driving force of the increased competition, can we be absolutely sure 100% that this is not putting LoCo pilots under more pressure?
Is it allowed to ask this question to those pilots or am I offending them?
They are the only ones who can clearly answer here.
We know what their Managers would say, we do not really trust those people anymore, the only answers we need must come from the LoCo pilots. They know the truth.
See also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=186156
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes me laugh is then then complain about poor quality of service, why are they surprised!
*allegedly and not over the last few weeks!
I'm only a professional pilot
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A doctor might publicly criticise the NHS and keep his job. Any pilot who spoke out would very rapidly face the censure of employers and quite possibly the CAA.
Somebody oughta write a book.
Being LoCo the driving force of the increased competition, can we be absolutely sure 100% that this is not putting LoCo pilots under more pressure?
It is not low cost, but low profit (or heavey loss!!) that drives suicidal cost cutting exersizes. As the locos have been the most profitable sector of the industry since their inception, they have had the least pressure to compromise saftey (indeed, as so much relies on public perception, they have been VERY motivated to act safely), something that i believe the accident statistcs would bear out.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz nearly got it 100% right.
Yes loco's have put the big players under pressure but also more astutely, they have put out their maintenance to the cheapest provider.
How many loco's have their own maintenance as 100% part of their own company.
By doing it this way you put pressure on everybody but yourself.
You will then always get the cheapest but leave question marks about the quality.
Add to that the no delay bonus, ensuring that the self centered captains among us tend not to enter too much in the tech log and are we increasing or decreasing the safety margin?
So basically LOCO's screw everyone.
Yes loco's have put the big players under pressure but also more astutely, they have put out their maintenance to the cheapest provider.
How many loco's have their own maintenance as 100% part of their own company.
By doing it this way you put pressure on everybody but yourself.
You will then always get the cheapest but leave question marks about the quality.
Add to that the no delay bonus, ensuring that the self centered captains among us tend not to enter too much in the tech log and are we increasing or decreasing the safety margin?
So basically LOCO's screw everyone.
Add to that the no delay bonus
So basically LOCO's screw everyone.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The 51st State
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for a company that had a "no delay" bonus. We called it a punctuality bonus and differing levels of punctuality triggered payments. The more on time, the more money.
I wonder if ticket prices had any effect on recent accidents. I'd hate to die on a full fare ticket, talk about adding insult to injury.
Harry
I wonder if ticket prices had any effect on recent accidents. I'd hate to die on a full fare ticket, talk about adding insult to injury.
Harry
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: moscow
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for those of you that fly to those weired and wonderful european airports no one has ever heard of here is a question.
when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?
is the onus on the pilot to make a decision the scratched fueslage is within limits or the reverser should be locked out?
does one seem to find that during the day the aircraft flies around with nil defects and then suddenly on it's last sector the book is full of defects?
the port nav light has failed and it is dusk, oh well lets push on back to base. sound familiar..........i hope not.
when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?
is the onus on the pilot to make a decision the scratched fueslage is within limits or the reverser should be locked out?
does one seem to find that during the day the aircraft flies around with nil defects and then suddenly on it's last sector the book is full of defects?
the port nav light has failed and it is dusk, oh well lets push on back to base. sound familiar..........i hope not.
The Most Dangerous Activity
With the greatest respect, I suspect that what you are talking about is the most dangerous form of behaviour for someone working in a life critical activity - Self Censorship.
It doesn't take very much at all for management of ANY organisation to make it perfectly obvious that comments about certain activities are unwelcome and discouraged. The way to make it obvious is carrot and stick, bonuses and punishment.
It happens in light aircraft operations (I'm a humble PPL) where people don't write up defects but instead maintain a separate list.
I've heard certain airline pilots say "the light came on during climb" before now.
I onced worked for an extremely large oil company that had reams of safety procedure manuals that I had to comply with, but no budget to do so and it was made very clear that I shouldn't even ask. Since I was transferred regularly every two years, the temptation was to do what you could and hope nothing happened on your watch, leaving the problems for the next poor SOB. An explosion at one of its gas plants 20 years later killed six men - and guess what? The company blamed them for their own deaths for not following procedures.
The only answer to the problem that I am currently aware of is a confidential reporting service to a regulator who will listen and has the skills, capacity and motivation to take action.
I'm unsure as to how many of these exist, its easy for them to become "captured" by those they regulate. I suspect a great many pilots would be victimised before anyone could determine which regulators were effective and which weren't.
It doesn't take very much at all for management of ANY organisation to make it perfectly obvious that comments about certain activities are unwelcome and discouraged. The way to make it obvious is carrot and stick, bonuses and punishment.
It happens in light aircraft operations (I'm a humble PPL) where people don't write up defects but instead maintain a separate list.
I've heard certain airline pilots say "the light came on during climb" before now.
I onced worked for an extremely large oil company that had reams of safety procedure manuals that I had to comply with, but no budget to do so and it was made very clear that I shouldn't even ask. Since I was transferred regularly every two years, the temptation was to do what you could and hope nothing happened on your watch, leaving the problems for the next poor SOB. An explosion at one of its gas plants 20 years later killed six men - and guess what? The company blamed them for their own deaths for not following procedures.
The only answer to the problem that I am currently aware of is a confidential reporting service to a regulator who will listen and has the skills, capacity and motivation to take action.
I'm unsure as to how many of these exist, its easy for them to become "captured" by those they regulate. I suspect a great many pilots would be victimised before anyone could determine which regulators were effective and which weren't.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Vascani...one honest out there.
"when you arrive at said airfield and discover a defect, either enroute or on the ground what happens? do you have a "call out" contract with a maintenace provider or do you make a "that al' be alright" phone call to main base?"
is Vascani the only one admitting this?...there must be more of you out there who can speak out....
just to explain to all, this is specifically related to LoCo carriers and secondary airports they serve...this does not normally happen to main Carriers, unless diverted...
any other comment on this one?
I would like to remind all readers that, very often, LoCo carriers land at nearly "unknown" airports with minimum or no maintenance facilities.
Am I exagerating here? I do not think so...I am with Viscani 100%.
Sunfish is also right, self-censorship is a tricky game, especially in a life critical activity.
Honestly, I would have expected a sensibly higher number of posts on this issue...but the highly paid Managers have really this issue in hands at the moment!
Scary, very scary.
is Vascani the only one admitting this?...there must be more of you out there who can speak out....
just to explain to all, this is specifically related to LoCo carriers and secondary airports they serve...this does not normally happen to main Carriers, unless diverted...
any other comment on this one?
I would like to remind all readers that, very often, LoCo carriers land at nearly "unknown" airports with minimum or no maintenance facilities.
Am I exagerating here? I do not think so...I am with Viscani 100%.
Sunfish is also right, self-censorship is a tricky game, especially in a life critical activity.
Honestly, I would have expected a sensibly higher number of posts on this issue...but the highly paid Managers have really this issue in hands at the moment!
Scary, very scary.