More CHIRP wimpishness
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHIRP is read widely by those involved in professional aviation matters and is being copied in various other states. Whether or not its contents are acted upon by the relevant authorities is for those who have contributed to it, to determine. It is not a substitute for the MOR facility, but it is (in my view) a valuable insight into the concerns of those involved in any form of air safety - pilots, engineers, cabin crew, ATC etc.. The only alternative would be a 'whinge' in PPRuNe, which allows the non-involved to state their more-often-than-not irrelevant comments. At least the concerns of a CHIRP poster are commented on by 'an authority' (whether to your satisfaction or not).
Keep CHIRP going, it is at least an addition to improving air safety. If you feel it is not, then you have the democratic right to file it in the appropriate place!
Keep CHIRP going, it is at least an addition to improving air safety. If you feel it is not, then you have the democratic right to file it in the appropriate place!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC - are you therefore disagreeing with the CHIRP 'statement' or the fact that they have even mentioned the word 'commercial'? I prefer to look at CHIRP as taking a pragmatic approach to safety, highlighting issues and spreading the word. Taking the 'hot' topic of fuel loads, are you saying that CHIRP should just support unlimited excesses (as they are 'safe') and totally ignore the fact that the airline would soon be bankrupt if these uneccessary extra loads were carried all the time, or should they promote the sensible approach that fuel should be loaded as needed to assure as much safety as is practical - i.e. the 'commercial' approach?
The basic statement "Commercial Air Transport operations must be safe and also commercially viable." is surely beyond criticism - or the 'operation' ceases to be 'commercial'.
In a real world safety and survival as a business are not two separate unassociated items. CHIRP is simply reflecting the real world. If they chose to de-focus on reality, what credibilty would they have?
The basic statement "Commercial Air Transport operations must be safe and also commercially viable." is surely beyond criticism - or the 'operation' ceases to be 'commercial'.
In a real world safety and survival as a business are not two separate unassociated items. CHIRP is simply reflecting the real world. If they chose to de-focus on reality, what credibilty would they have?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys (and girls to be PC)
I think we ought to agree to disagree on the use of the word 'commercial' by CHIRP.
At the end of the day we are all trying to achive the same thing, a SAFE operation that is COMMERCIALLY viable.
The CAA or whoever make the rules and CHIRP gives us a sounding board where we can raise concerns without sticking our heads up above the parapit... supposedly.
What isn't clear is what the CAA do with regards to the reports and whether they folow them up with the operator... from reading them regularly I tend to think that sometimes this doesn't happen.
I must admit what worries me is that a UK AOC holder can put in place procedures that enable it to intimadate crews into taking flight plan fuel when their judgement may suggest more is required. (Page 9 Sector Fuel - Relearning an old lesson) I think CHIRP should name and shame such operators, if only to highlight the problem.
I'm lucky in that we are simply encouraged to think about what extra we take (which to my mind is part of our job as professional pilots) but I have never heard of anyone being taken to task over their decisions, or even have them ever queried.
I think we ought to agree to disagree on the use of the word 'commercial' by CHIRP.
At the end of the day we are all trying to achive the same thing, a SAFE operation that is COMMERCIALLY viable.
The CAA or whoever make the rules and CHIRP gives us a sounding board where we can raise concerns without sticking our heads up above the parapit... supposedly.
What isn't clear is what the CAA do with regards to the reports and whether they folow them up with the operator... from reading them regularly I tend to think that sometimes this doesn't happen.
I must admit what worries me is that a UK AOC holder can put in place procedures that enable it to intimadate crews into taking flight plan fuel when their judgement may suggest more is required. (Page 9 Sector Fuel - Relearning an old lesson) I think CHIRP should name and shame such operators, if only to highlight the problem.
I'm lucky in that we are simply encouraged to think about what extra we take (which to my mind is part of our job as professional pilots) but I have never heard of anyone being taken to task over their decisions, or even have them ever queried.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they'll deal with the fuel issue as they did the security-
which is, "both the DOT and CAA have declined to take ANY action in response to the reported difficulties experienced by flight crew..."
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are trying to read too much into the words published in CHIRP.
Since the major purpose of CHIRP Is to provide a communication channel for an observation which caused someone alarm, then it has certainly achieved its aim here!
What we are actually discussing here is the lack of action by regulators in cases where the accountants do now as a matter of course interfere in the decision making processes of the flight crew.
Since the major purpose of CHIRP Is to provide a communication channel for an observation which caused someone alarm, then it has certainly achieved its aim here!
What we are actually discussing here is the lack of action by regulators in cases where the accountants do now as a matter of course interfere in the decision making processes of the flight crew.
Thread Starter
The balance between safe operation and bean counter driven bottom line commercialism needs to be carefully considered by CHIRP. Their prime focus should be upon safety concerns, untainted by political or commercial pressure. Perhaps that's naive, but right now I think that CHIRP has lost focus in this regard.
It puts me in mind of a colleague who went for an interview with a 'big airline' at a time when they preferred 'managers' to 'pilots'. As he already had an offer of employment from another airline, he was in a 'What the hell' mood...... He was asked which was more important to an airline - operations or management. "Simple", he said, "Operations!". When that brought a few grey stares and mumbling amongst his inquisitors, he continued "Poor management might possibly hurt a few shareholders, but poor operations will certainly kill a few passengers. I don't wish to work for any airline which doesn't understand that, so good-bye!!"
It puts me in mind of a colleague who went for an interview with a 'big airline' at a time when they preferred 'managers' to 'pilots'. As he already had an offer of employment from another airline, he was in a 'What the hell' mood...... He was asked which was more important to an airline - operations or management. "Simple", he said, "Operations!". When that brought a few grey stares and mumbling amongst his inquisitors, he continued "Poor management might possibly hurt a few shareholders, but poor operations will certainly kill a few passengers. I don't wish to work for any airline which doesn't understand that, so good-bye!!"
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - I'll bite: what would you two have expected CHIRP to say on 'sector fuel' and Level2 regulation, and when would you expect to see changes in CAA regulatory policy resulting?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three Pilot Operations
I was somewhat perturbed at the Chirp Comment under this particular article, on Page 12, which concluded:
'In the absence of appropriate rest facilities and/or an Operations Manual procedure for sharing the flight deck duties, it is difficult to conclude that this practice achieves anything other than three tired pilots being on the flight deck, as opposed to two.'
Surely, the answer lies in flight crew and their respective Unions/staff representatives not accepting this situation, rather than a general resignation, as this article concludes, that this mode of operation will be accepted.
If flight crew don't like it, then don't do it!
Who are the airlines to dictate working practices which, while not necessarily contravening flight time limitation legislation, appear to contravene any semblance of common sense?!
I was fatigued by a constant 6 on, 4 sector day routine until, finally, I considered my performance was not safe. I had the Captain contact 'ops' and state I had a 'tummy upset' and got off after the first two sectors. Luckily the Captain was a CRM instructor who understood, and appreciated, the dilemma I had. On the assumption that, as pilots, we work on the premise of 'safety first', that was one day in which I could say I would not have wanted the wife and kids in the back.
Why do pilots continually take c**p like this without so much of a fight?
The pilot mentality is sometimes hard to comprehend and I can only assume that the 'tradition' stems from military edict that 'the mission must be completed' (hopefully not at all cost)?
Pilots seem to spend their time wingeing and moaning (for which PPruNe is the ideal platform) but seem less than 'heroes' when it comes to fighting for their own rights and conditions of employment?
Sorry to be on my high-horse, but I have always taken action if I don't like the way I am treated by employers - which in the past has involved BALPA fighting my cause and resigning from employment.
If others stuck to their guns then maybe the role of the airline pilot would not be diminished as it has been over the past few decades.
If I'm wrong tell me, but exploitation in any form is surely not acceptable?
KR
FOK
'In the absence of appropriate rest facilities and/or an Operations Manual procedure for sharing the flight deck duties, it is difficult to conclude that this practice achieves anything other than three tired pilots being on the flight deck, as opposed to two.'
Surely, the answer lies in flight crew and their respective Unions/staff representatives not accepting this situation, rather than a general resignation, as this article concludes, that this mode of operation will be accepted.
If flight crew don't like it, then don't do it!
Who are the airlines to dictate working practices which, while not necessarily contravening flight time limitation legislation, appear to contravene any semblance of common sense?!
I was fatigued by a constant 6 on, 4 sector day routine until, finally, I considered my performance was not safe. I had the Captain contact 'ops' and state I had a 'tummy upset' and got off after the first two sectors. Luckily the Captain was a CRM instructor who understood, and appreciated, the dilemma I had. On the assumption that, as pilots, we work on the premise of 'safety first', that was one day in which I could say I would not have wanted the wife and kids in the back.
Why do pilots continually take c**p like this without so much of a fight?
The pilot mentality is sometimes hard to comprehend and I can only assume that the 'tradition' stems from military edict that 'the mission must be completed' (hopefully not at all cost)?
Pilots seem to spend their time wingeing and moaning (for which PPruNe is the ideal platform) but seem less than 'heroes' when it comes to fighting for their own rights and conditions of employment?
Sorry to be on my high-horse, but I have always taken action if I don't like the way I am treated by employers - which in the past has involved BALPA fighting my cause and resigning from employment.
If others stuck to their guns then maybe the role of the airline pilot would not be diminished as it has been over the past few decades.
If I'm wrong tell me, but exploitation in any form is surely not acceptable?
KR
FOK
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anoxic
That's all well and good - but try taking on one of the largest low-cost operators in the World who, at the time, let it be known that any pilot who suffered from 'fatigue' would be looked upon unsympathetically. We were all supposed to get adequate rest as the airline complied with CAP 307 and it was the pilot's fault if s/he was 'tired'. Even with minimum rest (12 hours) when it took 1 hour to drive to and from the airport (10 hours left) and at least an hour to eat (9 hours left), time for leisure (2 hours) and then to sleep (maximum 7 hours) - and NO - few pilots lived within an hour of base (and why should they when the airline stipulated one and a half hours as a maximum?)
I didn't take them on - a few of us resigned.
Looking back the lifestyle was c**p and all to fly a jet at an hourly rate, when calculated taking into account the actual hours worked, was a pittance.
Been there, done that and on reflection I realise that the pilots who succeeded the best were the single guys and gals without many commitments outside aviation.
KR
FOK
That's all well and good - but try taking on one of the largest low-cost operators in the World who, at the time, let it be known that any pilot who suffered from 'fatigue' would be looked upon unsympathetically. We were all supposed to get adequate rest as the airline complied with CAP 307 and it was the pilot's fault if s/he was 'tired'. Even with minimum rest (12 hours) when it took 1 hour to drive to and from the airport (10 hours left) and at least an hour to eat (9 hours left), time for leisure (2 hours) and then to sleep (maximum 7 hours) - and NO - few pilots lived within an hour of base (and why should they when the airline stipulated one and a half hours as a maximum?)
I didn't take them on - a few of us resigned.
Looking back the lifestyle was c**p and all to fly a jet at an hourly rate, when calculated taking into account the actual hours worked, was a pittance.
Been there, done that and on reflection I realise that the pilots who succeeded the best were the single guys and gals without many commitments outside aviation.
KR
FOK
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again, SC. What, then, did YOU do to stop the a/c flying post 18.08, never mind 19.08, assuming, of course, you have any control? Have you yet come up with your re-write of the CHIRP editorial?
For the MODS:
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ml#post4513439 - would you consider asking the poster to validate what is otherwise a libellous post (post number #3 'TURIN') with the names of officer/officers of CHIRPS and airlines involved or to withdraw the post? In the decades of dealing with CHIRP I have seen nothing but propriety and efficient action on my reports - but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, of course. Separate 'post report' on its way, guys.
For the MODS:
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ml#post4513439 - would you consider asking the poster to validate what is otherwise a libellous post (post number #3 'TURIN') with the names of officer/officers of CHIRPS and airlines involved or to withdraw the post? In the decades of dealing with CHIRP I have seen nothing but propriety and efficient action on my reports - but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, of course. Separate 'post report' on its way, guys.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Gusto
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we could have a comprehensive list of all the good things that CHIRP has achieved in its time? And a rough cost of all the good work?
Completely
Harmless
Immunity for
Regulators from
Problems
Completely
Harmless
Immunity for
Regulators from
Problems
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a dilemma here; a few want to kick butt, as they see imperfections in CHIRP's role or certainly their written responses.
There is another underlying thread which wants to talk about the difficulties pilots encounter when trying to operate complicated equipment in an era when the bean counters cannot evaluate the cost implications other than to say, if there is a cost implication don't do it!
It is for the regulators to demonstrate they they sit in the middle of this debate, (or should do), and show their backbone, as strident tones alone from CHIRP will not achieve all that the pilot fraternity seek.
There is another underlying thread which wants to talk about the difficulties pilots encounter when trying to operate complicated equipment in an era when the bean counters cannot evaluate the cost implications other than to say, if there is a cost implication don't do it!
It is for the regulators to demonstrate they they sit in the middle of this debate, (or should do), and show their backbone, as strident tones alone from CHIRP will not achieve all that the pilot fraternity seek.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Gusto
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHIRP has done a fantastic job over many years
What has it done?
What has changed?
What benefit has been gained?
...and (with apologies to the late and much missed Douglas Adams), what invisible losses accrue as regulators and authorities shrug their shoulders at anything which they can shove CHIRP's way, safe in the knowledge that it's Someone Else's Problem?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "20 minutes recommended holding fuel" which the AIC suggests, equates to approx 700kg in B737/A319.
Some rough maths -
extra burn on short haul sector for 700kg c. 40 kg per flight
large uk airline 300 flights per day to LGW,STN & LTN = 12000kg extra burn per day.
at about $1000 per tonne = 4.3 Million US$ (£3 M) per year.
One can see why management "encourage" carrying flight plan fuel.
An incident closing eg LGW would probably result in a few emergencies being declared. I have never had to hold for 20 minutes inbound to LGW, STN or LTN. Should this only apply to LHR?
Because of the large cost of carrying this extra fuel, the CAA need to make it mandatory if they consider it neccessary as operators are unlikely to comply otherwise.
Some rough maths -
extra burn on short haul sector for 700kg c. 40 kg per flight
large uk airline 300 flights per day to LGW,STN & LTN = 12000kg extra burn per day.
at about $1000 per tonne = 4.3 Million US$ (£3 M) per year.
One can see why management "encourage" carrying flight plan fuel.
An incident closing eg LGW would probably result in a few emergencies being declared. I have never had to hold for 20 minutes inbound to LGW, STN or LTN. Should this only apply to LHR?
Because of the large cost of carrying this extra fuel, the CAA need to make it mandatory if they consider it neccessary as operators are unlikely to comply otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record
Absolute rubbish
From my time operating under their {BA} procedures seem to recall something to do with using Gatwick and Heathrow as the same "airfield" therefore reducing reserves from 30 to 15mins.
Absolute rubbish
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partly rubbish, 'TheKabaka' - in fact in BA LHR and LGW were 'second runways' for each other, thereby allowing 'the keenies' to g/a at LGW with 30 mins remaining fuel and arrive at LHR over the densely populated parts of West London with not a left. All fully approved by the CAA.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: still in exile
Age: 79
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorst,
A few years ago, at two UK civil airports, CHIRP was more than useful at getting things done. (At a time when the ATC Chief Officer could stop reports going off unit, all of them safety issues)
Ayrshott.
A few years ago, at two UK civil airports, CHIRP was more than useful at getting things done. (At a time when the ATC Chief Officer could stop reports going off unit, all of them safety issues)
Ayrshott.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, I can . . . . .
Can anyone suggest a second good deed in, say, the last decade?
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...-airborne.html
This was instigated by a CHIRP report, and has aired a large number of views and valid points.
1. ATCO's who read it will, hopefully, think more carefully about the effects of their instructions on inexperienced or VFR only PPL's.
2. PPL's who read it may now be more confident about declining ATC instructions in circumstances where danger could increase.
In either case, air safety has to be improved. Thanks are due to CHIRP for bringing this case to our attention.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my Airline we had a number of FTL issues most prominent being the use of 18-30 hour rest periods.
There was intensive CHIRP reporting by my colleagues and this led to a Special Operations Check by the CAA.
If people report then it does work.
If you don't like the feedback that CHIRP give on an issue, then report that.
It is only by proper use of CHIRP that it has any power to do anything. I would suggest that pilot apathy is the biggest problem.
There was intensive CHIRP reporting by my colleagues and this led to a Special Operations Check by the CAA.
If people report then it does work.
If you don't like the feedback that CHIRP give on an issue, then report that.
It is only by proper use of CHIRP that it has any power to do anything. I would suggest that pilot apathy is the biggest problem.
