More CHIRP wimpishness
Thread Starter
More CHIRP wimpishness
I note from the latest CHIRP:
Well, no $hit, Sherlock.
Risk assessing to whom? The unfortunate genpub who live under the approach when some cheapo airline runs out of fuel on arrival?
Either make a policy mean something, or don't have the policy. Weasel-worded 'recommendations' are of b*gger all use to anyone.
"Those operators who elect not to carry the recommended holding fuel for entry into the UK might wish to reflect on the effect of a runway closure or similar disruption to the inbound traffic flow when risk assessing their fuel policy"
Well, no $hit, Sherlock.
Risk assessing to whom? The unfortunate genpub who live under the approach when some cheapo airline runs out of fuel on arrival?
Either make a policy mean something, or don't have the policy. Weasel-worded 'recommendations' are of b*gger all use to anyone.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the cheap dig at 'cheapo airline'?
I gather some major national airlines run their policies on lines which would cause at least embarrassment if runways are suddenly closed.
I gather some major national airlines run their policies on lines which would cause at least embarrassment if runways are suddenly closed.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 30W
Age: 40
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say competitive and cheapo mean almost the same now when it comes down to fuel. I hear that some larger airlines actually have fuel league tables now. Sorry for changing the subject a bit!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either make a policy mean something, or don't have the policy. Weasel-worded 'recommendations' are of b*gger all use to anyone.
As a line pilot, I like it as it stands. It gives me an excuse to put the fuel on if I feel I need it, without the company being able to complain, but the flexability to do without it on occasion 'if appropriate'.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of CHIRP (and I am involved in setting up a similar system elsewhere in the world), is that it is a procedure for us to report things that are "not quite right", or that are a potential problem with the "human factor". CHIRP then make this information available to those who may find it useful i.e. us pilots, the CAA (including those overseas where the report involves overseas pilots or an overseas company), the airlines and any other stakeholders. CHIRP is not there to set rules, it is simply there to make information available to those who may find it useful with the assurance of anonymity for those included in the report.
The wording in this report is not related to those not carrying mandatory minimum reserves (that would be MORable) and I am afraid that bean counters are now pushing for minimum legal fuel to be carried regardless. As a pilot you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any (British at least) airline that took disciplinary action against a pilot who carried the "recommended" expected holding fuel, would find themselves skating on precariously thin ice and if it went to tribunal the media would have a field day. Then again, do you really want to work in an airline that puts the accountant above the captain when it comes to cockpit synergy? I dont!
RIX
The wording in this report is not related to those not carrying mandatory minimum reserves (that would be MORable) and I am afraid that bean counters are now pushing for minimum legal fuel to be carried regardless. As a pilot you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any (British at least) airline that took disciplinary action against a pilot who carried the "recommended" expected holding fuel, would find themselves skating on precariously thin ice and if it went to tribunal the media would have a field day. Then again, do you really want to work in an airline that puts the accountant above the captain when it comes to cockpit synergy? I dont!
RIX
Thread Starter
Sorry,
Delete 'cheapo'
Insert 'bean counter driven'
Also, I know that CHIRP doesn't make the rules, but a rather more forthright statement about their observance wouldn't go amiss. 'Might like to reflect' is a very weak Sir Humphrey-esque comment!
Delete 'cheapo'
Insert 'bean counter driven'
Also, I know that CHIRP doesn't make the rules, but a rather more forthright statement about their observance wouldn't go amiss. 'Might like to reflect' is a very weak Sir Humphrey-esque comment!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
CHIRP doesn't have any authority so it's limited to "weasel-worded 'recommendations'".
Insted of calling it Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP) they should have called it Confidential Reporting Aviation Programme (CRAP).
CHIRP doesn't have any authority so it's limited to "weasel-worded 'recommendations'".
Insted of calling it Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP) they should have called it Confidential Reporting Aviation Programme (CRAP).
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very naive set of comments from those above who think that CHIRP can instantly change things.
CHIRP is a forum that brings issues to the attention of the industry and regulators.
As with all things "political" issues like fuel policy and security are only influenced over time due to burocratic inertia, with constant and sustained pressure eventualy a tipping point will be reached and policy will be changed.
This tipping point could well be a LO-CO running out of fuel or a crew so destracted by the way "security" had treated them that a major inccident happens. However the job of CHIRP is not to change things..... It cant because it has no mandate to do so, CHIRPS job is to accuratly reflect events in the industry so that the regulators have an accurate picture and act accordingly.
BEgle you are directing your wrath at the wrong people, it is the CAA who must read each issue of CHIRP and willfully ignore it that you should be directing your displeasure at, for it is the CAA who hold the mandate to regulate the industry and are failing to do so.
Unfortunatly it is likely to take a major accident to get the CAA to move on these issues but with the way corporate responsability is being seen in the courts I think that it is not unlikely that some senior CAA managers could find them selfs in the dock for persistantly failing to act on issues raised in CHRIP that directly relate to the accident.
I hope that you will all continue to use CHIRP it is not an instant cure for a problem but very much a long term influence on the situation.
CHIRP is a forum that brings issues to the attention of the industry and regulators.
As with all things "political" issues like fuel policy and security are only influenced over time due to burocratic inertia, with constant and sustained pressure eventualy a tipping point will be reached and policy will be changed.
This tipping point could well be a LO-CO running out of fuel or a crew so destracted by the way "security" had treated them that a major inccident happens. However the job of CHIRP is not to change things..... It cant because it has no mandate to do so, CHIRPS job is to accuratly reflect events in the industry so that the regulators have an accurate picture and act accordingly.
BEgle you are directing your wrath at the wrong people, it is the CAA who must read each issue of CHIRP and willfully ignore it that you should be directing your displeasure at, for it is the CAA who hold the mandate to regulate the industry and are failing to do so.
Unfortunatly it is likely to take a major accident to get the CAA to move on these issues but with the way corporate responsability is being seen in the courts I think that it is not unlikely that some senior CAA managers could find them selfs in the dock for persistantly failing to act on issues raised in CHRIP that directly relate to the accident.
I hope that you will all continue to use CHIRP it is not an instant cure for a problem but very much a long term influence on the situation.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why a LO-CO?
Seem to remember BA, especially concorde, were always calling fuel emergencies. From my time operating under their procedures seem to recall something to do with using Gatwick and Heathrow as the same "airfield" therefore reducing reserves from 30 to 15mins.
There were of course caveats, (EAT, good weather etc)
I thought Korean were the record holders for low fuel arrivals in LHR?
Seem to remember BA, especially concorde, were always calling fuel emergencies. From my time operating under their procedures seem to recall something to do with using Gatwick and Heathrow as the same "airfield" therefore reducing reserves from 30 to 15mins.
There were of course caveats, (EAT, good weather etc)
I thought Korean were the record holders for low fuel arrivals in LHR?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please have another read of, and a think about, A and C's post?
Let us just imagine the steaming outrage on this forum if a non-regulatory body (CHIRP) started mandating the fuel planning for the complainers here. Who would be the first with blood dripping from the keyboard?
It remains a useful information dissemination facility and as A and C says, it is the regulatory bodies you should be directing your flak at. Have you?
If it gets you so exercised, ask to be removed from the mailing list.
Let us just imagine the steaming outrage on this forum if a non-regulatory body (CHIRP) started mandating the fuel planning for the complainers here. Who would be the first with blood dripping from the keyboard?
It remains a useful information dissemination facility and as A and C says, it is the regulatory bodies you should be directing your flak at. Have you?
If it gets you so exercised, ask to be removed from the mailing list.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
choice of publication . . . . . .
The ideal for any pilot, of course, is that one's flights are totally unremarkable, and therefore more or less undocumented.
But if being "mentioned in despatches" does become inevitable I would certainly much rather that my exploits featured in CHIRP, than in that other monthly aviation publication from the AAIB !
But if being "mentioned in despatches" does become inevitable I would certainly much rather that my exploits featured in CHIRP, than in that other monthly aviation publication from the AAIB !
CHIRP is a forum that brings issues to the attention of the industry and regulators
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My copy has now arrived.
Of course, C, and the sort of 'speaking' you seek is evident on page 12 (L2 variations) but they can go NO FURTHER. I certainly do not know PT as a 'placator'.
All should read Peter's editorial on the front page, in particular para 3. The route for those who DO see safety issues in what they are 'expected' to do is - if indeed they are 'brave' enough? - to use the formal reporting system. CHIRP even offer a CAA non-MOR email address for you all on page 13.
It is the same when 'whinging' on this forum, making you feel good, venting your spleen, but like wetting your nappy, the warm feeling does not last long. Others do, of course, get to see your points and action may eventually be driven.
I suspect a large percentage of those PPrune 'complainers' have never ever filed an MOR? If it is fuel you are all exercised about, divert if you have not got enough. If you actually have enough, using all 'approved' adjustments and procedures, but just don't like what you are being told by your company.............................please do not blame CHIRP!
Of course, C, and the sort of 'speaking' you seek is evident on page 12 (L2 variations) but they can go NO FURTHER. I certainly do not know PT as a 'placator'.
All should read Peter's editorial on the front page, in particular para 3. The route for those who DO see safety issues in what they are 'expected' to do is - if indeed they are 'brave' enough? - to use the formal reporting system. CHIRP even offer a CAA non-MOR email address for you all on page 13.
It is the same when 'whinging' on this forum, making you feel good, venting your spleen, but like wetting your nappy, the warm feeling does not last long. Others do, of course, get to see your points and action may eventually be driven.
I suspect a large percentage of those PPrune 'complainers' have never ever filed an MOR? If it is fuel you are all exercised about, divert if you have not got enough. If you actually have enough, using all 'approved' adjustments and procedures, but just don't like what you are being told by your company.............................please do not blame CHIRP!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F14
Why LO-CO ?
Because it is in the LO-CO.......... sorry LO-service sector that the most agrresive managements seem to rule ,fuel policy is strictly enforced and FDM is used as a disiplinery tool, not as intended as a flight safety tool.
This is not the culture within these airlines, just individual pilots mistakes.
Because it is in the LO-CO.......... sorry LO-service sector that the most agrresive managements seem to rule ,fuel policy is strictly enforced and FDM is used as a disiplinery tool, not as intended as a flight safety tool.
This is not the culture within these airlines, just individual pilots mistakes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Trodden Ground
I fear I am walking over already well trodden ground. But for those who seem ignorant of the role of CHIRP, it might be worth re-iterating what the acronym stands for;
I think CHIRP is a fantastic idea, long may it live! Those of you whom think it is a toothless paper tiger, I have only one question, if it didn't exist who would you turn too.
Please don't say 'the union' that's too funny!
Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme
I think CHIRP is a fantastic idea, long may it live! Those of you whom think it is a toothless paper tiger, I have only one question, if it didn't exist who would you turn too.
Please don't say 'the union' that's too funny!
The Australian AIP has a section for traffic holding fuel. Each of the major airports is listed there, and you can look up your arrival time - for instance arriving in Sydney, between (say) 4:30pm local and 6 pm local, carry 30 mins holding. Carriage of this traffic holding is mandatory.
(Edit: It should also be noted that the Aussie fuel rules are written in such a way that carrying a diversion airport is not usual - unless the weather requires it. As opposed to Europe, where the regs a written so as to carry a diversion airport, unless everything is fine - in which you may decide not to - which results in it being quite uncommon not to carry diversion fuel in Europe.)
When I first came to Europe five years ago, I asked about traffic holding, and the only answer was "Oh, it's just based on local knowledge." !! There doesn't seem to be any answer if you AREN'T a local.
If CHIRP were to make a solid recommendation, then at least following the Australian tried and tested example would be better than a vague "recommendation" I think.
I do recognise that the CTOT system, where most traffic holding takes place on the ground, is better here than it was in Australia 6 or so years ago.
(Edit: It should also be noted that the Aussie fuel rules are written in such a way that carrying a diversion airport is not usual - unless the weather requires it. As opposed to Europe, where the regs a written so as to carry a diversion airport, unless everything is fine - in which you may decide not to - which results in it being quite uncommon not to carry diversion fuel in Europe.)
When I first came to Europe five years ago, I asked about traffic holding, and the only answer was "Oh, it's just based on local knowledge." !! There doesn't seem to be any answer if you AREN'T a local.
If CHIRP were to make a solid recommendation, then at least following the Australian tried and tested example would be better than a vague "recommendation" I think.
I do recognise that the CTOT system, where most traffic holding takes place on the ground, is better here than it was in Australia 6 or so years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One up for CHIRP
I wrote a long report on a foreign operator and quoted names, dates, aircraft etc etc.
CHIRP pointed out that these occurrences did not happen in European airspace and therefore could not actually DO anything. What they DID do was place my report on the Operator's File, so that Inspectors carrying out Ramp Checks were able to read it before 'duty'.
Considering they 'couldn't do much', they did. Shortly afterwards the airline had a major accident (also out of Europe), however the operator now appears to be/or was banned.
I am satisfied that they did the best they could, and it was more than I expected. Had CHIRP not existed, I would have had to 'stew in my own juice' as there was nowhere else I could go.
Don't knock them - yes this latest comment is mealy-mouthed, but what can THEY (CHIRP) do if operators don't wish to "reflect" on their fuel policy.
CHIRP is the confidential reporting system NOT the sheriff - that's the Department of Transport.
CHIRP pointed out that these occurrences did not happen in European airspace and therefore could not actually DO anything. What they DID do was place my report on the Operator's File, so that Inspectors carrying out Ramp Checks were able to read it before 'duty'.
Considering they 'couldn't do much', they did. Shortly afterwards the airline had a major accident (also out of Europe), however the operator now appears to be/or was banned.
I am satisfied that they did the best they could, and it was more than I expected. Had CHIRP not existed, I would have had to 'stew in my own juice' as there was nowhere else I could go.
Don't knock them - yes this latest comment is mealy-mouthed, but what can THEY (CHIRP) do if operators don't wish to "reflect" on their fuel policy.
CHIRP is the confidential reporting system NOT the sheriff - that's the Department of Transport.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns - what difficulties do you have with
If it were not so, we would have NO airlines operating at all - but doing it VERY safely.
We have no 'profile' for you, but you suggest you might be a commercial pilot. Do you insist on no MEL items? Do you take 10% extra fuel everywhere 'just in case'? Do you always insist on an autoland where the facilities exist, even in CAVOK?
All 'commercial' flying is, by definition, based on commercial concerns. That is unavoidable. If I can safely save some operating costs for my employer, I do it. It is not 'mutually excluded'
I recall one 'deluded' senior manager who commented to me that "a ship is only safe if it never leaves harbour" when I threw a wobbly about some accumulative snags on a BA a/c. (However he had obviously forgotten Pearl Harbour....)
The two are not mutually exclusive
We have no 'profile' for you, but you suggest you might be a commercial pilot. Do you insist on no MEL items? Do you take 10% extra fuel everywhere 'just in case'? Do you always insist on an autoland where the facilities exist, even in CAVOK?
All 'commercial' flying is, by definition, based on commercial concerns. That is unavoidable. If I can safely save some operating costs for my employer, I do it. It is not 'mutually excluded'
I recall one 'deluded' senior manager who commented to me that "a ship is only safe if it never leaves harbour" when I threw a wobbly about some accumulative snags on a BA a/c. (However he had obviously forgotten Pearl Harbour....)