Are we facing a safety issue?
AirRabbit;
All that is recognizable as pretty standard right-wing fare straight out of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, Hayek and others.
Interesting that there is the felt need to come to the defence of such views in a thread on flight safety.
While I am keenly aware that the notions of laissez-faire, neoliberal economics, Reaganism/Thatcherism, the deregulation of this industry all may be applied to flight safety, may I suggest we return to the specific subject at hand, please?
All that is recognizable as pretty standard right-wing fare straight out of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, Hayek and others.
Interesting that there is the felt need to come to the defence of such views in a thread on flight safety.
While I am keenly aware that the notions of laissez-faire, neoliberal economics, Reaganism/Thatcherism, the deregulation of this industry all may be applied to flight safety, may I suggest we return to the specific subject at hand, please?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: some hotel
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prostitution
@AirRabbit, the point I was trying to make is that without any regulation most businesses, including aviation enterprises, would have been out of business a long time ago. By not letting that happen, governments have exercised a certain influence with its ups and downs.
'Free' market is the equivalent of prostitution. You get what you pay for at the lowest possible price, influenced by the needs of the prostitute and/or the needs of the clientele. How that is supposed to guarantee a certain quality is a mystery to me. Free market boils down to the principle of the 'survival of the fittest' and as much as I like a good competition, it will definitely NOT benefit safety where the aviation industry is concerned. I hope you can agree with me on that one. If not, I suppose you consider nothing wrong with life at your average regional airline these days. In conclusion, there is nothing free about a 'free market', people are forced to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards and under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs, because some new hooker may pop up on the block and steal their clients.
It wasn't me who came up with this picture but I find it very fitting for aviation post 911.
'Free' market is the equivalent of prostitution. You get what you pay for at the lowest possible price, influenced by the needs of the prostitute and/or the needs of the clientele. How that is supposed to guarantee a certain quality is a mystery to me. Free market boils down to the principle of the 'survival of the fittest' and as much as I like a good competition, it will definitely NOT benefit safety where the aviation industry is concerned. I hope you can agree with me on that one. If not, I suppose you consider nothing wrong with life at your average regional airline these days. In conclusion, there is nothing free about a 'free market', people are forced to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards and under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs, because some new hooker may pop up on the block and steal their clients.
It wasn't me who came up with this picture but I find it very fitting for aviation post 911.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: some hotel
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You always must be constantly thinking about ways of refreshing the organization's thinking about safety."
Deregulation has been an unmitigated, proven disaster as far as aviation goes; the last "Act" in this worst-of-all-possible political economies is now unfolding under SMS - the deregulation and privatization of flight safety where managers of "for-profit" corporations are responsible at once for commercial and safety decision-making.
We in the flight safety department at a major carrier were once characterized as a "profit center" and had to show where our activities provided reasonable expectation of profit. It was hard to believe we were in the aviation business, so stupid and ignorant was this free-market, profit-at-all-cost thinking which has naively been adopted by those who can't tell the front of an airplane from its tail.
The term "free market" actually refers to the systemic privatization of profit and the socialization of risk. As presently constituted, capitalism is not a social system nor does it care about its effects upon people; it is merely a technique for the concentration of wealth; the emaciation of a society and its values is immaterial to those who believe that the free-market can come to terms with human problems.
With others, I have compared the reasons for last October's economic collapse of Western economies with the reasons why organizational factors cause airplanes to crash. Surely someone would have written a paper on this but so far the lessons are not seen because they are not believed.
We could debate this until the cows (or the commodities) come home and my only interest is how the "free-market mentality" which has been taken to its natural, greed-driven extremes, has effected aviation and how the serious issues which have arisen might be dealt with within the present capitalist system. This is mainly because the lessons of last October have yet to be learned let alone even understood. We are far too focussed on propping up a system which delivered us into this disaster and will do so again, just like accidents are repeated by those who fail to learn from them.
We in the flight safety department at a major carrier were once characterized as a "profit center" and had to show where our activities provided reasonable expectation of profit. It was hard to believe we were in the aviation business, so stupid and ignorant was this free-market, profit-at-all-cost thinking which has naively been adopted by those who can't tell the front of an airplane from its tail.
The term "free market" actually refers to the systemic privatization of profit and the socialization of risk. As presently constituted, capitalism is not a social system nor does it care about its effects upon people; it is merely a technique for the concentration of wealth; the emaciation of a society and its values is immaterial to those who believe that the free-market can come to terms with human problems.
With others, I have compared the reasons for last October's economic collapse of Western economies with the reasons why organizational factors cause airplanes to crash. Surely someone would have written a paper on this but so far the lessons are not seen because they are not believed.
We could debate this until the cows (or the commodities) come home and my only interest is how the "free-market mentality" which has been taken to its natural, greed-driven extremes, has effected aviation and how the serious issues which have arisen might be dealt with within the present capitalist system. This is mainly because the lessons of last October have yet to be learned let alone even understood. We are far too focussed on propping up a system which delivered us into this disaster and will do so again, just like accidents are repeated by those who fail to learn from them.
Last edited by PJ2; 27th Oct 2009 at 19:13.
We in the flight safety department at a major carrier were once characterized as a "profit center" and had to show where our activities provided reasonable expectation of profit.
From a safety standpoint I can think of at least two measures that might be considered
"minor" safety related (against the FARS) incidents per flight hour
cost of insurance vs cost of doing business.
lomapaseo;
That the products of a preventative safety program should be measured by suitable metrics is obvious and necessary to substantiate the program. It was the lack of comprehension of what the department did and the bureaucratic requirement that was frustrating.
We called for "measurement" at every turn but received nothing in terms of feedback for the products produced nor engagement with these products. They ranged from how long an airplane had to wait at the gate burning fuel before it finally docked, to single-engine taxis in and out, (with solid, dollar-value metrics and at what weights such procedures were most effective) to the usual information, including a number of events which are known to be serious precursors to an incident. We were able to provide dispatchability in the field when the crew reported a flight control problem. Utility was however, highly selective and where 'inconvenient' the data was ignored. We still have no idea how to deal with this.
The other problem is one of accounting and it exists in all safety work; how do you show a prevented incident/accident, in short, "nothing happened", on the books? Where in normal accounting practises do such "non-events" show up as credit towards what every non-aviation accountant sees as merely a very expensive program that produces "nothing".
How do you change that perception? The only way I've ever seen it changed is through an accident which is a tremendous failure of a flight safety system and only prevents, (perhaps), the second accident.
That the products of a preventative safety program should be measured by suitable metrics is obvious and necessary to substantiate the program. It was the lack of comprehension of what the department did and the bureaucratic requirement that was frustrating.
We called for "measurement" at every turn but received nothing in terms of feedback for the products produced nor engagement with these products. They ranged from how long an airplane had to wait at the gate burning fuel before it finally docked, to single-engine taxis in and out, (with solid, dollar-value metrics and at what weights such procedures were most effective) to the usual information, including a number of events which are known to be serious precursors to an incident. We were able to provide dispatchability in the field when the crew reported a flight control problem. Utility was however, highly selective and where 'inconvenient' the data was ignored. We still have no idea how to deal with this.
The other problem is one of accounting and it exists in all safety work; how do you show a prevented incident/accident, in short, "nothing happened", on the books? Where in normal accounting practises do such "non-events" show up as credit towards what every non-aviation accountant sees as merely a very expensive program that produces "nothing".
How do you change that perception? The only way I've ever seen it changed is through an accident which is a tremendous failure of a flight safety system and only prevents, (perhaps), the second accident.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I’ve never avoided the label of “right wing,” and although I would much prefer the label of “conservative,” I would stop short of aligning myself with the likes of Milton Friedman, primarily due to the fact that, even though many of the principles he advocated are those I would advocate as well, there are enough differences between his philosophies and mine to make a primary distinction.
Also, while PJ2 may think it odd to respond to specific thoughts or suppositions in posts that may not lend themselves directly to the over-arching theme of the thread, I tend to agree that flight safety was the primary thread of this series of posts, and, therefore, turn to the response from postman23 to agree – to at least some level – that I, too, am not advocating an elimination of ALL regulation in the aviation business. There are, as we all know, substantial regulations that apply directly to safety. In fact some say that those regulations are too hampering when it comes to the free application of some business models. This is precisely where I think regulation – from a national perspective – is advantageous to the aviation industry. Safety regulation is not supposed to, at least to my knowledge, be dependent on the cost involved – the theory being that if everyone must do the same things by regulation, this process, in itself, provides for the long-sought-after “level playing field.”
In advocating this situation (and I do), I think it is clear that I also agree with his position that a “free market” will not, by itself, garner and support safety - and why I am saying that I don’t advocate an elimination of ALL regulation. But, I DO NOT agree that the regulators (i.e., the government) should decide on what portion of what industries get governmental support and what portions and what industries do not. I also agree with postman23 when he says “there is nothing free about a 'free market', (when) people are forced to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards and under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs, because some new hooker may pop up on the block and steal their clients.” However, the absence of governmental regulation on airline ticket costs, pilot salaries, or other things that he may think necessary, is not “forcing people to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards, under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs." I would guess that any pilot finding himself or herself in such conditions, would find that they are welcome to resign and walk off the property. Also, I would think that if any such person was promised a certain salary or benefit and the management of the company did not fulfill their part of that bargain, there are legal remedies to follow. Do I think that all regional airlines are providing their crewmembers a wonderful, magnanimous, enviable salary? Certainly not. Do I think that those crewmembers were hoodwinked and tricked into signing on to fly for that airline? Also, certainly not.
Several decades ago, airline cockpits were heavily staffed with ex-military aviators – some sources say as high as 95%. Why not today? Yes, there are not the same numbers of military aviators getting out of the military. Why is that? Because the military had invested a lot of time and money in training those folks and they want a return on their investment. But there ARE some getting out of the military. Why don’t they grab up these regional airline flying jobs? Because they can make 10 or 15 times the offered salary by selling insurance (or similar) – and they are willing to sell insurance because they don’t believe their time is worth a tenth or a fifteenth of that insurance-selling salary to fly airplanes. What is your time worth?
As for the picture posted under postman23’s post, anytime anyone has anything that someone else wants badly enough, it is likely that the guy “without” will point a gun at the guy “who has.” In my view, that is what happened on 911. Of course it doesn’t have to be a gun – it can be any weapon available – including marketing strategy.
PJ2 states that “Deregulation has been an unmitigated, proven disaster as far as aviation goes…” Look at how successful start-up businesses are in the US – and how many remain in business more than 5 years. (If I knew the recipe for how to do that, I wouldn’t post it here, I’d go start my own business chain – and retire to some nice sand beach with a MaiTai in hand.) But I think it’s fair to say that starting and running an airline isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. How many airlines have started and how many closed since airline deregulation in the late 1970s? Has deregulation been a success or a failure? I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. Are there less airplanes flying today than in the early 1970’s. Are there less passengers or cargo being carried by airplanes today?
In short, it’s almost a given that a new industry elbowing its way into business, wanting to capture a share of the market for the way it wants to do business will ultimately inflict a cost to someone, somewhere. Look at “Mom&Pop” grocery stores and the supermarket chains. Look at small businesses in store-fronts along Main Street in your town, and the “big box” stores. Look at the success of organizations like Federal Express or UPS … and look at the US Post Office Special Delivery option. Look at the internet and look at the remainder of the US Post Office (look quick, ‘cause it may not be around much longer). Does that mean that the Mom&Pop stores were wrong? Does it mean that the US Post Office was wrong. What happened to Pan American World Airways? Where is National Airlines? Eastern? New York Air? People’s Express? Air South? Western Airlines? Just how many airlines can the economy of the US support? Are there greedy people in this business? Sure. Will they succeed? Probably … at least for a while. But, as flawed as any free market enterprise may be, I’ll still take it over a government run, socialistic society, where someone else makes all of the decisions for you – because, they know better than you what is good for you.
Also, while PJ2 may think it odd to respond to specific thoughts or suppositions in posts that may not lend themselves directly to the over-arching theme of the thread, I tend to agree that flight safety was the primary thread of this series of posts, and, therefore, turn to the response from postman23 to agree – to at least some level – that I, too, am not advocating an elimination of ALL regulation in the aviation business. There are, as we all know, substantial regulations that apply directly to safety. In fact some say that those regulations are too hampering when it comes to the free application of some business models. This is precisely where I think regulation – from a national perspective – is advantageous to the aviation industry. Safety regulation is not supposed to, at least to my knowledge, be dependent on the cost involved – the theory being that if everyone must do the same things by regulation, this process, in itself, provides for the long-sought-after “level playing field.”
In advocating this situation (and I do), I think it is clear that I also agree with his position that a “free market” will not, by itself, garner and support safety - and why I am saying that I don’t advocate an elimination of ALL regulation. But, I DO NOT agree that the regulators (i.e., the government) should decide on what portion of what industries get governmental support and what portions and what industries do not. I also agree with postman23 when he says “there is nothing free about a 'free market', (when) people are forced to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards and under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs, because some new hooker may pop up on the block and steal their clients.” However, the absence of governmental regulation on airline ticket costs, pilot salaries, or other things that he may think necessary, is not “forcing people to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards, under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs." I would guess that any pilot finding himself or herself in such conditions, would find that they are welcome to resign and walk off the property. Also, I would think that if any such person was promised a certain salary or benefit and the management of the company did not fulfill their part of that bargain, there are legal remedies to follow. Do I think that all regional airlines are providing their crewmembers a wonderful, magnanimous, enviable salary? Certainly not. Do I think that those crewmembers were hoodwinked and tricked into signing on to fly for that airline? Also, certainly not.
Several decades ago, airline cockpits were heavily staffed with ex-military aviators – some sources say as high as 95%. Why not today? Yes, there are not the same numbers of military aviators getting out of the military. Why is that? Because the military had invested a lot of time and money in training those folks and they want a return on their investment. But there ARE some getting out of the military. Why don’t they grab up these regional airline flying jobs? Because they can make 10 or 15 times the offered salary by selling insurance (or similar) – and they are willing to sell insurance because they don’t believe their time is worth a tenth or a fifteenth of that insurance-selling salary to fly airplanes. What is your time worth?
As for the picture posted under postman23’s post, anytime anyone has anything that someone else wants badly enough, it is likely that the guy “without” will point a gun at the guy “who has.” In my view, that is what happened on 911. Of course it doesn’t have to be a gun – it can be any weapon available – including marketing strategy.
PJ2 states that “Deregulation has been an unmitigated, proven disaster as far as aviation goes…” Look at how successful start-up businesses are in the US – and how many remain in business more than 5 years. (If I knew the recipe for how to do that, I wouldn’t post it here, I’d go start my own business chain – and retire to some nice sand beach with a MaiTai in hand.) But I think it’s fair to say that starting and running an airline isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. How many airlines have started and how many closed since airline deregulation in the late 1970s? Has deregulation been a success or a failure? I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. Are there less airplanes flying today than in the early 1970’s. Are there less passengers or cargo being carried by airplanes today?
In short, it’s almost a given that a new industry elbowing its way into business, wanting to capture a share of the market for the way it wants to do business will ultimately inflict a cost to someone, somewhere. Look at “Mom&Pop” grocery stores and the supermarket chains. Look at small businesses in store-fronts along Main Street in your town, and the “big box” stores. Look at the success of organizations like Federal Express or UPS … and look at the US Post Office Special Delivery option. Look at the internet and look at the remainder of the US Post Office (look quick, ‘cause it may not be around much longer). Does that mean that the Mom&Pop stores were wrong? Does it mean that the US Post Office was wrong. What happened to Pan American World Airways? Where is National Airlines? Eastern? New York Air? People’s Express? Air South? Western Airlines? Just how many airlines can the economy of the US support? Are there greedy people in this business? Sure. Will they succeed? Probably … at least for a while. But, as flawed as any free market enterprise may be, I’ll still take it over a government run, socialistic society, where someone else makes all of the decisions for you – because, they know better than you what is good for you.
resolution
Individuals directly employed by government safety regulators have likely read this thread; care to comment or release official statement?
There are indicators and concerns that the decline in pay and conditions of Pilots is affecting safety.
Is the regulator negligent by not offering an investigation into the concerns raised in this thread, and others like it?
There are indicators and concerns that the decline in pay and conditions of Pilots is affecting safety.
Is the regulator negligent by not offering an investigation into the concerns raised in this thread, and others like it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NOSIGN
There are indicators and concerns that the decline in pay and conditions of Pilots is affecting safety.
Is the regulator negligent by not offering an investigation into the concerns raised in this thread, and others like it?
Is the regulator negligent by not offering an investigation into the concerns raised in this thread, and others like it?
what indicators exist that would prompt anyone to believe that there is a precipitous decline in safety, or what would you say are the indicators or concerns that there is any decline is safety .
IATA hull-loss accident rate figures for 2008 to 1 December tend to support the case for airline safety stagnation. IATA says that, having been improving steadily from 1998 to 2006, the Western-built jet hull-loss rate per million flights was 0.77 in 2008 up to 1 December, compared with 0.75 for 2007, but that the best-ever figure of 0.63 was recorded in 2006. The association says a levelling of safety gains is also showing in the accident rate for its own member carriers - now all required to have completed an IATA operational safety audit by the end of 2008.
I'm sure someone will tell me.
It makes me think that there is something to all the strong feelings being expressed on these forums by very experienced commercial pilots.
Regards,
Framer
AirRabbit;
I intend no disrespect nor rudeness here, but you are not a flight safety specialist nor are you an experienced airline pilot and are therefore not qualified to make such statements. Neither does reading government reports on the industry provide a complete picture.
The arguments expressed in this and other threads by those who either are flight safety specialists or airline pilots or both, recognize the complexity of these factors; these arguments do not adhere to or rely upon a mechanical model of causality and trending. Your arguments thus far "read" as typical arguments presented by accountants and managers who deal in financial concepts and priorities or by those who are organizationally a long distance from the daily operation and who haven't spent time in or had any contact with flight safety work.
All of these issues have been discussed at length in PPRuNe by many; they are not in doubt, but nor are they claiming that all is falling apart around us. That is not the nature of safety work. Flight safety work today is, or ought to be, preventative - we have the tools and the mandate through SMS. Such tools, training and experience reveal clear trends in the character of accidents and are expressing concerns as any early-warning system might. The nature and requirements of risk perception and management has changed dramatically just as the industry and airline piloting profession itself have changed.
Dismissing these changes with a wave-off statement like, "there have always been airplane accidents ... what indicators exist that would prompt anyone to believe that there is a precipitous decline in safety, or what would you say are the indicators or concerns that there is any decline is safety" tells me that you don't understand flight safety work and don't understand what is being said. The people who are watching this industry and who are in the cockpits daily, know. That is what this discussion is about.
Regards,
PJ2
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
there have always been airplane accidents ... what indicators exist that would prompt anyone to believe that there is a precipitous decline in safety, or what would you say are the indicators or concerns that there is any decline is safety ... and then following that ... why would anyone presume that if a decline in safety does exist, the decline is tied to the salaries of the pilots?
The arguments expressed in this and other threads by those who either are flight safety specialists or airline pilots or both, recognize the complexity of these factors; these arguments do not adhere to or rely upon a mechanical model of causality and trending. Your arguments thus far "read" as typical arguments presented by accountants and managers who deal in financial concepts and priorities or by those who are organizationally a long distance from the daily operation and who haven't spent time in or had any contact with flight safety work.
All of these issues have been discussed at length in PPRuNe by many; they are not in doubt, but nor are they claiming that all is falling apart around us. That is not the nature of safety work. Flight safety work today is, or ought to be, preventative - we have the tools and the mandate through SMS. Such tools, training and experience reveal clear trends in the character of accidents and are expressing concerns as any early-warning system might. The nature and requirements of risk perception and management has changed dramatically just as the industry and airline piloting profession itself have changed.
Dismissing these changes with a wave-off statement like, "there have always been airplane accidents ... what indicators exist that would prompt anyone to believe that there is a precipitous decline in safety, or what would you say are the indicators or concerns that there is any decline is safety" tells me that you don't understand flight safety work and don't understand what is being said. The people who are watching this industry and who are in the cockpits daily, know. That is what this discussion is about.
Regards,
PJ2
framer;
IATA is the umbrella organization for each country's "ATA" organization and which are traditionally the lobby for airlines. For example, it was ATAC - the Air Transport Association of Canada, which lobbied very strongly for the airlines against the proposed duty day regulations when the CARS were first being written. Canada's Flight Time and Duty Day Regulations are an abomination and a safety issue because of this lobbying against those who understood the issues of fatigue risk management.
ATAC no longer represents airlines in Canada. I don't know why they don't but the fact remains that IATA seems to speak out of both sides of its mouth: they lobby strongly for legal and policy support regarding the airlines' commercial priorities and also have a flight safety wing with boasts the "IOSA", (IATA Operational Safety Audit) process. This process is not without its controversy and standards issues; I know for a fact that passing an IOSA audit can be done on a conditional basis where something may not be up to the IOSA standard but the airline is passed anyway pending the commitment to address the sub-standard audit matter. The issues were not "light bulb" issues but substantive.
Flight safety specialists could see reasons why the improvements in the accident rate were going to level off and have written about it here and elsewhere. These figures are not surprises. The industry and the regulator cannot continue to cut resources and support and expect the same level of incidents and accidents will obtain. I have said many times here now that newbies and those who do not comprehend the flight safety process as it is done at Part 705 (Canadian) and Part 121 (US) operations are not understanding how aviation got as safe as it is and are either cutting support and resources to preventative programs or are not providing such support in the first place, because the product of good flight safety programs is "nothing" and is very difficult in and of itself to justifiy in the face of tremendous commercial and investor pressures.
Such cuts or non-support are coming at precisely the time in history when the regulator is down-loading oversight responsiblities to private corporations under SMS; essentially the regulator has no idea what is going on at Canada's airlines and the same applies to the US as evidenced by the serious maintenance issues at Southwest, American and others.
While no dire predictions are made here because the system is still very good, these dynamics have the makings of a perfect storm, should they be permitted to continue under the present financial pressures and reduced regulator oversight.
If one requires a "nutshell" approach, that is the issue "in a nutshell" - unlike financial disasters such as last October's, (which in the view of many including my own are borne of the same processes of ignoring the precursors to the accident), these things do not occur overnight but are, even as we speak, in a period of gestation.
These characteristics and changes is the data speaking. They are not mere opinion or any narrow focus on an "agenda"; "what, not who", in other words.
The only agenda here is the anticipation of causes of, and the prevention of, aviation accidents be they mainline or regional carriers.
Such cuts in preventative safety programs arise from the inability to see and therefore believe in the "unseen": - those accidents which did not occur due to preventative programs but which nevertheless existed in the data as precursors or near-misses. Because "nothing" is the outcome, nothing is communicated and the precursors are set aside.
The only thing financial and insurance people comprehend after they begin to question expensive safety programs and press for cuts everywhere is "kicking tin": cleaning up after an accident and dealing with the headlines, the lawsuits and the loss of reputation. The bill for a major fatal today is about ten billion US. The term "tombstone safety" and "blood priorities" have already been used in the context of this dialogue; while it may be hyperbole, it is also a possible outcome of not using the broader flight safety tools and programs available to intervene and divert the present shift.
PJ2
IATA is the umbrella organization for each country's "ATA" organization and which are traditionally the lobby for airlines. For example, it was ATAC - the Air Transport Association of Canada, which lobbied very strongly for the airlines against the proposed duty day regulations when the CARS were first being written. Canada's Flight Time and Duty Day Regulations are an abomination and a safety issue because of this lobbying against those who understood the issues of fatigue risk management.
ATAC no longer represents airlines in Canada. I don't know why they don't but the fact remains that IATA seems to speak out of both sides of its mouth: they lobby strongly for legal and policy support regarding the airlines' commercial priorities and also have a flight safety wing with boasts the "IOSA", (IATA Operational Safety Audit) process. This process is not without its controversy and standards issues; I know for a fact that passing an IOSA audit can be done on a conditional basis where something may not be up to the IOSA standard but the airline is passed anyway pending the commitment to address the sub-standard audit matter. The issues were not "light bulb" issues but substantive.
Flight safety specialists could see reasons why the improvements in the accident rate were going to level off and have written about it here and elsewhere. These figures are not surprises. The industry and the regulator cannot continue to cut resources and support and expect the same level of incidents and accidents will obtain. I have said many times here now that newbies and those who do not comprehend the flight safety process as it is done at Part 705 (Canadian) and Part 121 (US) operations are not understanding how aviation got as safe as it is and are either cutting support and resources to preventative programs or are not providing such support in the first place, because the product of good flight safety programs is "nothing" and is very difficult in and of itself to justifiy in the face of tremendous commercial and investor pressures.
Such cuts or non-support are coming at precisely the time in history when the regulator is down-loading oversight responsiblities to private corporations under SMS; essentially the regulator has no idea what is going on at Canada's airlines and the same applies to the US as evidenced by the serious maintenance issues at Southwest, American and others.
While no dire predictions are made here because the system is still very good, these dynamics have the makings of a perfect storm, should they be permitted to continue under the present financial pressures and reduced regulator oversight.
If one requires a "nutshell" approach, that is the issue "in a nutshell" - unlike financial disasters such as last October's, (which in the view of many including my own are borne of the same processes of ignoring the precursors to the accident), these things do not occur overnight but are, even as we speak, in a period of gestation.
These characteristics and changes is the data speaking. They are not mere opinion or any narrow focus on an "agenda"; "what, not who", in other words.
The only agenda here is the anticipation of causes of, and the prevention of, aviation accidents be they mainline or regional carriers.
Such cuts in preventative safety programs arise from the inability to see and therefore believe in the "unseen": - those accidents which did not occur due to preventative programs but which nevertheless existed in the data as precursors or near-misses. Because "nothing" is the outcome, nothing is communicated and the precursors are set aside.
The only thing financial and insurance people comprehend after they begin to question expensive safety programs and press for cuts everywhere is "kicking tin": cleaning up after an accident and dealing with the headlines, the lawsuits and the loss of reputation. The bill for a major fatal today is about ten billion US. The term "tombstone safety" and "blood priorities" have already been used in the context of this dialogue; while it may be hyperbole, it is also a possible outcome of not using the broader flight safety tools and programs available to intervene and divert the present shift.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 31st Oct 2009 at 06:09.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
I intend no disrespect nor rudeness here, but you are not a flight safety specialist nor are you an experienced airline pilot and are therefore not qualified to make such statements. Neither does reading government reports on the industry provide a complete picture.
Originally Posted by PJ2
The arguments expressed in this and other threads by those who either are flight safety specialists or airline pilots or both, recognize the complexity of these factors; these arguments do not adhere to or rely upon a mechanical model of causality and trending. Your arguments thus far "read" as typical arguments presented by accountants and managers who deal in financial concepts and priorities or by those who are organizationally a long distance from the daily operation and who haven't spent time in or had any contact with flight safety work.
Originally Posted by PJ2
All of these issues have been discussed at length in PPRuNe by many; they are not in doubt, but nor are they claiming that all is falling apart around us. That is not the nature of safety work. Flight safety work today is, or ought to be, preventative - we have the tools and the mandate through SMS. Such tools, training and experience reveal clear trends in the character of accidents and are expressing concerns as any early-warning system might. The nature and requirements of risk perception and management has changed dramatically just as the industry and airline piloting profession itself have changed.
If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then there is probably an issue with the quality or quantity of the training.
If the answer to all of these questions is “yes,” then there is probably an underlying issue that has not been recognized previously.
But, invariably, the solution is not, and cannot be, that if we had only paid the crew members a higher salary, the accident/incident would have been avoided.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Dismissing these changes with a wave-off statement like, "there have always been airplane accidents ... what indicators exist that would prompt anyone to believe that there is a precipitous decline in safety, or what would you say are the indicators or concerns that there is any decline is safety" tells me that you don't understand flight safety work and don't understand what is being said. The people who are watching this industry and who are in the cockpits daily, know. That is what this discussion is about.
If the current methods used to train and determine competency are inadequate – we need to determine the resolution to that deficiency. More training? More frequent training? Different training? More evaluation? More frequent evaluation? Different evaluation? This is where the regulations come into effect – then the regulator must step in and set the requirements to ensure those levels are met – and met regularly, by each person going through those training and evaluation cycles.
If the persons going through airline training today are simply unable to assimilate the necessary training objectives – those persons should never be deemed qualified and allowed to operate as though they were qualified. There can be no excuse for saying that a person meets the necessary objectives when they do not. If an airline isn’t willing (or capable) of determining when a crewmember is competent to do the job he or she has been trained to accomplish – with the training and evaluation completed (both content and frequency) and is able to draw on that competency whenever necessary – it then becomes the responsibility of the regulator to correct that willingness or capability.
It simply makes no sense – to me or, in my experience, to anyone who knows human nature – for a pilot to believe that his or her salary and benefits package is so “substandard” that he or she may deliberately perform less diligently, fly more sloppily, make decisions less professionally, or take greater risks. If the persons who are hired by an airline are identified as prone to be unaware of the diligence that is essential, the meticulousness that is necessary, the professionalism that is required, or the fact that risk-taking is unwarranted and ill-advised, then the airline must be informed immediately and the airline must take appropriate action before those personality characteristics can contribute to an accident.
My opinion is that safety may be compromised by incompetent, ill-trained, poorly trained, forgetful, overly confident, fatigued, or distracted pilots; but safety is not being compromised by underpaid pilots because they are underpaid. If that were true, why is it that accidents still happen to airlines providing enviable compensation packages to their crewmembers?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion is that safety may be compromised by incompetent, ill-trained, poorly trained, forgetful, overly confident, fatigued, or distracted pilots; but safety is not being compromised by underpaid pilots because they are underpaid. If that were true, why is it that accidents still happen to airlines providing enviable compensation packages to their crewmembers?
What about cause and effect? You think that a pilot or mechanic that second guesses a decision to buy a proper meal or is juggling foreclosure options on their house is in the best frame of mind to put 400 lives in the air?
why is it that accidents still happen to airlines providing enviable compensation packages? <-- Without a qualifying numerical comparison, suggesting equality is just disingenuous
Some doctors dont wash their hands, some doctors scrub meticulously under the nails and all the way up to the elbows.
Both sets of doctors have adverse outcomes in their patient profiles. Should we not practice basic pre-op hygiene according to your logic?
AirRabbit;
An abiding respect and an attending to simple manners in public discussion is fundamental to a collegial dialogue and it certainly is mine in my posts.
In professional discussions there is no percentage in getting personal with an anonymous poster on the basis of a few words. "What, not who" is a priority. I thank you for your response in kind.
Thanks for providing a bit of your background; it helps in interpreting and understanding your views.
If that is what was meant by "de-regulation", then I would be a "practising conservative" as well.
We won't debate last October, Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, Obama here but I know it would be a lively discussion over a few ales. I'm not exactly sure what "politics" I'm a "practitioner" of except to keep watching and thinking, but to me the hypocrisy which on the one hand boasts an unbridled fundamentalist capitalism and which on the other hand swiftly bails out failures of the richest capitalist organizations because to not do so would cause the collapse of the nation, (so say some), simply brings home what I have observed to be a standing rule in the US, less so in Canada, Australia and Europe, of the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk and failure. One is a capitalist and actually believes it and lives by those rules or not but placing oneself in a position of bringing down a nation's (and therefore the world's) economy either because the "government made us do it" or by traditional capitalist greed and institutional avarice is the best of both worlds for the bonussed few while the majority of the middle class, (or what is left of the middle class), have watched their wages, benefits including pensions and lifestyles steadily decline. It was the ultimate capitalist Henry Ford who thought employees should make at least enough wages to buy the product they made. Today, the opposite obtains in an economy run off taxpayer largesse in the greatest re-distributionist scheme ever, just to save a few sorry capitalist behinds. Perhaps we are of a common mind on this.
Greed and avarice require some measure of control because it is obvious over the last year certainly, that those who value these characteristics will not control themselves.
Whether further intervention or a true laissez-faire economy where the population is no longer a community and is instead atomized where it is every man for himself, is a decision which the present administration, and practising conservatives and liberals alike, must wrestle.
George Bush squandered the US' position in the world as no other president (inherited huge surplus, left with the largest deficit) and that is not only a sad thing for the world's economy, it is a dangerous position to be in because, to use a hackneyed phrase, power abhors a vacuum. Returning the US to a position of respect and power was the promise so we'll see where it goes.
I apologize for the thread drift but the broader economic mileu in which de-regulation of business, and specifically of the airlines, now over thirty years old, are intimately related to business's (and the airlines') welfare - THE topic under discussion here.
In my experience and not just my opinion, a private corporation in the aviation business will not always, of its own accord, "do the right thing", but will instead privilege commercial priorities over flight safety priorities either until something breaks or until they are caught in a rare audit, rather than taking the more conservative path of prevention. That is my objection to SMS; Oversight is required because capitalists, left on their own, will not behave in the public interest, but in their own narrow interest, which, curiously, is, in the long term, against their own interests as well. We have turned from a manufacturing economy to a speculative economy which values short-term gains in which quarterly results actually mean something. There is only money to be made in such an economy but not a substantive replenishment of capability. Speculation is a shell game, while making things and creating new things is not.
I have seen such unfortunate short-term principles and commercially-drivien decision-making at work and will tell you that if a captain had made these self-same decisions for his/her operation, he/she would be fired if not on the carpet, but SMS protects such management decision-making from "sunshine".
It is not "de-regulation" or "SMS", in and of themselves which is the concern. I agree with your optimistic views described in the quote above but frankly such outcomes are rare. An independent, non-interested third party is required to oversee those private activities which, if not done well, have the power to harm those who are otherwise unable to assess such products on the market, be they water quality, meat quality, cars, drugs or airline travel. We had such a case in Canada where the absentee regulator, (in fact they had been de-regulated) caused the deaths of (if I recall) 26 people across Canada through bad meat. Maple Leaf cleaned up their act but not before having a serious "accident".
The same holds with the aviation industry, obviously. We may part ways on our views of these matters but I can offer from personal experience that the lack of regulation and the absence of the regulator will, not may, provide fertile ground for commercial-priority decision-making in aviation where investors, not the passengers, are the enterprise's first priority.
I too, am "guilty" of passion but I can think of no better reason to be in the present circumstances; acknowledging that things are not coming apart at the seams is part of advancing a more accurate picture of the industry and they are not at all, "dis-integrating". The present move towards the privatization of flight safety here and in the United States is thus far a latent phenomena, the gestation period having just begun. Flight safety people are not unreasonably concerned.
I fully agree with your view here. "Poor pay does not cause accidents; it is the lack of professionalism, incompetency, etc etc" which causes accidents.
But I have been saying and re-stating this view here and elsewhere for a number of years now, the latest being on page 3 of this thread which I expect would be read as a matter of form as part of this discussion. It is at the following link:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post5253205
The "pilot pipeline" is emptying. Those with the smarts and talent to fly professionally are, because they are smart, taking a look at other professions and careers because they are looking at airline work, both regional and mainline, (domestic/international) and saying, "I dont' think so".
It costs a candidate roughtly $100,000 to get qualified for airline work. As has been observed, the military is keeping their pilots so that supply is essentially gone.
Let me ask you, AirRabbit, what intelligent person in his or her right mind, (naivete regarding the industry excepted for a moment), would spend that kind of money to merely qualify one for a profession that has one away from home every important family day, pays poverty-level wages instead of a living wage and increasingly lousy, crappy wages even for senior members, is wholly disrespected by one's employer, their accountants, the organization's investors and increasingly the flying public, (because "automation" does it all so why should they be paid a high wage?), provides a minimum of training, has their pensions "stolen" through favourable bankruptcy laws and demonstrates in negotiations that pilots (their wages and benefits) are a significant liability in achieving profit and who, in one swift second can find themselves either dead or in court defending themselves against charges of "negligence" or worse in most countries of the world? One can only survive a short period of time on the "love of flying". Being an airline pilot today is extremely nasty, unpleasant, unpredictable business and many who I know have retired miss their compatriots, the flying and the layovers but not the industry. Captain Sullenberger said it best (and continues to do so); you can access his comments before Congress in February at:
http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...llenberger.pdf
Who would ever come into such a profession when there are other, far more lucrative, benign, predictable careers that respect both the individual and family needs and not the mere need for "98.6" in the cockpit seats?
I agree that these are strong views; they deserve to be. This was the career and profession that I loved deeply for 35 years and ached as a young kid to get into, and fought my entire career to defend in my own way as others do even now. I have seen it degraded and desecrated by managements who must deliver double-digit returns on investment for short-term investors here and overseas and who will take from the easiest place, employees, what they can and transfer it over to the profit column.
The single point being made here addresses the question you have asked: The incident and accident rates are going to reflect this kind of thinking, that is driving away "the best and brightest", and still no one has recognized this so-far latent factor.
Shorter posts are certainly desireble but simply cannot be done if even a reasonable discussion is to be had in this kind of format. I have attended enough safety conferences and made enough presentations myself to see the reality of these factors, all of which find agreement among those doing this work. Regardless of one's political turn, conservative or liberal, these are emerging factors which will, not may, affect the industry. It is to the industry's benefit to hearken to these matters if only to maintain their own edge and potential for modest profitability. The alternative is a ten-billion dollar bill which is about what a major fatal accident costs those involved today. Not an investors' dream, and the ethical issues haven't even been addressed in such thinking.
An abiding respect and an attending to simple manners in public discussion is fundamental to a collegial dialogue and it certainly is mine in my posts.
In professional discussions there is no percentage in getting personal with an anonymous poster on the basis of a few words. "What, not who" is a priority. I thank you for your response in kind.
Thanks for providing a bit of your background; it helps in interpreting and understanding your views.
But, as a practicing conservative, I strongly believe that governmental regulation should be kept to an absolute minimum – governed by legalities and improprieties. In other words, monopolies shouldn’t be allowed. Mistreatment of employees shouldn’t be allowed. Conscription by employers shouldn’t be allowed. Collusion and “price fixing” shouldn’t be allowed. But there should not be a governmental practice that ensures the success of any specific business. Such a practice merely ensures having policies (heaven forbid, laws) that allow steps to be taken to have the taxpayer or business customers pick up the cost of that specific business being successful when the business owners/managers can’t make of go it on their own. It is particularly reprehensible when such “bailout” measures are taken by the government that generated the reason for the “bailout” necessity in the first place.
We won't debate last October, Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, Obama here but I know it would be a lively discussion over a few ales. I'm not exactly sure what "politics" I'm a "practitioner" of except to keep watching and thinking, but to me the hypocrisy which on the one hand boasts an unbridled fundamentalist capitalism and which on the other hand swiftly bails out failures of the richest capitalist organizations because to not do so would cause the collapse of the nation, (so say some), simply brings home what I have observed to be a standing rule in the US, less so in Canada, Australia and Europe, of the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk and failure. One is a capitalist and actually believes it and lives by those rules or not but placing oneself in a position of bringing down a nation's (and therefore the world's) economy either because the "government made us do it" or by traditional capitalist greed and institutional avarice is the best of both worlds for the bonussed few while the majority of the middle class, (or what is left of the middle class), have watched their wages, benefits including pensions and lifestyles steadily decline. It was the ultimate capitalist Henry Ford who thought employees should make at least enough wages to buy the product they made. Today, the opposite obtains in an economy run off taxpayer largesse in the greatest re-distributionist scheme ever, just to save a few sorry capitalist behinds. Perhaps we are of a common mind on this.
Greed and avarice require some measure of control because it is obvious over the last year certainly, that those who value these characteristics will not control themselves.
Whether further intervention or a true laissez-faire economy where the population is no longer a community and is instead atomized where it is every man for himself, is a decision which the present administration, and practising conservatives and liberals alike, must wrestle.
George Bush squandered the US' position in the world as no other president (inherited huge surplus, left with the largest deficit) and that is not only a sad thing for the world's economy, it is a dangerous position to be in because, to use a hackneyed phrase, power abhors a vacuum. Returning the US to a position of respect and power was the promise so we'll see where it goes.
I apologize for the thread drift but the broader economic mileu in which de-regulation of business, and specifically of the airlines, now over thirty years old, are intimately related to business's (and the airlines') welfare - THE topic under discussion here.
In my experience and not just my opinion, a private corporation in the aviation business will not always, of its own accord, "do the right thing", but will instead privilege commercial priorities over flight safety priorities either until something breaks or until they are caught in a rare audit, rather than taking the more conservative path of prevention. That is my objection to SMS; Oversight is required because capitalists, left on their own, will not behave in the public interest, but in their own narrow interest, which, curiously, is, in the long term, against their own interests as well. We have turned from a manufacturing economy to a speculative economy which values short-term gains in which quarterly results actually mean something. There is only money to be made in such an economy but not a substantive replenishment of capability. Speculation is a shell game, while making things and creating new things is not.
I have seen such unfortunate short-term principles and commercially-drivien decision-making at work and will tell you that if a captain had made these self-same decisions for his/her operation, he/she would be fired if not on the carpet, but SMS protects such management decision-making from "sunshine".
It is not "de-regulation" or "SMS", in and of themselves which is the concern. I agree with your optimistic views described in the quote above but frankly such outcomes are rare. An independent, non-interested third party is required to oversee those private activities which, if not done well, have the power to harm those who are otherwise unable to assess such products on the market, be they water quality, meat quality, cars, drugs or airline travel. We had such a case in Canada where the absentee regulator, (in fact they had been de-regulated) caused the deaths of (if I recall) 26 people across Canada through bad meat. Maple Leaf cleaned up their act but not before having a serious "accident".
The same holds with the aviation industry, obviously. We may part ways on our views of these matters but I can offer from personal experience that the lack of regulation and the absence of the regulator will, not may, provide fertile ground for commercial-priority decision-making in aviation where investors, not the passengers, are the enterprise's first priority.
I too, am "guilty" of passion but I can think of no better reason to be in the present circumstances; acknowledging that things are not coming apart at the seams is part of advancing a more accurate picture of the industry and they are not at all, "dis-integrating". The present move towards the privatization of flight safety here and in the United States is thus far a latent phenomena, the gestation period having just begun. Flight safety people are not unreasonably concerned.
It simply makes no sense – to me or, in my experience, to anyone who knows human nature – for a pilot to believe that his or her salary and benefits package is so “substandard” that he or she may deliberately perform less diligently, fly more sloppily, make decisions less professionally, or take greater risks. If the persons who are hired by an airline are identified as prone to be unaware of the diligence that is essential, the meticulousness that is necessary, the professionalism that is required, or the fact that risk-taking is unwarranted and ill-advised, then the airline must be informed immediately and the airline must take appropriate action before those personality characteristics can contribute to an accident.
My opinion is that safety may be compromised by incompetent, ill-trained, poorly trained, forgetful, overly confident, fatigued, or distracted pilots; but safety is not being compromised by underpaid pilots because they are underpaid. If that were true, why is it that accidents still happen to airlines providing enviable compensation packages to their crewmembers?
My opinion is that safety may be compromised by incompetent, ill-trained, poorly trained, forgetful, overly confident, fatigued, or distracted pilots; but safety is not being compromised by underpaid pilots because they are underpaid. If that were true, why is it that accidents still happen to airlines providing enviable compensation packages to their crewmembers?
But I have been saying and re-stating this view here and elsewhere for a number of years now, the latest being on page 3 of this thread which I expect would be read as a matter of form as part of this discussion. It is at the following link:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post5253205
The "pilot pipeline" is emptying. Those with the smarts and talent to fly professionally are, because they are smart, taking a look at other professions and careers because they are looking at airline work, both regional and mainline, (domestic/international) and saying, "I dont' think so".
It costs a candidate roughtly $100,000 to get qualified for airline work. As has been observed, the military is keeping their pilots so that supply is essentially gone.
Let me ask you, AirRabbit, what intelligent person in his or her right mind, (naivete regarding the industry excepted for a moment), would spend that kind of money to merely qualify one for a profession that has one away from home every important family day, pays poverty-level wages instead of a living wage and increasingly lousy, crappy wages even for senior members, is wholly disrespected by one's employer, their accountants, the organization's investors and increasingly the flying public, (because "automation" does it all so why should they be paid a high wage?), provides a minimum of training, has their pensions "stolen" through favourable bankruptcy laws and demonstrates in negotiations that pilots (their wages and benefits) are a significant liability in achieving profit and who, in one swift second can find themselves either dead or in court defending themselves against charges of "negligence" or worse in most countries of the world? One can only survive a short period of time on the "love of flying". Being an airline pilot today is extremely nasty, unpleasant, unpredictable business and many who I know have retired miss their compatriots, the flying and the layovers but not the industry. Captain Sullenberger said it best (and continues to do so); you can access his comments before Congress in February at:
http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...llenberger.pdf
Who would ever come into such a profession when there are other, far more lucrative, benign, predictable careers that respect both the individual and family needs and not the mere need for "98.6" in the cockpit seats?
I agree that these are strong views; they deserve to be. This was the career and profession that I loved deeply for 35 years and ached as a young kid to get into, and fought my entire career to defend in my own way as others do even now. I have seen it degraded and desecrated by managements who must deliver double-digit returns on investment for short-term investors here and overseas and who will take from the easiest place, employees, what they can and transfer it over to the profit column.
The single point being made here addresses the question you have asked: The incident and accident rates are going to reflect this kind of thinking, that is driving away "the best and brightest", and still no one has recognized this so-far latent factor.
Shorter posts are certainly desireble but simply cannot be done if even a reasonable discussion is to be had in this kind of format. I have attended enough safety conferences and made enough presentations myself to see the reality of these factors, all of which find agreement among those doing this work. Regardless of one's political turn, conservative or liberal, these are emerging factors which will, not may, affect the industry. It is to the industry's benefit to hearken to these matters if only to maintain their own edge and potential for modest profitability. The alternative is a ten-billion dollar bill which is about what a major fatal accident costs those involved today. Not an investors' dream, and the ethical issues haven't even been addressed in such thinking.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sex doesnt cause AIDS
I fully agree with your view here. "Poor pay does not cause accidents; it is the lack of professionalism, incompetency, etc etc" which causes accidents.
Similarly, perhaps in an effort to avoid the aforementioned, and achieve the common ground identification essential not only for continued debate, but for also working toward a solution of some kind, we give up some ground (perhaps ground not worth fighting over)
However.
In this case, I feel the salary issue is waived too easily and too soon.
We have duty hours limitations: why??
Because we dont think it is safe for a pilot (or a truck driver) to be running 12 hours out of a day, or 60 hours out of a week or some such.
Are we naive enough to think that by keeping them out of the LEFT HAND SEAT (either truck cab or cockpit) but not out of the greeter's Aisle at WALMART where he she is forced to augment their income satisfies our commitments to safety?
And it's not so much pilots, but the incremental "swiss cheese" mechanics and ground crew down the line, ( swiss cheese because they are all handlers of the lattice work 'swiss cheese' of failure /success that when properly holes aligned, the 'mouse of disaster'* slips through)
* I apologize for any metaphors mangled in this post.
cessanpuppy;
Begging your pardon....either you're not being very clear in your writing or I am being obtuse, (not the first time), and I would very much like to understand your post. I am interpreting your remarks to mean that even in present circumstances, pilots are working longer, (greater production) and supplementing income by working a second job, (I did, as a young S/O in the early '70's), that duty day regs are liberal to permit more money to be earned, etc etc?
If that's what you're saying, I agree with you. Production pressures for wage earners are enormous and not only in this industry and yes, that has a great deal to say about present safety priorities and possibly about causes. Colgan is emerging as an example of this.
The issue however, is within an overarching approach to how the airline business is being run, the larger factors being, to nutshell it I suppose, "poor pay and lousy prospects are not attracting the best and brightest." As such, there is no direct link between poor pay and a specific rise in incident rates. While some industrial psychologists might state that poor pay demotivates people and while it might be trivially true, it is not a huge factor in aviation safety, mainly because sloth and incompetence can kill oneself. Fatigue will kill with far more frequency and direct connectedness than poor pay will.
What poor pay, lousy conditions and poorer prospects will do is "dis-arm" one, distract one, produce a lack of engagement or inhere a mild "malaise" within one which can have the same results. I doubt very much whether F/O Shaw was "demotivated" but she may have been "disarmed" and focussing on other matters which may be collaterally associated with poor pay, terrible working conditions, training issues and so on. In that sense, I think such a point is well worth attending to.
As stated in my previous post above, I have been making the point about "poor pay not attracting the best and brightest" since the late 90's/early 2000's and here beginning in 2003 so there is no "giving ground to get along and continue the dialogue" going on. Nor do I mind being challenged on my views but I do expect responders to read what I have written first. That is what continues the dialogue, for me anyway. Being accomodating by altering views to be nice isn't what any of this is about; being respectful and mindful of "the other" is simply the way one behaves in public with others when differences emerge. Being rude only says something about oneself and does nothing to convey one's point of view.
Regarding overstating cases or responding to belligerance, (none of which I see or sense in the present discussion, btw), I am not scoring debating points here. This isn't a debate in which one "wins". I try not to exaggerate because that only weakens one case - if anything, I can state without equivocation that I have vastly underplayed what I have experienced and seen and which supports my views.
Begging your pardon....either you're not being very clear in your writing or I am being obtuse, (not the first time), and I would very much like to understand your post. I am interpreting your remarks to mean that even in present circumstances, pilots are working longer, (greater production) and supplementing income by working a second job, (I did, as a young S/O in the early '70's), that duty day regs are liberal to permit more money to be earned, etc etc?
If that's what you're saying, I agree with you. Production pressures for wage earners are enormous and not only in this industry and yes, that has a great deal to say about present safety priorities and possibly about causes. Colgan is emerging as an example of this.
The issue however, is within an overarching approach to how the airline business is being run, the larger factors being, to nutshell it I suppose, "poor pay and lousy prospects are not attracting the best and brightest." As such, there is no direct link between poor pay and a specific rise in incident rates. While some industrial psychologists might state that poor pay demotivates people and while it might be trivially true, it is not a huge factor in aviation safety, mainly because sloth and incompetence can kill oneself. Fatigue will kill with far more frequency and direct connectedness than poor pay will.
What poor pay, lousy conditions and poorer prospects will do is "dis-arm" one, distract one, produce a lack of engagement or inhere a mild "malaise" within one which can have the same results. I doubt very much whether F/O Shaw was "demotivated" but she may have been "disarmed" and focussing on other matters which may be collaterally associated with poor pay, terrible working conditions, training issues and so on. In that sense, I think such a point is well worth attending to.
As stated in my previous post above, I have been making the point about "poor pay not attracting the best and brightest" since the late 90's/early 2000's and here beginning in 2003 so there is no "giving ground to get along and continue the dialogue" going on. Nor do I mind being challenged on my views but I do expect responders to read what I have written first. That is what continues the dialogue, for me anyway. Being accomodating by altering views to be nice isn't what any of this is about; being respectful and mindful of "the other" is simply the way one behaves in public with others when differences emerge. Being rude only says something about oneself and does nothing to convey one's point of view.
Regarding overstating cases or responding to belligerance, (none of which I see or sense in the present discussion, btw), I am not scoring debating points here. This isn't a debate in which one "wins". I try not to exaggerate because that only weakens one case - if anything, I can state without equivocation that I have vastly underplayed what I have experienced and seen and which supports my views.
Last edited by PJ2; 1st Nov 2009 at 18:53.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
We won't debate last October, Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, Obama here but I know it would be a lively discussion over a few ales. I'm not exactly sure what "politics" I'm a "practitioner" of except to keep watching and thinking, but to me the hypocrisy which on the one hand boasts an unbridled fundamentalist capitalism and which on the other hand swiftly bails out failures of the richest capitalist organizations because to not do so would cause the collapse of the nation, (so say some), simply brings home what I have observed to be a standing rule in the US, less so in Canada, Australia and Europe, of the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk and failure. One is a capitalist and actually believes it and lives by those rules or not but placing oneself in a position of bringing down a nation's (and therefore the world's) economy either because the "government made us do it" or by traditional capitalist greed and institutional avarice is the best of both worlds for the bonussed few while the majority of the middle class, (or what is left of the middle class), have watched their wages, benefits including pensions and lifestyles steadily decline. It was the ultimate capitalist Henry Ford who thought employees should make at least enough wages to buy the product they made. Today, the opposite obtains in an economy run off taxpayer largesse in the greatest re-distributionist scheme ever, just to save a few sorry capitalist behinds. Perhaps we are of a common mind on this.
Please excuse the deliberate side-step from the main theme of this thread, but, like you, I believe that to understand the safety issues currently being discussed, the general philosophy governing business decisions must be understood.
As typically there are two sides of every discourse, in these instances in the US, one side clearly believes in equal opportunity for citizens, ensured by careful, constructive, and minimal government involvement in business practices – essentially providing the backbone for the success enjoyed by the US, and other similarly motivated countries. Also, the other side clearly believes that the US has been as successful as it has been, not because of its citizenry, but because of its government. Therefore, in their minds, the only way to improve the outlook for the US, is to increase the size of the government and the involvement of that government in more and more of the business decisions of that citizenry. I have described this attitude as interpreting the US Declaration of Independence statement of the rights of its citizens to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” by re-defining liberty and happiness as “the possession of equal numbers and qualities of things.” In other words, to be truly as happy as your neighbor who owns a Mercedes, you must be allowed to own a Mercedes as well – to be as free as your neighbor who owns a nice home, you, too, must be able to own a house. Some, in a transparent attempt to “be fair,” have said that the house doesn’t have to be as glamorous, or as large, but everyone who wants one should be allowed to have one – notice, that is “allowed to have,” with no caveats about being able to afford to do so. How then? Such “fairness” would come through increased taxes – supposedly only on the ‘arrogant rich,’ and to some, this is eminently fair. The interesting part is that many who feel this way are now not even trying to avoid the “re-distribution” accusation – rather they are attempting to justify such re-distribution as the goal would be to ensure everyone has been afforded their basic “human rights.”
Taking this premise to the next logical (nee “illogical”) expectation is to recognize that any business has a “right” to be successful. That means – do whatever is necessary to have the balance sheet come out positive. If someone looses his/her job in the process – they would merely have to understand that it’s “not personal, just business.” As I indicated in an earlier post, this is the justification for twiddling with the salaries and benefits of pilots, flight attendants, dispatchers, and mechanics. It’s not personal … it’s just business. Surely (they say) anyone can understand the necessity of a business being able to make a profit. But it’s the same in almost every industry. Look at the shambles in which we find our current public education system. Who runs that system? Private corporations? No. It’s the government. How can they do that? Through taxes. You may not have to send your kids to “public” schools, but you do have to see that your kids are educated. And if you choose to do that through any system other than the government’s, you have to pay (through taxes) for the ability of your neighbor to send his kids there. If you desire to provide your kids an education better than that provided by the “public” school system – you can, you just have to pay for both. Isn’t that a re-distribution of the funds you have available? Of course it is.
I’m not saying that all government is bad. There are some things that only governments can – or should – do for the population. Police forces. Fire protection services. There should be building codes and speed limits. Not everyone should be able to drive a car – there should be some sort of training and licensing system to allow that. You find someone who doesn’t want to get a license but says he needs to get to work? Tell him to buy a house within walking distance of his job. Not everyone should be allowed to fly a plane. Particularly if that person is flying a plane on which passengers have paid a price for that transportation. There should be stringent (but fair) requirements levied on that pilot. If we allow an airline to advertise and sell seats, shouldn’t there be some regulation governing some, many, most (?) of that operation to reasonably ensure that passenger that he can get to his chosen destination safely for the price he paid? It’s a tried and true realization. “Supply and demand” works. However, when there is an over-supply of anything – the demand is affected and so is the “going price.”
Originally Posted by PJ2
Let me ask you, AirRabbit, what intelligent person in his or her right mind, (naivete regarding the industry excepted for a moment), would spend that kind of money to merely qualify one for a profession that has one away from home every important family day, pays poverty-level wages instead of a living wage and increasingly lousy, crappy wages even for senior members, is wholly disrespected by one's employer, their accountants, the organization's investors and increasingly the flying public, (because "automation" does it all so why should they be paid a high wage?), provides a minimum of training, has their pensions "stolen" through favourable bankruptcy laws and demonstrates in negotiations that pilots (their wages and benefits) are a significant liability in achieving profit and who, in one swift second can find themselves either dead or in court defending themselves against charges of "negligence" or worse in most countries of the world? One can only survive a short period of time on the "love of flying". Being an airline pilot today is extremely nasty, unpleasant, unpredictable business and many who I know have retired miss their compatriots, the flying and the layovers but not the industry. Captain Sullenberger said it best (and continues to do so); …
It shouldn’t make a lot of difference who Colgan (as an example) hires. The airline has an FAA-approved pilot training program. Any pilot completing that program should be able to meet the expected requirements. This is where the “rubber meets the road.” Does the pilot have the competence to do the job? Are the training program requirements stringent enough? Are those requirements stringently upheld? What is, or should be, the expectation of pilots who complete that program? Do they merely have to complete the hours required? Or, is there a proficiency standard that has to be met? If the proclaimed standards are not met within the scheduled program, what happens? Does the pilot graduate anyway? Is there any remedial training? Is it possible to not make it through the program? Do ALL pilots hired make it through the program? Should there be a review of those programs – of similar programs of all airlines? How frequently? What should those requirements actually say?
Once these issues are resolved, we can look at things like duty day, rest periods, route structure, leg lengths, clock times for start of duty day, commuting to work – and I understand that the US FAA is feverishly working on just such a program review – as I think you mentioned – at the behest of the US Congress.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Shorter posts are certainly desirable but simply cannot be done if even a reasonable discussion is to be had in this kind of format. I have attended enough safety conferences and made enough presentations myself to see the reality of these factors, all of which find agreement among those doing this work.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 3rd Nov 2009 at 14:05.