Professor Rubik

That was the best post on here for absolute years. Factual, polite and to the point.

A true gentleman.

"As a trusted professional group of employees we would not be ignored if we had a safety argument. Often making some noise is more than enough to get the right attention. It takes one self-invented body or lobbying group to get the ball rolling. "

Being a pilot and claiming that the current system is affecting safety is very see through. It's easy to break it down and show that we're more worried about not earning enough pay rather than being worried about flight safety. After all, as far as I'm aware, there are no studies made to show that there actually is a correlation between pilot working conditions and flight safety except when it comes to FTL's.

In fact, according to a person I spoke to who is trying to investigate the industry, told me that the EU commision just recently passed an act prohibiting deep probing of airline safety records as the outcome of such investigations may negatively affect the economy of the airlines. The way I see it, the industry is painfully aware of the effects of deteriorating T's and C's and are doing everything to stop the risks of this becoming publicly known. If no-one can research it, it's impossible to say that T's and C's actually have anything to do with it. Being a pilot and saying that it does, is as I said, very see thorugh.

We need more credible research to prove that what we're saying on this thread is actually true. Until we have that, in the eyes of the public, we're just a bunch of overpaid and moaning busdrivers.

I think that the general public still views pilots as well paid and takes professionalism as granted. If they knew the truth about P2F and the current mess that the industry is in they would be horrified. Of course, they don't give a damn until there is an accident.

The US regional airline experience shows what happens when pure market economics dominate. They had a number of accidents with former P2F pilots and crap working conditions as factors in the accidents.

Airlines don't regulate themselves very well and the current mess is the fault of the regulators. Only when there are body parts hanging from trees will they do anything and if they don't, aircraft insurers will. Until then, we've not touched rock bottom.

You are right. If there was a plausable argument on the grounds of safety then the governing bodies would get involved, but there simply isn't and it would be wrong to try and use the "safety" card as a lever to get things changed.

We shouldnt have to justify it on a legal or safety level, it should just be about pure morals and principles. Professional jobs attract higher incomes because of the time and investment it takes to get trained and the fact that a person can't just be replaced instantly like an unskilled worker can. We should'nt be ashamed of earning, or aspiring to earn the kind of salary's that previously existed for the job. The public may well see us as overpaid moaning busdrivers (Im not certain that's strictly true) because airline safety and a/c reliability is so good these days so the opprotunities for pilots to have to prove their skills and knowledge, in terms of an incident, are thankfully rare. That doesn't mean that the required level of training or ability has got any less though. When everything is going well it's a very easy job but it really comes down to the old saying "you get paid for what you know, not what you do".

Some great comments, thoughts and examinations above.

One of the problems we face is that while professionalism and expereince costs money, that can only add to the ticket price to the end user and of course when faced with standing up for what is right or moral, or a cheap ticket for a stag weekend in an ex-eastern block country, the cheap ticket price will win out.

it is of course rather ironic that the cheap tickets are not such ceap tickets, yes they may be being sold for 9.99 (plus additional costs of course) but then there are subsidies being granted for three times that per ticket from the EU. (google: Ryanair Subsidies)

So that cheap ticket is not so cheap after all...

Of course I don't begrudge the likes of MOL for what he has done and is doing, all he is doing is playing the game by what is available. And of course once one carrier charges rock bottom prices, the rest have to cut everything to the bone to compete to retain, let alone gain market share.

We have many associations spread across europe that fight little fights for their subscriber base, BALPA being one of them, but each one individually has neither the resources, the size, or in some case the cajohnes or the money to fight sprawling EU insanity and inanity, and some associations will fight against each other where interests conflict.

like for example the situation where EU nations are starting to reign in the contractor situations and tax tourism. it's not because they give a flying fig for the contractors quality of life, its because now, the financial feces has hit the fan, they need to scrape in every penny they can.

Lets take the UK for example, in dealing with avaition matters that have ramification in the industry it could fall to the department of trade, the DOT or the DWP etc ..

we have no one single body of note that represents this industry to government. we can mention bob crowe all we like, but the reality is, the group he represents is a major contributor to the labour party.. he represents the party's paymasters, so policy and political influence will be driven forward to where they want.

Unfortunately until this industry is recognised for the large contributing part it plays to the national economy, trade, industry and so on, it will continually be overlooked and those who work in it face decreasing T&C's because its worth and value are neither recognised nor savagely fought for.

Firstly- this is an excellent post and it's good to see so much objectivity. One thing I would like to raise, further that to what Fair Weather Flyer quite rightly mentions about what it will take to get the public on side is that even a serious incident is unlikely to help improve the situation for any pilots employed by contractors used by the loco operators. Any loco airlines invilved in a serious incident may well escape blame and even liability - and more than likely the pilots and /or the 'mini companies' they are part of (in the case of FR at least ) will not only assume the blame but also the liability. The airlines have set up mechanisms to distance themselves from any liability, even though it is their policies and working practices that have produced this exceptionally unhealthy culture.

Superpilot, your summary is spot on ...

Superpilot- an excellent, concise summary of our profession`s ills.

Professor Rubik- I agree and empathize with most of what you`ve said, but experience goes hand in hand with operational standards and I think it is perfectly fair, in fact essential, that its absence is raised as a safety issue.

Most turbojet aircraft are certified for two pilots because the workload is considered too burdensome for the average crew, especially during an emergency. Now, clearly we must all gain experience and there are accommodations for this in the training specified by CAAs around the world, but let`s be absolutely clear; it was never intended that this would be abused to the point where an almost perpetual state of training exists in certain airlines. This is pure abuse of a regulation that was solely intended to bridge the experience gap, not entrench it. In my opinion it is also willfully negligent and it beggars belief that it has still gone unchecked by either the CAA and unchallenged by competitors.

Systemic and technological improvements are largely offsetting the effect of inexperienced crews, industry best practices and the reliability and redundancy of modern aircraft accomodate them, but their weakness is obvious and lies dormant until illuminated by circumstances. Where it comes apart, where it has come apart, is when an insidious problem, a major malfunction or series of them overwhelms the experience and ability of the crew. This could be a training captain and inexperienced first officer or two inexperienced or poorly trained crew members, in either case the negligence of the operator and to some extent the authority is to blame.

Over the past few years, criminal culpability has begun to be apportioned after an accident and I just hope that the industry, specifically the accountable managers and CAAs concerned, wake up before they are woken up by legal action. Sadly, I think it may take a major accident or accidents for things to change. Colgan, Turkish and Air France are three accidents that demonstrate the deadly effects of poor training and experience.

Amen Globalstream ...

The ONLY thing that can put a stop to this P2F cancer now is a very large smoking hole. I don't want it and I don't wish it, but I believe it's coming as certain as an oncoming train.

Colgan was a partial wake up call for the US - and that was "only" a turboprop, when it comes in Europe it will be a 737 or 320.

When that inevitable thing comes, we need to be very clear and on message to the media and politicians with all the things that have been discussed at length in this thread. Especially the stuff that Globalstream has just pointed out : the whole two-crew safety concept has been turned on its head with this perpetual turnover of casual-contract, hugely indebted, fresh out of school, use-em-and-abuse-em F/O's.

How can someone argue that a forcibly imposed take-it-or-leave-it base change at 48 hours notice is not a safety risk, how can someone argue that having F/O's sleeping in cars outside airports like those Spanish lads is not a safety risk, how can someone argue that commuting hundreds of miles from mum and dad's place every day to operate a duty because they can't afford a house in their "base" is not a safety risk, the list goes on and on.

Sooner or later the piper will have to get paid :(

LST,

you may be right, but I sincerely fear that a smoking hole and fatality list will likely cause even more problems, with resulting half arsed regulations that skirt round the problem or even address a completely different aspect.

What we have to bear in mind is that a catastrophic event will result in the overseeing authorities covering asses. What they invariably do is pushing politics, not tin.

Look at the way EASA functions, dysfunctional as it is. An accident will be investigated by the authorising authority, likely with the involvement of the manufacturer's country of authority involved...

Any recommendation found from the resultant findings will likely be adopted by the authorising authority and it would be up to EASA to ratify that recommendation between member states...

It would perhaps take a fatal accident in turn under each of the regulatory authorities for something to be adopted EU wide.

Aside form that, EASA is in the position where it can say 'we're a safety oversight board harmonising the regulations between member states, its down to the individual countries authorities themselves, not us'.

Look at post Colgan, the FAA has been reducing FTL's and what has EASA done !

Look at FR, MOL has been pushing this ploy of single pilot ops, which creates a wider narrative that perhaps with automation only pilot is needed. In effect, with low time pilots going on the flight line that is pretty much the case is some situations. Automation is there to reduce the ever increasing workload on the flight crew, NOT replace them.

The other side to that is the buck can be succinctly passed on responsibility. How can it be determined that P2F et al. was the cause of the accident?

It'll be the pilots, probably dead, who will be blamed for their actions, or deficiencies noted in the carriers operations and recommendations made; They were of course in accordance with the regulations at the time and Lessons will be learned no doubt.

In current circumstances, we are unfortuntely living and working in the 'wild west'. What we and each member states need is perhaps an effective minister for aviation. Not under trade and industry, not under work and pensions, not under defence, not under general transport, but one dedicated to the huge industry that aviation is. Or maybe some kind of amalgamation of associations, These bodies then need to interact with each other separate from other influences to ensure a cohesive EU interaction.

I am at a loss as to if the operators should be involved as invariably they are being run by 'accountants' and look only year to year trying to shave down costs on the year before. they simply cannot nor do not think in 3 or 5 year strategic terms.

Or we get Bob Crowe on board (much as i dislike him, he's just the firebrand the industry needs)

I dont have the answers, only looking for them, but right here, we can look for ways forward and act cohesively as a professional body to achieve those aims, rather than thinking of there here and now, but of our careers and our futures.

Ultimately the safety risk is not even a consideration for those booking flights now, as they perceive them all to be much of a muchness. We may view this differently, but airlines will successfully argue their pilots pass the same tests and the locos have very new & sophisticated aircraft and they have an excellent safety record.

Until there are serious crashes that show there to be an endemic system issue, I can’t see the RHS policy changing. If it’s one crash, it’s crew error but if several, then it’s this wider issue.

I liken it to the banks – when Northern Rock failed, it was an isolated event (crew error), but when the rest were falling over like dominoes 12 months later, it demonstrated that the overall banking model was entirely built on sand.

Only when/if we reach that second phase, will there be any real pressure from the authorities & public, as no one should underestimate how aggressive the locos are. In the meantime, the supply of "suitable" cadets keeps coming through by the ship-load. I do think however that there should be a clear policy of what to do if this happens, and have in the past suggested “Balpa approved” flightdecks which would be mentioned in the captain’s address, but I was shot down over this.

FANS, I can see why a BALPA approved flight deck presentation would go down like a pork chop at a bar mitzvah.

essentially it takes the authorizations away from the regulator and the employer and places it on effectively what is a union and that is a bitter pill to swallow for everyone along with the vested interests.

fair play on you for trying though.

perhaps things may see more change in the right direct if there were a pilot association that trainee pilots, pilots looking for work, contractor pilots (real contract pilots, not fake employee contractors), pilts who are looking for work as well as those in full time employ, could join and be represented as professional body, rather than those who are in recognised carriers only and where issues such as couscous are not the major concern.

What an interesting thread !

BEA & BOAC for many years employed hamble cadets with very low hours on aircraft that were considerably more labour intensive and arguably harder to operate aircraft without too many problems (excepting PI perhaps?) for many years.

I note with interest that in 2013 Bae will be flying the Mantis project in UK airspace. This I believe to be a remotely operated drone type craft.

Is it not concevable that within say 10 to 15 years, freight and mail may be flown by pilotless aircraft.

Whilst I think there will always be a person at the front of an aircraft. Could passenger aircraft be effectively remotely operated within the working lifetime of some of todays crews ? I think so.....

Could these factors not have a considerable effect on T&C's in the not too distant future ?

Oh and one other question ? Why do some pilots site examples comparing themselves with Dr's ? A doctor does a 5-7 year degree......and a pilot ?

Just a couple of thoughts.....

Continuation training and proficiency examination to practice, every six months!.....and a doctor?

Doctor.......every minute of every day in practise me thinks.....Just trying to keep up to date with practise and proceedure must be very difficult. Oh and they dont have an auto pilot.........

The difference being that the standards were very high and only the very able were selected. Today's average CTC non-tagged student is on the course due to ability to pay rather than aptitude. I suspect that this creates a scenario where the finished product is more often - not always - of a poorer standard than would have been the case under the days-gone-by Hamble system.

I agree with Waco that this is an interesting thread, and I too am watching with interest how the Bae drone technology unfolds - however my 20 year plus experience of leading edge /bleeding edge technology leads me to state categorically that having either just 1 pilot in the cockpit (or none for freight/mail) would undoubtedly results in major accidents. As smart as aerospace companies (and the human race as a whole) are....there is even MORE reason to have 2 pilots to manage and deal with what happens when technology fails as the QF32 crew would tell you - and many others I suspect. I'm sure plenty of others here think the same. The old adage that 'to err is human -but to really screw up, you need a computer' will always apply... and in this case you can also factor in the communications technlogies need to 'remote fly' these aircraft whihc are very reliable...but no system is 100% reliable.....

waco. pilotless aircraft is a lost leader.

it makes no difference if there are 200 souls sitting in an aircraft, or 80 tonnes of general cargo, a couple of hundred tonnes of aircraft impacting at high speed into a housing estate, tower block, football stadium can bring about a significant tragedy.

as for pilotless drones, well they are pilotless for a reason, they are dispensable, with no loss of life. trains still run with a driver in charge and they operate in one dimension (aircraft operates in three and is subject to considerably more environmental factors that a train).

pilotless aircraft are controlled from the ground, by err a pilot.. and in civilian use that poses a huge security risk, as well software that controls them is code written be erm a human.

in essence pilotless drones, disposable for military applications have basically bugger all to do with deteriorating T&C's for pilots.


As for doctors, no they are not tested routinely every few months to check that their skills are operating at maximum, nor are required to meet as stringent medical criteria; neither are architects, lawyers, politicians, ophthalmologists, accountants, company chairmen, company directors etc etc.

Berks Flyer

Excellent point well made.....

Air Researcher

Also excellent points. However, I can see huge further leaps in automation to come. I do think there will always be two people at the pointed end. However their ability to influnce directly the opertion of the craft will diminish as will the T&C's for the people concerned.

If the insurance companies are happy with such operation and operating efficancy can be so improved (as I beleive wil be the case) The future of T&C's will undoubtedly diminish, considerably.

PS how long before airlines only employ captains and have the RHS occupied on an internship basis ?

Well stuckgear....I dont agree with you. Sounds like a head in the sand approach to me.

However, RHS T&C's have diminished considerably over the last few years and will continue to do so.

The same will occur to the LHS over time, though perhaps not to the same degree.

Either way, in comparision with those professions you quote.....pilots will be vastly behind them on the pay and conditions front and the differential will increase.

Oh and since the appropriate regulatory body is happy to allow drones to fly in UK airspace from 2013 it would appear that your premise is somewhat wrong ! Its happening and soon !