Response; to 'Dave In Perth'. HERE
Dave: no mate and I apologise if through my clumsiness, you have mistaken my purpose. Risk mitigation is ‘measurable’. Safety is not; for it is both emotive and subjective. For example, there is now one Australian carrier I will not, categorically, fly with. The first time I realised the aircraft was, basically, out of control, I discarded the notion; some new FO got out of sync with the profile, an experienced Capt. to sort it out, no wukkers, until it dawned that it was, in fact the Capt. who make the mess. I know,– it happens; but the last 100’ of that “landing” technically, scared the crap out of me; and I have been around aircraft and pilots since the grand old age of seven.
Now then, we have all stuffed up the finer points of touchdown and made a ‘rough’, but safe landing. Even so; when it occurred on the next three landings, with the same company at the same aerodrome, even then I thought it was a SOP ‘thing’ and they would, eventually, solve the problem. But the last one, travelling with that company was the end. The aircraft was, effectively out of control for 15 maybe 16 miles; the landing – technically – dangerous. I was surprised to see the aircraft waddle out, 40 minutes later – to see it still serviceable – after ‘that’ touch-down, with the same crew was of grave concern and resulted in my refusal to ever travel with that company again.
You see, we are all now governed by the ‘tick and flick’ very PC method of training and checking, courtesy of an individual in CASA who’s sole claim to fame is being an ‘instructor’ for many, many years and having a vocabulary larger than Webster’s. Under CASR part 61, provided the paper, rear end is covered – all is well. If all is ‘not well’ then there is always, under criminal law and strict liability, someone to blame. Not the rotten system, not the weak kneed ATSB, not the moribund CASA; just the poor tired sod (driver airframe) who ‘legally’ cocked it up.
Great system, get used to it. We have tried, very hard to get the system changed – instead, we got Skidmore, gabfests and not too much else; apart from about 400 additional criminal charges, for free. Except it has cost the tax payer about 300 million to reach the current situation, no sign of reform and where no one, except the pilot in command is responsible. Unless you want to examine the endless, mindless bull which drains a company’s ability to meet anything but the minimum, prescriptive, criminally liable regulations which govern aviation. Me? – FFS I just drive ‘em and try to stay legal, without incurring anyone’s wrath, ending up in court or jail and trying to make a living by doing so..
Talk to W Truss DPM, he seems to have all the answers, supplied by the ‘depart-mental’ heads. All good; just ask ‘em. FIGJAM rules OK.
Dave: no mate and I apologise if through my clumsiness, you have mistaken my purpose. Risk mitigation is ‘measurable’. Safety is not; for it is both emotive and subjective. For example, there is now one Australian carrier I will not, categorically, fly with. The first time I realised the aircraft was, basically, out of control, I discarded the notion; some new FO got out of sync with the profile, an experienced Capt. to sort it out, no wukkers, until it dawned that it was, in fact the Capt. who make the mess. I know,– it happens; but the last 100’ of that “landing” technically, scared the crap out of me; and I have been around aircraft and pilots since the grand old age of seven.
Now then, we have all stuffed up the finer points of touchdown and made a ‘rough’, but safe landing. Even so; when it occurred on the next three landings, with the same company at the same aerodrome, even then I thought it was a SOP ‘thing’ and they would, eventually, solve the problem. But the last one, travelling with that company was the end. The aircraft was, effectively out of control for 15 maybe 16 miles; the landing – technically – dangerous. I was surprised to see the aircraft waddle out, 40 minutes later – to see it still serviceable – after ‘that’ touch-down, with the same crew was of grave concern and resulted in my refusal to ever travel with that company again.
You see, we are all now governed by the ‘tick and flick’ very PC method of training and checking, courtesy of an individual in CASA who’s sole claim to fame is being an ‘instructor’ for many, many years and having a vocabulary larger than Webster’s. Under CASR part 61, provided the paper, rear end is covered – all is well. If all is ‘not well’ then there is always, under criminal law and strict liability, someone to blame. Not the rotten system, not the weak kneed ATSB, not the moribund CASA; just the poor tired sod (driver airframe) who ‘legally’ cocked it up.
Great system, get used to it. We have tried, very hard to get the system changed – instead, we got Skidmore, gabfests and not too much else; apart from about 400 additional criminal charges, for free. Except it has cost the tax payer about 300 million to reach the current situation, no sign of reform and where no one, except the pilot in command is responsible. Unless you want to examine the endless, mindless bull which drains a company’s ability to meet anything but the minimum, prescriptive, criminally liable regulations which govern aviation. Me? – FFS I just drive ‘em and try to stay legal, without incurring anyone’s wrath, ending up in court or jail and trying to make a living by doing so..
Talk to W Truss DPM, he seems to have all the answers, supplied by the ‘depart-mental’ heads. All good; just ask ‘em. FIGJAM rules OK.