The safety of LCCs

[markis10]

With the latest news about JQi's A321 trying to land with no gear:

Pilot 'texting during landing'

coupled with the recent x 2 A330 illegal descents on approach to OOL by another LCC, you really have to wonder about LCCs their their low cost approach when it comes to staff and CRM/procedures.

Are LCC's overlooking more experienced crew to save costs at our expense, I also note the recent Dash 8 issue at Syd which was not a LCC issue, however the previous ATSB report on the Melbourne incident with JQ is pretty damning in terms of their procedures etc?

Dash 8 incident http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2009-001.aspx

JQ MEL Incident http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx

 

[Justchecking]

From the sounds of things this has more to do with individual persons not following their procedures than the system of procedures themselves. There is nothing in that article to suggest that he LCC model encouraged dodgy practices. What someone's salary is will not determine whether or not they'll be texting on their phone on landing. I really don't see any connection between the two.

 

[markis10]

Its not necessarily the procedures but more the quality of crew they are attracting or more importantly the experience, LCCs dont pay anywhere near the same wages as mainline so by nature may not be attracting the best possible candidates, that goes from the chief pilot (who sets many of the procedures) down.

Would you pay $20 or whatever amount extra each flight to have the most experienced pilot flying for instance?

 

[Justchecking]

I know quite a few pilots working in the LCC division in Oz and it's not true that these people are lower quality or less skilled than other pilots. The simple fact has been that the only vacancies for pilots (experienced or not) in Oz in recent years have been with LCC so they do not have a choice about where they work if they want to work in Oz. This is a very common misnomer.

Not all skilled pilots wish to move to HK or the middle east. Quite a lot of them want to keep their families at home and find work here and are willing to trade off $$ for the luxury of living in their own country. The economics is not as simple as I'll work where the $$ are. It's more a case of I'll find the highest $$ within the area I want to live.

 

[markis10]

I know quite a few pilots working in the LCC division in Oz and it's not true that these people are lower quality or less skilled than other pilots. The simple fact has been that the only vacancies for pilots (experienced or not) in Oz in recent years have been with LCC so they do not have a choice about where they work if they want to work in Oz. This is a very common misnomer.

If you read the JQ incident in Melbourne its clearly indicative the quality problems are evident, not only by the occurrence of the incident but its subsequent handling and failure to follow mandated rules when it comes to reporting the incident and follow up, I have some local LCC pilot friends as well and I am not trying to tar them all with the same brush, nor do I hold them out as being examples of every pilot employed by their airline.

I have referenced the Australian reports because thats what I have access to but please dont take my questions to be Australian in their scope, the reference to the incidents at OOL are indicative of this as well as that airline does not have a local crew base. Is the prevalence of LCCs in the worldwide market and their insistence on paying wages less than average by comparison to mainline/full service operators resulting in a safety risk to their customers, after all every profession has its bell curve when it comes to competency's of employees.

Are there more experienced pilots out there that would be flying self loading freight if the pay levels of LCCs were higher?

 

[oz_mark]

Reading the reports would suggest that procedural issues pop up at all airlines, LCC or otherwise, from time to time. The question of whether LCC's are over represented in the incident statistics is an interesting one, but even if you could show that there were, then the reasons behind them may be more than simply whether the pilots are on low salaries.

Some LCC's have had fairly significant growth over the last few years, and some of the issues may be there.

 

[N860CR]

Interestingly, the employment minimums are actually higher for JQ than QF (although yes, JQ don't operate with second officers).

Given the oversupply of pilots in Australia, the airlines (LCC or otherwise) get to pick and choose from the top. TT actually have some of the most experienced pilots in the country.

The problem is more the safety management systems in place by senior management, not so much the pilots themselves. Add to that a CASA that is too scared to touch any of the major airlines.... and yes, there is a potential problem.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Interestingly, the employment minimums are actually higher for JQ than QF (although yes, JQ don't operate with second officers).

Given the oversupply of pilots in Australia, the airlines (LCC or otherwise) get to pick and choose from the top. TT actually have some of the most experienced pilots in the country.

The problem is more the safety management systems in place by senior management, not so much the pilots themselves. Add to that a CASA that is too scared to touch any of the major airlines.... and yes, there is a potential problem.

Can you explain further the management safety plans being a problem Daniel?

One could be forgiven for thinking they have approval at a board or regulatory level??

Regards

SPRUCE

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

So if it is okay for the Captain to have his mobile phone on during the flight, why does everyone else have to turn it off?

Ignoring that he was texting, the fact that he had it on says that he didn't think there was a hazard. Or was just blatently ignoring more of his company's policy.

WT

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So if it is okay for the Captain to have his mobile phone on during the flight, why does everyone else have to turn it off?

Ignoring that he was texting, the fact that he had it on says that he didn't think there was a hazard. Or was just blatently ignoring more of his company's policy.

WT

Great pick-up!

maybe time to revisit the seatbelts/noise cancelling headphone threads again - how many of us were saying that rules such as mobie phones being off were VITALLY important to the safety of the aircraft. And that comments by non-experts as to the dangers of mobile phones (or lack thereof) were 'out of place' because only experts know how dangerus these things are and the ordinary passenger knows nothing.

Well I guess the JQ incident shows that mobile phones ARE indeed a safety hazard while flying - they could interfere with operation of the aircraft... BY THE FLIGHT CREW. :mrgreen:

 

[UP4014]

From the sounds of things this has more to do with individual persons not following their procedures than the system of procedures themselves. There is nothing in that article to suggest that he LCC model encouraged dodgy practices. What someone's salary is will not determine whether or not they'll be texting on their phone on landing. I really don't see any connection between the two.

I think you're wrong on this point, a higher paid person is more likely to understand and appreciate the situtation and what their responsibilities are, they enjoy their high pay and appreciate what they will loose if they don't have it and will take less risks as they want to keep it.

Lower paid people doing the same job as higher paid people tend to think 'what the hell, I'm not paid enough for this job'. Just my view.

Matt

 

[whereishome]

I think you're wrong on this point, a higher paid person is more likely to understand and appreciate the situtation and what their responsibilities are, they enjoy their high pay and appreciate what they will loose if they don't have it and will take less risks as they want to keep it.

Unless you work for Goldman Sachs.

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

I think you're wrong on this point, a higher paid person is more likely to understand and appreciate the situtation and what their responsibilities are, they enjoy their high pay and appreciate what they will loose if they don't have it and will take less risks as they want to keep it.

Nonsense.

And the well paid never do anything wrong?

WT

 

[markis10]

Nonsense.

And the well paid never do anything wrong?

WT

Everybody makes mistakes, but if you were a qualified pilot looking at earning 90K with Tiger as a FO with a 15K training bond to pay back versus driving a truck for twiggy for 150K with no training bond which would you choose?

Who is to say the better pilots are not taking advantage of the mining boom and driving trucks rather than (AIR)buses?

 

[k_sheep]

I fly LCCs almost exclusively due to my poverty status, and have never really been concerned about the security. However, in some of my recent flights (D7 and AK) I've noticed lots of oversights or even outright breaches of security, including:

1/ no safety card at my seat, and this was an exit row!
2/ noone seated in exit rows
3/ children (I'm talking ~5yo) in exit rows
4/ numerous passengers (including those in exit rows) carrying several large packages on their lap during takeoff and landing
5/ no special briefing for those in exit rows (is that a requirement, or just something most airlines do?)
6/ window shades drawn during landing - including the ones next to the FAs

Nothing too major I guess, but all just niggle at me a bit. And it seems to be getting worse. Then there's all the usual ones - using phones immediately once touching down, standing up with seat belt sign on, etc etc.

 

[N860CR]

Can you explain further the management safety plans being a problem Daniel?

One could be forgiven for thinking they have approval at a board or regulatory level??

They have been.

I'm not saying they are a problem, I'm saying there they could be.

There seems to be an opinion that, in the case of JQ, the pilots are the problem. They're not. If there is a genuine safety problem (and I'm not saying there is, I don't work for them or have an extensive knowledge of their operations) it would come from a management level, not the individual crews. All aviation operations are standardised, so the chances of a pilot who is not up to standard getting through are very slim. That's the same for an airline or a small GA operator.

 

[Harry G]

the flight deck is in communication with operations ........... he was texting??

the arab airline LCC????????? the one that dragged its cough along the run way in melbourne because the aussie crew had a problem working out how a computer works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the same one that repaired the plane well above its market value only to keep it record of no lost craft intact.......
and we worry about LCC's - although valid........... the safety issue is the number of rotations as they have to be kept in the air to make money and maintenance inspections come around much quicker than a non lcc with planes parked more often
perhaps contradictory as they are looked at more often??
a good example was TT in the early days - the reason they got into so much customer trouble was the time its planes went tech and spent time at hollands getting fixed and where cancelled......... planes just kept breaking........and cabin started to get very worn

Great pick-up!

maybe time to revisit the seatbelts/noise cancelling headphone threads again - how many of us were saying that rules such as mobie phones being off were VITALLY important to the safety of the aircraft. And that comments by non-experts as to the dangers of mobile phones (or lack thereof) were 'out of place' because only experts know how dangerus these things are and the ordinary passenger knows nothing.

Well I guess the JQ incident shows that mobile phones ARE indeed a safety hazard while flying - they could interfere with operation of the aircraft... BY THE FLIGHT CREW. :mrgreen:

 

[Harry G]

if you put JQ in the spot light - would agree they appear to have more reportable incidents ......
perhaps keep an eye out with the trouble brewing with QF/JQ flight deck crews about the new long haul arrangements using asian crews...............am sure the safety issue will be raised

 

[markis10]

and we worry about LCC's - although valid........... the safety issue is the number of rotations as they have to be kept in the air to make money and maintenance inspections come around much quicker than a non lcc with planes parked more often

Maintenance is an issue thats worthy of discussion, however a quick glance at the weekly reports from the ATSB and the number of LCC incidents where there has been unauthorised diversions off track would seem to indicate a problem, lateral separation standards dont allow for an aircraft to be 12nm off its track too often.

 

[UP4014]

Not all airlines were created equal as some people here seem to believe.

LCC by their very nature spend less on their costs and expenses and have a lesser product to sell, the fare of a LCC isn't half the price of a full carrier because they cut cut out a $4 meal, everything costs less, wages, training etc. Not all airlines in Australia operate to the same set of standards, they don't have to.