> Whilst I'm not condoning what was done, I suspect you all need to back
> away from this man, and look at the company, and perhaps the wider
> industry.
>
> Firstly a 'safe' culture is not just created. It is built over many years
> by the contributions of many. Young pilots watching older ones take the
> most conservative course of action builds that into the up and coming.
> Instant F/Os and short time captains almost certainly don't think that
> way. New airlines, almost by definition, will not have that sort of
> culture, and the operators are very likely to be vulnerable to outside
> influences. A safe culture takes years to build, and yet can be very
> fragile. A CEO who declares his brand new airline to be 'safe' almost
> certainly has no idea what he is talking about....
>
> Companies can bring great pressure to bear against crews. Even simple
> things like the clocks that Virgin Blue have attached to the gates, which
> count down to departure time, don't enhance safety....they just push the
> idea of going, come what may. Minimal fuel loads, wishful thinking in
> flight plans, or witch hunts following diversions or termination of a
> flight all contribute to a reduction in safety. All are common in the
> industry. I recall one friend telling me that when he flew for a couple of
> years with a northern carrier, he diverted; and the F/O spent the entire
> divert muttering to himself 'XXXXX doesn't divert'. One very major airline
> considers that as all of its pilots are 'at least' as good as the Boeing
> test pilots, then they can consider the Boeing crosswind limits to be
> recommendations only. Given that their F/Os are instant, their actual
> record is poor, but their marketing is brilliant, that's faith I consider
> misplaced. I'd like to consider myself a decent driver, but if the Boeing
> guys consider it a limit, I'd prefer to be nowhere near it.
>
> The media are also constantly working to reduce safety. The rubbish
> printed by them almost defies belief. So, what they are likely to achieve
> is a secretive industry; nothing will be given out as it is twisted by the
> media to whatever ends they have this week. This is the opposite of that
> has been aimed for by safety people for decades, in which errors are
> freely admitted, because the next bloke might learn from them.
>
> We're hearing the same sort of gibberish about the accident in Spain.
> Nobody really knows what happened, but I see today that people are saying
> the jet should have been replaced when it went back to the gate for a
> temperature probe problem. Well, firstly spare jets don't generally grow
> on trees, and yet passengers seem to be very unforgiving about
> delays....even when they're needed. If you want to fly on a perfect jet,
> well, you aren't going to do much flying. Even brand new ones come from
> the factory with issues... I expect that this will prove to be the
> standard chain of events, and I also expect that the actual cause will be
> nothing that's been mentioned by the media so far.
>
> --
> Posted atwww.Usenet.com.au