Safety in numbers?

The committee was given a mandate to look thoroughly into pilot training standards. In particular, a large focus of the inquiry and the submissions and evidence revolved around the experience requirements for pilots, and if current industry practices meant there was a reduction in overall aviation safety. Additionally, the committee also examined the reporting of aviation safety incidents, and amendments to the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

A major driver of the inquiry was South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon. While working with the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) to oppose changes to cockpit access regulations brought in by the government, the Senator raised concerns that flight training and safety standards in Australia’s airline industry were slipping, and could threaten Australia’s enviable air safety record. The response by the industry was strong, with 55 submissions received, and a number of witnesses called by the committee during six hearing sessions. These ranged from the CEOs of the major airlines and CASA, to individual pilots who had expressed their concerns about aviation training in Australia.

The report delivered 22 recommendations aimed at improving pilot training and aviation safety, most of them related to aviation training, while others covered potential actions by CASA to strengthen various regulations.

One of the most controversial issues that the committee considered was whether current regulations, which allow a CPL holder with relatively minimal experience to fly as a first officer on an RPT service, needed to be changed. This was seen in light of the recent move by the US Federal Aviation Administration to impose a 1500 hour minimum on any pilot flying on an RPT service, although this measure is still being debated in the US.

That recommendation, if adopted, would represent a major change to the aviation industry, particularly in the case of recently launched ab initio cadet schemes.

Jetstar’s cadet program has come under close scrutiny, as cadets could graduate onto first officer positions on the A320 fleet with only approximately 200 hours of flying experience.

AIPA has been particularly opposed to this program, and built a large argument that such a scheme was akin to “handing the keys of the Ferrari to a bunch of ‘P-Platers’ ”. It contended that raising the minimum requirement for a first officer to 1500 hours would ensure that pilots have had sufficient experience to handle a range of situations.

That requirement appears to have been reached after the US Federal Aviation Administration took action last year to limit RPT flying to pilots who have completed over 1500 flying hours. That was introduced following the crash of a Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 in 2009.

In defence of company specified cadet programs, most of the major airlines argued that pilots who went down that path came out better equipped for airline flying than those who had gone through the traditional GA or even military flying pathways. Tiger Airways submitted that pilots from these alternative streams could be of “mixed quality”, particularly where many of their hours may have been “flying alone, uninstructed and un-mentored”.

In its considerations, it appears that the committee saw valid points from both sides. “Generally speaking, there was significant consensus among stakeholders that acceptable levels of pilot proficiency are achieved through a mix of flight experience (including flight simulator training) and competency based training,” read the report.

This position was backed up by other carriers, CASA and Swinburne University of Technology, while the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) also noted that flight hours were “not a useful determinant of a pilot’s skill or likely levels of safety. ” Nevertheless, its number one recommendation was that all first officers operating high capacity RPT jet aircraft (Airbus A320 or Boeing 737) be required to hold an Air Transport Pilots Licence (ATPL), in effect requiring a minimum of 1500 hours of flying time for copilots flying for the major airlines.

“This proposal was said to achieve a more appropriate balance between experience and competency based training approaches, particularly in light of the potential consequences of accidents involving highcapacity RPT services,” read the report.

“The use of copilots with flight experience hours approaching the licence minima was said to involve a number of latent safety risks, notably the inability of a copilot to replace and/or support the captain in cases of emergency, and the reluctance of a very inexperienced copilot to question the actions of an experienced captain (a circumstance described as involving a steep cockpit authority gradient). ” As could be expected, Jestar has been the first company to react to the recommendation.

CEO Bruce Buchanan told media that the requirement for all first officers to hold an ATPL had not been well thought through.

“This minimum requirement would mean cadet pilots would come through the traditional aviation path rather than a structured and specific jet training program,” he said in a letter to the crikey. com.

au website. “It is important to note that if these changes are adopted Australia will not be getting the best of both worlds – pilots with both hours and an expertly designed jet training program – we will only be getting hours. ” Additionally, he said that the requirement would decimate the regional airline industry.

However, the committee appears to have gone to great lengths to ensure that would not be the case, with the minimum requirement proposed to be limited to operators of large jets. This position was backed by Rex, and even AIPA, which argued that the impact on “smaller elements of commercial aviation” could be affected. Thus, it proposed that any minimum requirement should be limited to “pilots of public transport aircraft”.

Subsequently, the second recommendation appears to have left the door open for low time pilots to fly as copilots on RPT services operated by turboprop aircraft.

“The committee recommends that for non-jet operations which employ lowexperience first officers, operators be required to provide enhanced supervision and mentoring schemes to offset such lack of experience,” read the report.

That would seem to indicate that Rex’s cadet scheme and the one proposed by Skywest last year would still be viable.

Additionally, this would ensure that these pilots could be retained for some time while they build up the hours required to gain an ATPL before they look to move up to larger aircraft.

For Rex, that has been particularly important, as it has used its cadet scheme as a hedge against future pilot shortages.

Indeed, it had argued that the bond scheme through which cadets paid for their training helped to ensure that there was adequate retention of qualified pilots.

As well as the recommendation that non-jet operators place low experience copilots with experienced captains, the committee put forward a recommendation thatAOC holders “be required to develop and implement ‘green on green’ policy positions relating to the use of low experience pilots in RPT operations, to maximise, wherever possible, the collective experience level of flight crew. ” This particular recommendation does not appear to require major adjustments for most operators. A number of the major airlines and Rex submitted that they already have policies to ensure that low timed copilots are paired with more experienced captains. This would merely extend it to a number of other operators.

Another major consideration was over the use of simulators and other such technology in training. In particular, evidence to the committee “may suggest inadequate simulator training with respect to avoiding an imminent stall, one of the most dangerous situations that a pilot may encounter.

“Given this, the committee felt that CASA should be required to undertake a risk assessment of current simulator training, to assess whether the extent, aims and scope of such training is being utilised to achieve optimum safety outcomes rather than minimum compliance objectives,” read the report.

Looking further

Quite deliberately, the committee limited itself to concerns about airline safety, but has foreshadowed that there are a number of issues raised during its investigation that could warrant further attention in the future.

One particular recommendation was that the Productivity Commission undertake a review into the current and future supply of pilots in Australia. In particular, it suggests that this needs to be done with reference to “general aviation and cadet training pathways, and HECS HELP and VET FEE-HELP arrangements. ” That particular issue is nothing new, with a number of flying training organisations that Australian Aviation has spoken to over the years indicating that some form of financing for trainee pilots is required to ensure that it remains a viable career option. Similarly, the issue featured in the government’s 2009 Aviation White Paper, and is expected to be given high priority in due course.

The committee also recommended that CASA and the ATSB review the findings of the investigation into the crash of Air France 447, which plunged into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Brazil in 2009.

“Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter,” read the report.

Additionally, the committee highlighted that other inquiries into aviation maintenance and general aviation may be required in future. However, given the relatively small exposure of these sectors in the wider political environment, it is uncertain when these may come up for further enquiry.

Making a difference?

While the recommendations made by the committee could lead to major changes for pilot training and cadet schemes, so far there has been little reaction, apart from that of Jetstar’s Bruce Buchanan.

The instigator of the inquiry, Senator Xenophon, has hailed the report as “a huge wake up call” to the industry.

“The dozens of pilots and crew members I’ve spoken to in recent months have said they’re worried about the apparent race to the bottom when it comes to safety,” he said.

Accordingly, the Senator has been pursuing the government in parliament, putting questions to Senator Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, on issues that have been raised from the inquiry. It is expected that Senator Xenophon will continue to pursue those issues for some time in the future.

Thus far, the government has yet to provide a comprehensive response to the recommendations. Representatives from Transport Minister Anthony Albanese’s office have only said that the government will seek further advice from aviation industry experts before responding.

That response may take some time, particularly with CASA and the Minister currently preoccupied with the grounding of Tiger Airways. Ironically, this was done only a few days after the report was released. Apart from that, the larger political issue of a carbon tax is likely to take pressure off any immediate action from the government.

Nevertheless, given the weight of some of the recommendations, it may be in the industry’s best interests to ensure that they are properly considered before any movement is made. Only time will tell if the report does become a watershed moment for Australia’s aviation industry, or remains another well researched and thought through report which delivers little more than headlines, ultimately left to gather dust.