[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Based on the details given by OP and Jeroen, and from various articles on the internet, it appears as though Jet airways has a sub-standard cabin crew in their rosters. What I want to know is, whether the pilots are also like this? Is it possible for any carrier to hire pilots with least experience or questionable safety records, just to keep their costs low?

Relax yaar. You are much more likely to die in a car crash on a highway than in a fireball in a crashed plane.

The statistics for safe plane landings are somewhere in the order of 20-24 sigma (yes, where manufacturing talks about six sigma). You cannot extrapolate one bad apple to the company or industry at large.

And yes, I've been Silver / Gold with Jet several years, so I have put my life where my text is!

The thing you need to worry more in India is maintenance / chalta hai. AI originally used to be world class, but unless Indian carriers start publishing the details of their MEL (minimum equipment level) flights, I would always be worried of someone cutting a fatal corner.

The benefit is that our typical planes are 10-12 years or younger. I would be really scared when we get to the point where the broader fleet is 20+ years, as it is for many american airlines (e.g MD82 etc). God bless Indigo's policies of only keeping planes for ~5 odd years!

[shaggydogg]

Wow, thank you for sharing this first person account with us and so glad to hear that you got out without any physical injuries. I do hope you receive some help for what sounds like PTSD (I'm not a doctor, I'm just a layman giving opinions!) at Jet Airways' expense.

Its absolutely appalling that no emergency services reached you for more than 25 minutes - the global standard is 3 minutes. What if there was indeed a fire?? 25 minutes is unheard of and I lay the blame for this on the Airports Authority of India. The airfield rescue and firefighting (ARFF) apparatus should be able to reach any corner of the airfield in under three minutes. This is why larger airports have ARFF stationed at multiple points in the airport to ensure adequate response time. We saw in the Emirates crash in Dubai recently how quickly a plane full of fuel can be gutted by fire so hearing of this concerns me to no end and I do hope yourself and the other passengers highlight this to the DGCA who must conduct a safety audit of this airport and indeed, all other airports across India.

I hope you get over this incident as soon as possible and once again, glad to know everything worked out well at the end of this.

[shaggydogg]

Originally Posted by car.lover

While not commenting on the merits / demerits of the 9W crew, I would like to relate an exemplary crew and passenger experience that I had a couple of years back.

I was on a BA day flight from BOM to LHR, when about 4 odd hours into the flight the pilot announced that "there are strong headwinds and we will need to make a refuelling stop, hence are landing in Istanbul". We groaned, cursing BA for not being able to calculate the fuel needed and that we would miss connecting flights, etc.

This reminds me of the BA0038 crash and how the pilots performed there. Please watch the below video which shows the position of the aircraft along with the ATC recordings and also the position of the ARFF as the race (and I mean literally RACE) towards the accident spot.

Every time I watch this video I get the chills but I'm amazed by how calm the pilot as well as the air traffic controller are! Also, you will notice that the pilot calls out "Mayday! Mayday! Speedbird 95 .. 95". Speedbird is the call sign for BA but this particular flight was no 38, not 95. It later turned out that Speedbird 95 was the callsign that was always used during BA pilot trainings so the pilot instantly reverted to his training to the extent that he repeated the flight number from his training sessions as well. As a result of this, BA started using random flight numbers for their training modules!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcGA3vRwzuE

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

The thing you need to worry more in India is maintenance / chalta hai. AI originally used to be world class, but unless Indian carriers start publishing the details of their MEL (minimum equipment level) flights, I would always be worried of someone cutting a fatal corner.
s!

Just to be precise a MMEL master minimum equipment list in general is drawn up by the carrier based on the manufacturer MEL. It is typically approved by the relevant aviation authority. It is drawn up bu aircraft type and or model. Its known under a few other names as well. Essentially it stipulates under which conditions certain systems and or system functions could be not working and the aircraft is still allowed to operate and it will mention any special procedures to do so.

For instance, most planes dont need a working APU. Planes dont necessaruly need their reversers to work, but it will also show some limitations and procedures to be taken into consideration.

I flew for weeks in a Cessna without working flaps. No problem as long as you allow for higher take off and landing speeds in your flight planning. So for instance I could not take off or land from certain airfields anymore.

Many carriers adhere simply to the manufacture MEL. If anything from a practical point of view this will most likely already comply with all relevant international rules and regulations.

I have a copy of an Air India MEL and as far as I can tell its about identical to a Boeing MEL I also own and very similar to the KLM one. That last one has so e KLM specifics. But then again, KLM has always produced all its cockpit and technical documentation themselves.

So what are you eluding to, do Indian carrier simply not adhere to the approved MEL? Does their MEL not comply with national and or international rules and regulations. Please elaborate.

Jeroen

[RVD]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

The thing you need to worry more in India is maintenance / chalta hai. AI originally used to be world class, but unless Indian carriers start publishing the details of their MEL (minimum equipment level) flights, I would always be worried of someone cutting a fatal corner.

The benefit is that our typical planes are 10-12 years or younger. I would be really scared when we get to the point where the broader fleet is 20+ years, as it is for many american airlines (e.g MD82 etc). God bless Indigo's policies of only keeping planes for ~5 odd years!

Lets not create unease among flying public unnecessarily. Aviation is as global as any industry can be. It means that aviation is governed under very strict laws worldwide which is no different in India. Air India's fleet age is much higher. How many of those do you see falling out of the skies ? If you are worried about the " Chalta Hai " attitude then you surely travel abroad in case of doctor visit/ surgery etc. Lets give some credit to the guys doing their jobs.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Just to be precise a MMEL master minimum equipment list in general is drawn up by the carrier based on the manufacturer MEL. It is typically approved by the relevant aviation authority. Jeroen

Its the other way around. MMEL is issued by the manufacturer and MEL is then drawn up by the carrier.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by RVD

Aviation is as global as any industry can be. It means that aviation is governed under very strict laws worldwide which is no different in India.
r.

Yes, its a global industry and as I mentioned earlier, India failed to meet IASA standards and was downgraded not to long ago. Since then rectified, but still. Its not about the international rules and regulations perse, it is about strict and consistent adherence all the time to those international rules and regulations.

By the way, even the DGCA has expressed concern over the age of the AI fleet.

http://www.business-standard.com/art...2600042_1.html


Jeroen

[phamilyman]

Folks - a general disclaimer regarding the prev post: I do realize I'm not technically adept here, but please follow the high level logic than the exact semantics. I am sure you know that better.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

So what are you eluding to, do Indian carrier simply not adhere to the approved MEL? Does their MEL not comply with national and or international rules and regulations. Please elaborate.

Jeroen

OK, this is basically the POV shared by a person who was earlier in the industry and in the know on this statistic - his logic is that while MEL flights are technically allowed, the question is whether certain carriers had more % MEL flights than others or not. That is where I believe Indian (or rather all!) carriers should publish this information.

While it is safe to be on a MEL flight, that statistic should be as low as possible. As with any metric - if you track it, you improve it.

Originally Posted by RVD

Lets not create unease among flying public unnecessarily. Aviation is as global as any industry can be. It means that aviation is governed under very strict laws worldwide which is no different in India. Air India's fleet age is much higher. How many of those do you see falling out of the skies ? If you are worried about the " Chalta Hai " attitude then you surely travel abroad in case of doctor visit/ surgery etc. Lets give some credit to the guys doing their jobs.

Agreed. I'm not casting aspersions on any one carrier right now. I don't have any first hand verifiable data. Like I said, you don't remain multi-year platinum / Gold / Silver without entrusting your life to different carriers almost every week! I'm just saying as any aircraft ages, and maintenance becomes more critical - I would like to know which carrier invests more proactively in maintenance, and possibly least % flights on MEL would be a relevant objective parameter to measure that.

Of course, more crashes happen due to pilot error than maintenance - but the former is a random uncontrollable variable. I'd like to put my life where the latter is most proactive. Wouldn't you?

EDIT: I see where RVD reacted - all I'm saying is, in my experience, I have heard a lot of praise for the widebody maintenance teams of AI (international) prior to the merger. That used to be the high watermark in that era. All Im praising about indigo now is that their policy to retire planes early, simply reduces maintenance as a likely factor for any crash by a great margin. Not saying their engg teams are better than AI.

Ultimately this is a super safe industry - I'm much more likelier to be in a fatal car crash than a plane crash. We're only discussing minor ways of further enhancing that safety - nothing else!

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

And yes, I've been Silver / Gold with Jet several years, so I have put my life where my text is!

The thing you need to worry more in India is maintenance / chalta hai. AI originally used to be world class, but unless Indian carriers start publishing the details of their MEL (minimum equipment level) flights, I would always be worried of someone cutting a fatal corner.

True. Here is something I spotted on a recent Del-Blr Jet flight.


Never have I seen anything like this on any other airline. Nothing major but a tad worrisome, no? What if they forget to tighten the bolts somewhere else too?

[Jeroen]

First of all, lets look at a real MEL just to get some feeling for it, see one of my earlier posts in a different thread:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...ml#post3296607

Originally Posted by phamilyman

F
OK, this is basically the POV shared by a person who was earlier in the industry and in the know on this statistic - his logic is that while MEL flights are technically allowed, the question is whether certain carriers had more % MEL flights than others or not. That is where I believe Indian (or rather all!) carriers should publish this information.

While it is safe to be on a MEL flight, that statistic should be as low as possible. As with any metric - if you track it, you improve it.

- I would like to know which carrier invests more proactively in maintenance, and possibly least % flights on MEL would be a relevant objective parameter to measure that

As you say, as long as a carrier adheres to whatever the MEL stipulates the respective flight is considered safe. I don’t see any value in reporting the % flights on MEL as you put it. More relevant, how often do aircraft operating with a MEL item get themselves into the incident/accident statistics? In all honesty I don’t know. I can say that it is pretty rare to see it mentioned in incident/accident reports.

So I did a small experiment using the data available to the public on The Aviation Harald. I did a search for MEL: http://avherald.com/h?search_term=me...x=0&search.y=0

As you can see a couple of dozen flights come up. When you actually read these reports you will notice that in only a few you will actually come across an incident/accident where the MEL item played some sort of role in the respective incident/accident.

There are thousands and thousand of reports available on The Aviation Herald. So whereas I’m sure there are some incidents/accidents I don’t think it is an safety issues. More importantly, the once I did find where all due to the crew and or various maintenance/planning departments giving an incorrect interpretation to the MEL. Had they used it correctly, nothing would have happened.

So tracking and reporting % MEL is unlikely to improve safety statistics I would think, but anybody who believes they have better data in proving that differently please do.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Of course, more crashes happen due to pilot error than maintenance - but the former is a random uncontrollable variable. I'd like to put my life where the latter is most proactive. Wouldn't you?

I don’t agree pilot error is uncontrollable. In fact it is very controllable in the sense it comes down to things like appropriate pilot training, attitude to safety, the overall safety regime of the respective carrier etc. See my earlier comments about the FAA wings program which resulted in a dramatic decrease in fatal accidents in the General Aviation community in the USA. There are other examples as well, where pilot training has sharply reduced incidents and accidents.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

EDIT: I see where RVD reacted - all I'm saying is, in my experience, I have heard a lot of praise for the widebody maintenance teams of AI (international) prior to the merger. That used to be the high watermark in that era. All Im praising about indigo now is that their policy to retire planes early, simply reduces maintenance as a likely factor for any crash by a great margin. Not saying their engg teams are better than AI.
!

Again, you make statements, but are they backed up by facts? Is the age of a plane a factor?? Well, again, I am not an expert, but there are a few papers produced on the topic.

Have a look:

http://www.awg.aero/assets/docs/analysisofimpact.pdf

The general conclusion:

The analysis indicates that there is no correlation between the fatal accident rates and aircraft age up to 27 years of age. Above this age there was a slight increase in the fatal accident rate but the accident rate data is not statistically significant due to the limited number of operational years for these older aircraft cohorts. When all accidents are considered there is no correlation between accident rates and age up till 18 years and a weak trend of increased accident rate with age is observed for aircraft older than 20 years. This increase in the worldwide accident rate is driven mainly by Africa which exhibits a statistically significant increase in accident rate for aircraft older than 20 years. Other regions such as North America and Europe do not exhibit any correlation of accident rate with aircraft age. An analysis of the accidents in which the aircraft were older than 20 years of age indicates that that the observed increase in accident rate in Africa is not due to aging aircraft factors but due to other risk factors.

And maybe the most relevant one:

The analysis does not support age-based import restrictions as an effective measure to increase aviation safety, providing Design Approval Holders and Type Certification Authorities support National Aviation Authorities in managing older fleets under their responsibility.

Safety in general, but certainly in aviation starts (and ends) with the right attitude. So if you want to think about aviation in the Indian context I personally think you need to start with Indian attitude to safety in general and how would that translate to an aviation environment. How come DGCA managed to get India bumped down the IASA rating system to sub Sahara standards?

A few examples.The negative effects of hierarchy played an important role in the worst aviation disaster to date; two Jumbo jets collided on the runway at Tenerife. That was nearly 40 years ago. Even today we still see hierarchy playing a role in a aviation accidents, notably in carriers coming from middle and far east.

Hierarchy plays a big role in Indian society. Well, at least that is my impression having lived and worked in India for four years. The pathetic response of the cabin crew on this Jet Airways has been mentioned repeatedly. I mentioned it too. I find, by and large, the way they behave themselves under normal circumstances appalling. They are meek and rarely speak up or act as they should. Few Jet Airways flight attendants would look me squarely in the eye.

That is, I think, a cultural/hierarchical issue. So how do we address that?

Coming back to the MEL. Obviously, strict adherence to MEL rules and regulations is of paramount importance. Think through how culture and hierarchy can play a role. (E.g. if the captain signs off, would the first officer or a flight planner still challenge that decision?)

Some years ago, I helped organise a workshop for 747 flight SIM enthousiast and we had a couple of KLM technician and pilots involved as well. One of the pilots talked us through what he called “beyond” the checklist attitude.

As an example he used the hydraulic pump 4 out scenario. A MEL item on the 747-400. There are various procedures and restrictions to follow. Paperwork gets filled out, read and signed off. It’s taken into consideration by flight dispatch for the flight planning etc. What is interesting though is how the flight crew worked it into their flight briefing. Obviously they went through the standards bits. But then they could spend as much as 10-15 minutes discussing and brainstorming around what-if scenario’s. No check list, just a free and open discussion to think through different scenario’s and different options over and beyond the normal one.

It was very interesting, because if you adhere to the MEL you are ‘legally’ safe, but as I have pointed out in various other threads, being within legal boundaries is just a minimum. Doing more is not legally required, but is down to the attitude of the respective carrier and individual pilots.

Jeroen

[akshay380]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Yes, its a global industry and as I mentioned earlier, India failed to meet IASA standards and was downgraded not to long ago. Since then rectified, but still. Its not about the international rules and regulations perse, it is about strict and consistent adherence all the time to those international rules and regulations.

By the way, even the DGCA has expressed concern over the age of the AI fleet.

http://www.business-standard.com/art...2600042_1.html


Jeroen

Kind of off topic question but in August 2014 my Malaysian Airlines flight, A330 from KUL to PVG had compressor stall or something similar on left engine just seconds after take off roll started. Plane stopped safely and we were sent on another plane. Is there any aviation related website where I can read about this? I had scanned few local papers next day but didn't see any report.

[silversteed]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Nothing major but a tad worrisome, no? What if they forget to tighten the bolts somewhere else too?

All you have to do is to watch a few episodes of May Day, to take that underlined portion to new heights. Though Jet is not a LCC, an ageing fleet combined with bad maintenance points to a thin border between cutting costs and cutting corners. The former is not good for the traveller, and the latter need not end up being safe.

[revverend]

Originally Posted by akshay380

Kind of off topic question but in August 2014 my Malaysian Airlines flight, A330 from KUL to PVG had compressor stall or something similar on left engine just seconds after take off roll started. Plane stopped safely and we were sent on another plane. Is there any aviation related website where I can read about this? I had scanned few local papers next day but didn't see any report.

Akshay,You can search on the following site with a combination of search terms. Do you by any chance remember the flight number?

http://avherald.com/

Most of the incidents reported by the airline are covered in avherald but again it is not comprehensive especially for the Asian region.You can try your luck though.

[akshay380]

Originally Posted by revverend

Akshay,You can search on the following site with a combination of search terms. Do you by any chance remember the flight number?

http://avherald.com/

Most of the incidents reported by the airline are covered in avherald but again it is not comprehensive especially for the Asian region.You can try your luck though.

Hi, I was flying MH-388. Forgot to add that I had also checked in AVHerald. No updates :(

[mbz180]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Is it possible that low cost carriers hire less skilled pilots compared to more mainstream carriers? I am totally ignorant here, that is why the question.

deerhunter,

I'm classic car guy and have no experience of flying an aircraft but I do fly as a passenger as often as the average flyer.

You ask whether it is possible that low cost carriers hire less skilled pilots compared to more mainstream carriers - here's my view:

Low cost in India is the mainstream; full fare like Jet and Vistara are not.

Having flown 'low cost' and 'full fare', I will have to say that I have experienced the smoothest landings and high altitude flying in Indigo and GoAir; especially the former and more often than not, I find their services usually very good. On the other hand, I have found Jet landings to be 'hard' and uncomfortable.

I recently did a Bombay - Goa by Vistara and wasn't impressed at the service nor the flying. I could swear that when the Vistara flight touched down at Bombay it seemed that the aircraft tended to veer to one side of the runway for a few seconds before the tail got back in line.

In my opinion, low cost carrier does not equal to lower skilled personnel. In fact, one could argue the reverse - because the costs of a full fare airline like Jet and Vistara (lower economies of scale) are perhaps higher, they may have a tendency to compromise on staff salaries. Could be totally wrong; just a theory.

My yardstick of a good cockpit crew:

1) smooth mid air flying (no steep banking to change direction)

2) announce the reasons for delayed take-off if you're sitting in the aircraft (eg runway congestion)

3) a reasonably smooth landing (shouldn't feel like the plane's going to fall apart after another few landings)

Note, I'm using my words very carefully since I have no flying experience and do not personally know a commercial airliner pilot for an informed viewpoint.

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by mbz180

I'm classic car guy and have no experience of flying an aircraft but I do fly as a passenger as often as the average flyer.

I am in the same boat as you in this case.

Originally Posted by mbz180

Having flown 'low cost' and 'full fare', I will have to say that I have experienced the smoothest landings and high altitude flying in Indigo and GoAir; especially the former and find their services I have found are usually very good. On the other hand, I have found Jet landings to be 'hard' and uncomfortable.

As far as I remember, as passenger what we feel as hard and soft landings are basically different approach with high speed (soft) and higher angle and lower speed (hard). They are just 2 different approach and nothing to do with a pilot's skill.

Considering the way the thread discussion went through, I would suggest, let's not discuss on 'things' that we have limited or no knowledge of.

Originally Posted by mbz180

Note, I'm using my words very carefully since I have no flying experience and do not personally know a commercial airliner pilot.

I appreciate you view as a passenger and also tried to explain mine as the same line. Apologies, if I sound bit harsh.