[flyboy747]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

I don't really care about this vlogger and his beef with Air Asia but this type of comment from an industry veteran is concerning. What is stopping the regulatory bodies from seeing and taking action on the issues that jeopardize passenger safety?

I fly budget airlines with the implicit understanding that they will give me crappy service, no amenities or flexibility etc. but that the regulations prevent them from cutting corners on safety.

Regulations are limiting factors. The safety envelope increases when you do things before the regulations ask you to do them, those include things like maintenance schedules, flight duty time limitations etc. Budget airlines are budget for a reason. Not saying they are unsafe, but you hopefully get my drift....

[armaan_singh]

Would really like to know the other side of the story, I understand many lives are at stake here, but more often than not I have seen many people in a position of public influence take steps like these to put pressures on their employers.

I wont get into the details because I'm not an aviation expert, however the above statement is strictly from a psychological perspective.

[flyboy747]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

A classmate of mine who is a pilot in India currently, mentioned this person was removed by two other airlines earlier, he has some serious disciplinary issues which he is trying to cover up with all this. I don't have any proof but, these days people use social media and media for lot of personal agenda push.

Suggest you don"t speculate and adds no value to the discussion, in your post, all you have written is he said...she said. Not expected of moderators on t-bhp. Take your post down as it infringes your own forum rules. Regards.

[low_rider]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dear Sir, as this is a public forum with lakhs of readers many of whom will get worried to read comments like this one please can you substantiate what you are stating with facts. Are there any notifications, internal emails or even media reports to back what you are stating.

Dear Sir,
I shared these based on several news reports which I had followed over a period of time. Following are some of them which I could google again:

Flying with less fuel:
https://theprint.in/india/air-india-...xperts/230239/

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2901059_1.html

Fake pilots:
This was already a full blown scam and even some senior pilots were caught who were flying erroneously. E.g. an Indigo commander pilot used to land frequently on nose wheel. Also, the quality of training especially in Thailand was questioned by a media report.

https://www.deccanherald.com/content...us-pilots.html

Substandard training
https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning...nt-thai-pilots

Extra working hours for Air Traffic Controllers in India

https://www.asianage.com/mumbai/atc-...king-hours-881

Extended duty hours of pilots

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...9.cms?from=mdr

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le24382414.ece

Lastly, I would like to point out that unlike traffic checks, every pilot that proceeds for boarding an aircraft is security checked by security agencies as is the case with all passengers. In such a scenario an alcoholmeter test would only add half a minute to the already detailed security check procedure.

Disclaimer - My views are based on reports in public domain and would therefore lack the knowledge and deeper facts that an industry insider possess.

[Hayek]

Shocked by the sense of entitlement of this guy. Agree fully that he should not fly when tired or unwell. But in most professions, people who were unwell on a particular day would very happily give up their weekend to complete the work that needs to be done. Sick leave exists to be used in emergencies - it is not an entitlement that needs to be fully used each year. This is the same attitude shown by some folks - who believe that they should make some kind of insurance claim for minor damage to avoid wasting the premium they have paid.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by low_rider

Dear Sir,
I shared these based on several news reports which I had followed over a period of time. Following are some of them which I could google again:

Thank you for responding with these news articles. I really appreciate the effort you have taken. As flight safety concerns us all I'll give my frank view on each {all greying men like to air their views} not so much to argue but for all our members' benefit.

Flying with less fuel:
https://theprint.in/india/air-india-...xperts/230239/
https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2901059_1.html

Completely unacceptable idea. If they wish to experiment no one can stop them so long as they don't make it a legally acceptable practise. Certainly something worth writing to MoCA about. If they implement it, stupidly so, I foresee several Captains insisting on loading more fuel. I don't believe this went through. Flying Captains with commercial airlines are in a better position to comment.

Fake pilots:
This was already a full blown scam and even some senior pilots were caught who were flying erroneously. E.g. an Indigo commander pilot used to land frequently on nose wheel. Also, the quality of training especially in Thailand was questioned by a media report.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content...us-pilots.html

This was a real issue in the 2006-2012 period. In addition to this Indigo pilot we also had a Spicejet case. It was a direct result of corrupt and unprofessional practices in the DGCA. I believe this has been improved upon.

Extra working hours for Air Traffic Controllers in India

https://www.asianage.com/mumbai/atc-...king-hours-881

This was a result of the lockdown when very little flying was being done. It isn't a controversy or violation but a Q&A discussion between two bodies.

Extended duty hours of pilots
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...9.cms?from=mdr

Yes this was an issue.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le24382414.ece

Neither controversial, nor illegal, nor a violation.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by flyboy747

Suggest you don"t speculate and adds no value to the discussion, in your post, all you have written is he said...she said. Not expected of moderators on t-bhp. Take your post down as it infringes your own forum rules. Regards.

I did not speculate. It’s a real friend and it is a real pilot flying for an Indian airline company. I have quoted that, it is an information I felt that was credible. My friend is not a member of TeamBHP, so I can’t drag him here to sit and debate his info or view points. And I have clearly stated in my post all these facts. I left it just as an info, so let that be.

So my dear flyboy, please avoid low flypast over a fellow member who happens to be a moderator and who happened to share a very valid opinion

[flyboy747]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I did not speculate. It’s a real friend and it is a real pilot flying for an Indian airline company. I have quoted that, it is an information I felt that was credible. My friend is not a member of TeamBHP, so I can’t drag him here to sit and debate his info or view points. And I have clearly stated in my post all these facts. I left it just as an info, so let that be.

So my dear flyboy, please avoid low flypast over a fellow member who happens to be a moderator and who happened to share a very valid opinion

I guess we'll just agree to disagree then. Cheers

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by flyboy747

Regulations are limiting factors. The safety envelope increases when you do things before the regulations ask you to do them, those include things like maintenance schedules, flight duty time limitations etc. Budget airlines are budget for a reason. Not saying they are unsafe, but you hopefully get my drift....

No I don’t get your drift, because as far as I am aware there is no historical evidence which suggest that low cost and or budget airlines are likely to be more involved in a crash (i.e. unsafe) than other airlines. Or at least, I am not aware of such research. Keeping in line with the argumentation of various recent post, I think you should substantiate those statements or refrain from doing so.

The problem starts with the definition of being a safe-airline, or unsafe. Actual crashes are so low that statistically you can’t prove one way or the other. Some have just taken historically data over the last decades, sometimes even longer periods. (Which means that carriers such as KLM get labelled unsafe because of Tenerife disaster in the ‘70s)

These guys do a pretty good job of at least having come up with a good and measurable definition of airline safety

https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-rating-tool/

Note that a lesser safety rating does not necessarily mean more crashes!

When it comes to aviation safety my gut feeling when looking at accidents statistics: Airlines from certain parts of the world appear more often than others in accidents reports. Airlines from countries with poor ICAO rating tend to have safety issues with their airlines too. Small carriers seem to have problems too. also financial performance is probably a good leading indicator.

There is also the matter of cultural aspects of a particular country. No matter what, it will carry into the cockpit environment. Is being a pilot regarded as something quite extraordinary or is it seen as just a job, just like any other job. If your family and friends hold you in awe because you are a pilot, there is something seriously wrong. We have discussed this in various aviation threads.

Low cost, does not mean compromising on aviation safety. I agree with your statement that

The safety envelope increases when you do things before the regulations ask you to do them, those include things like maintenance schedules, flight duty time limitations etc.

However, I can also give you countless examples of endless airlines, big and small for whom the regulatory limit is their default and nothing more. I do believe that an airline size might have some effect. Commercial Aviation is a scale industry. Without massive scale you are going to struggle, financially obviously, but also on other (operational) areas. Big airlines do things differently than small airlines, simply because have the scale to do so and with it comes a costing factor too. Fair, reliable and consistent rostering of staff becomes easier the more staff you have.

Some low cost carriers are very advanced in how they operate, including investment in the newest technology and planes. Some of them operate on completely different business model than traditional carriers. Eg. look at Ryanair.

I would also point out, that the price of the ticket has nothing to do with the financial position of an airline. I would argue that any airline with continuous serious financial challenges might have an impact on how they deal with safety. Some low cost carriers are amongst the best financial performing airlines!

E.g. compare Air France to EasyJet. Who do you think has got money to spend and invest? Check their P&Ls and you will see two very different companies in how they operate.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a two week course on entrepreneurship and innovation at Stanford, USA. Low cost carrier Ryanair was one of the case studies.

I am reading through my notes: Their value proposition is very much “value for money”, but less known is there obsession about safe flight. They are acutely aware of the myth of low cost equal low safety. If that myth turns truth, they are out of business. It is that simple really, so they will not compromise on safety.

They are not necessarily Low Cost on everthing. They are just extremely focussed on where they can cut cost and where to invest money in. (In Europe they pay pretty much market rates for pilot salaries)

So not very scientific, but when it comes to aviation safety I would not look at a carrier being low cost. I would look at:

- Home base of the airline
- ICAO rating of the respective country
- Cultural aspect of such country
(Strong on traditional Hierarchy makes for poor pilots)
- Whether it is state owned
- Financially challenged (how many years are they running at a loss)
- Size of the airline
- Check accident reports for root causes relating to pilot training and CRM,

Jeroen

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by low_rider

Lastly, I would like to point out that unlike traffic checks, every pilot that proceeds for boarding an aircraft is security checked by security agencies as is the case with all passengers. In such a scenario an alcoholmeter test would only add half a minute to the already detailed security check procedure.

Guess you and others missed my previous post detailing the facts around 100% mandatory BA checks in India.

Originally Posted by Hayek

Sick leave exists to be used in emergencies - it is not an entitlement that needs to be fully used each year.

While sick leave doesn’t need to be utilised in full each year, sick leave is crucial in aviation due to the detrimental physical impact of flying when unwell.

Sick leave in aviation may even be from not having slept well in the period before the flight. You may remember from the movie “Sully” that rest is one of the things that is investigated in any incident/accident. If sufficient time is provided to the pilot per legal requirements, it is the pilots responsibility to utilise it effectively.

This comes under Human Performance Limitations, in which rest plays a crucial role. Remember that the Air India Express crash in Mangalore was a result of fatigue amongst other factors. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft.

Other than fatigue, respiratory issues can be very detrimental to pilot performance. Many medical conditions can cause fatigue, which itself is a safety hazard as mentioned earlier as it impairs speed of action, focus, performance, and decision making.

Due to this reason, pilots are actively encouraged to take sick leave whenever necessary, but are discouraged from reporting sick at the last minute. The latter may occasionally be unavoidable, in which case an explanation may be requested if normal operations are affected, and depending on airline policy.

Penalising a pilot for taking sick leave has been proven to result in having sick pilots in the cockpit. Even rewards for not taking sick leave has been found to have the same effect.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Low cost, does not mean compromising on aviation safety

Well said. Low cost may be better described as low or no-frills. The basics if solid can mean a very safe low cost airline.

[fhdowntheline]

The original low cost, no-frills airline SouthWest has had one of the best safety records in aviation. I understand that they are also famous for "Modding" their B737 fleet to ensure pilots do a lot of hand-flying, especially since they dont fly long sectors on an average.
So low cost doesn't mean low safety.

[Jeroen]

I love Southwest. I am normally not very keen on flying these budget airlines, sometimes no alternative and they are cheap.

But Southwest was in the way they deal with their customers a very down to earth and no nonsense, common sense type of appraoch. When we lived inter USA I was platinum with AA, but On many destinations I would still prefer Southwest.

Of course Some of their cabin crew are legendary for the way they make cabin announcements. Check out YouTube!
Jeroen

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

The original low cost, no-frills airline SouthWest has had one of the best safety records in aviation. I understand that they are also famous for "Modding" their B737 fleet to ensure pilots do a lot of hand-flying, especially since they dont fly long sectors on an average.
So low cost doesn't mean low safety.

Modding 737? Could you please post the source ?

So southwest has special mods on there aircrafts which the rest of the world doesn’t opt for ?

What’s a long sector and what’s a short sector is it defined anywhere, please post the source links where a regulator defines short sector and long sector.

Please post the source links, to any restrictions on manual flying the pilots have to adhere to, and southwest pilots are exempt from due to certain mods on their aircrafts?

[avishar]

I have been following this controversy for a while and frankly there is a deadly cocktail here at play which raises some skepticism (in my opinion).

1. Indian social media star: This guy has insane fan following and that is all due to his hard work as a vlogger, no denying that. It is easy to understand why he has such a dedicated fan base and that is because in the Indian airline pilot vlogger niche, there isn't much competion! People gravitate towards good, fresh content with a novel background. These days if you own a superbike and become a vlogger, you wont get much pull, because the market is saturated.

A diverse fan base, but at the same time extremely loyal. This is apparent when on twitter other pilots and senior staff of some airlines have gone against what he has said, and they have been inundated by abuses from his fan base. Very Salman Bhai esque fan-base, I must say!



2. Next add that toxic fan base with aviation in India, a place where Pakistan's PIA crash report had an Air India 747 as a placeholder on news items! For an A320 pilot I doubt this fans can tell that apart from a 737 or a 777!


3. His PIA 8303 explanation video had some bad analysis.

For eg, the best PIA 8303 video I have seen on youtube is by

blancolirio

a thoroughly professional channel.

4. The entire flaps 3 controversy.

Now I am no pilot, but I love aviation. I have this maybe (perverse) fascination with reading about aviation crashes, disasters. One learns a lot about history of aviation by reading through the crashes year by year, and watching how thoroughly they are investigated to make the next flight safer. It is eye-opening. The serious which with aviation is taken the will to learn from every mistake is commendable. SOPs are re-written, cockpit management is changed, simulation training is made more complex, terminology is changed etc.

This has resulted in the a remarkable decrease in aviation related accidents with developed countries as great example.

But still, mistakes do happen like sometime back in San Francisco and Air Canada plane was going to land on the taxiway, where there were 3 fully-fueled jets waiting to take-off. It would been probably the worst aviation crash in history, but averted at the last second and the Air Canada flight pulled up missing one of the jets by just 15-20 feet. It created a re-think into the lighting systems of runways, approach procedures, pilot fatigue etc.

Now many might think that all this is great, but this is India boss. Sab Chalta Hain. Our roads are littered with half-wits and babudom run trains used to be crashing frequently not so long back.

But this is not that true for aviation. Aviation in India has always been held at the highest standards comparable to anywhere in the world, certainly as good as anywhere else in Asia. In fact countries like Indonesia and Phillipines have terrible safety culture. Our skies are quite safe and the safety record of Indian based airlines has always been good. Our authorities take certification and investigation seriously.



That is why I believe this cavalier way in which flaps 3 discussion is being done is a bit dangerous. Gaurav has posted just a few pieces of information, a KPI regarding the flaps configuration and fuel burn. This is a bit disengenous because flaps are not the only thing that would affect fuel burn during landing it depends on a lot of other configurations like approach, automated landing, reverse thrust setting, brake settings etc etc.

My point is how does Gaurav put the KPI of flap configuration as the villain when he has not backed it up other data explaining his actions as to what why he did what he did. A hand wavy "8kg fuel saving" is just not enough.

Its a bit like blaming the car for not stopping you in time before it crashed into an obstacle even though you braked. But then are other factors, like, where you paying attention, were your brakes worn, were you carrying extra weight etc etc.

These are serious allegations and require thorough investigation. But what he is doing is sowing unsubstantiated stuff into his followers head, making DGCA the monster, which is asking for boycott of airlines etc.

[audioholic]

Since I am not from the aviation background, I will stay away from that matter. But I have seen a few of his videos and they pop up on my feed now. What I see is that every video crosses a million views in no time and the total view count of his channel is somewhere around the 450 million view mark the last time I saw. Can someone give me a rough figure of how much the earnings can be? Is it that high that one can focus more on this(I say this because its a regular affair and with some editing and camera skills used) compared to sticking to the pilots routine, which is equally demanding? Even if I assume he earns a rupee for every view, that is still 10L rupees per video which is no joke.