Pilots being made to fly below minimums

[lilflyboy262...2]

Hey guys,

I never really had a chance to experience the GA industry in both NZ and Aus before I took off overseas.
But I would like to ask a question.
Is there a problem here with young pilots being made to fly in below minimums conditions/ US a/c / overweight / unfit pilots/ inventing bs GPS approaches into non-if airports?

Its something that I have recently come across in another major GA country and was quite shocked to see it to say the least. I expected it in Africa, but not here!

[Wizofoz]

Can't speak of recent experience, but I CAN speak of the situation around 20 years ago.

I worked for what was then (and is half of now!!) a large regional Airline- and certainly all of the above applied- EXCEPT this was per GPS, so the BS approaches involved things like using an NDB and back-readings from the DME at another airport.

I'd be surprised if things have changed that much...

[Checkboard]

In single pilot ops - how are pilots "being made" to do this?

Surely you mean that some pilots are complicit in doing this? :*

[morno]

In my time in GA, not once was I made to fly below minimum's, or fly overweight, fly when I was unfit, or make up some bullsh*t GPS approach to an airport.

The problem of U/S aircraft however, does exist. I don't know how many times I used to say "Ohh alright, but just for today" because the frigging thing was broken every day anyway, the owner/operator just couldn't be assed fixing the problem and fixing it right the first time. Looking back, I regret doing that, because there's no way I'd accept it now.

So SOME of what you claim does exist, MOST however doesn't...... at least in most places I've seen. The PIC need's to exercise their powers and responsibilities given to them under CAR 224 and 233.

morno

[compressor stall]

What a lot of pilots have to think about is that an operator expects them to get to the other end somehow. The reason you have a CPL is that you are expected have a go and to find any legal avenue to achieve this.

If you cannot do it legally, it is then up to YOU to say to the boss, I cannot do this legally, explain why, and offer a solution. Many pilots confuse the boss's rant of "get out there and give it a go" with "go and break the law".

Now I accept that there might be a couple of bosses that might expect you to break the law, but bear in mind it's their AOC that's at stake.

[lilflyboy262...2]

I totally understand where it is the PIC who at the end of the day who says go or no go. Do not get me wrong, I totally understand this.

As guys who are sitting in a nice comfortable job and with enough experience to tell an operator to shove it if they try, it is very easy to stand back and make these comments.

I am aiming more for the guys fresh out of flight school who have busted their asses trying to get their first job. They are so **** scared to say no when a operator tells them to do it, otherwise they are fired.
When they tell their chief pilot they are uncomfortable, they fly into a frenzy and start calling them all the names under the sun or "If I can do it, and have done it for the past (x amount of years) without crashing, why can't you?"

Does this happen here?

[ShyTorque]

An unscrupulous employer might take small steps forwards, to push you little by little towards making more profit for his business but huge steps backwards if you screw up doing it.

Your employer can take your job away if you won't do as he says, but not your licence.

But the CAA can....

And the ultimate judgement, of course. Giving in to stupidity from others can cost you your own life, and those of innocent others.

If undue pressure is put on you and it becomes a safety issue, use the MOR system to report it and hell to the job.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Does the CAA actually do anything about it when a pilot reports it?

Because this is another issue that is happening here. Is that nothing is being done.

[Hasselhof]

Is there a problem here with young pilots being made to fly in below minimums conditions/ US a/c / overweight / unfit pilots/ inventing bs GPS approaches into non-if airports?

US a/c - yes, kind of

The rest - no, no problem at all

I've heard of someone inventing a "Pilot III" approach before to get themselves out of trouble, but to the best of my knowledge that was a one off.

The only time I've done what you've listed is when it has been my own choice and always unintentionally. I've got no one to blame for it apart from myself and learned some pretty important lessons in the process.

[PA39]

You're the PIC........sure it goes on, always has and always will, particularly in GA freight only ops. The hills are full of guys who couldn't or wouldn't say no.

[RENURPP]

From my experience, pilots are just as willing to brake the rules (if it suits their needs) as companies are to encourage certain acts to take place.

[MyNameIsIs]

Can say I've pretty much come across all of those.


At the end of the day, the buck stops with the PIC. Despite a bosses push to get you out there overweight, or in the **** weather, and its their AOC, wont stop some of them trying to get you to break the rules.
They know its not entirely their arse as they will turn around and say "we said give it a go if you think its ok, your in command its your decision" It will be a word against word battle, and you'll lose because you broke the rules.


Overweight:
"we've carried this load before. why cant you do it now?"
"its only a few kilos over, whats the big deal?"

Below minimums:
"others were/are out flying"
"its not that bad. weve flown in worse"
"they could make it in"

U/S:
"thats been broken for a while, hasnt been a problem yet though"
"its only minor. we'll get it fixed when you get back""
"the engineer said its ok"

Home Made approaches...
"the GPS will let you know when your over water, just let down there"



It goes on. Frequently enough to be of some concern, but not entirely an everyday expectation- not from what i've seen.

[lilflyboy262...2]

It's something that I have come across more and more.
And its something that is used in court if/when there is an accident. "He is the pilot in command, this is our ops manual, he knows the limits and broke them."
The company keeps its AoC and the pilot loses his license and career.

A lot of guys in their late teens/early twenties do not have the experience in either life or flying to say no, with the odd exception.
I think it is something that needs to be taught in flight school. Being made to realize that its your ass in a sling if/when it goes pear shaped, not the operators.
Yes I know it is in the air law book, but it is just another thing that gets glossed over with no real time spent on it.

[aussie027]

The above posts are correct.
As PIC it is your choice, your life ( and your pax lives) if it goes horribly wrong, licence and career gone if you survive whatever you did and then have to answer to someone.

The AOC holder will not likely be held at all responsible for any infractions unless maybe it is a major crash with deaths involved. You as PIC will be though regardless.

If the boss is pressuring you and thinks its OK to go out overweight, with too little or no margin fuel, descend below minimums, you can make it before last light, go with mandatory equipment inop etc then politely tell him to take the trip instead and volunteer to stay in the office and do some of his work for the day.
Then see what he says.
If he threatens to fire you, read on.

If all else fails remember it is an criminal offence under Commonwealth law to coerce or force someone to break any other Commonwealth law.
This was the exact subject of a safety article published long ago explaining the laws and telling readers to report such behaviour to the authorities in light of the severe safety consequences.

[601]

No one has mentioned the customer

"But Blogs, the pilot we had last week did, why can't you do it".
or
"Blogs got us in when the weather was worse"
or
"Why didn't you land. I could see the runway lights looking straight down"

[Falling Leaf]

A lot of guys in their late teens/early twenties do not have the experience in either life or flying to say no, with the odd exception.

I've flown with guys in their 60's who were routinely getting airborne over the RTOW, as that was what they had been doing the past 10 years to get the job done. The company culture can be more influential then age/experience.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Reaearch your potential employer.
Unfortunately (and in some cases deservedly) the reputation can rub off on the pilot.

Other side of the coin being that it's understandable that it may be the only employment available and "if you don't do it there are plenty of pilots who will" can be a tough decision to make.
Just remember, you will cop the blame for undertaking the flight.

Passengers pay good money for YOU to get them there in one piece. The rules are there to help you get there in one piece.

[SpeedHumpCat]

Funny this thread came up.

How can it be proved?

For example Cyclone Heidi the other week, a certain jet operator into an uncontrolled visual only airfield with no radar coverage.

Im not saying anymore.:oh:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Repcon system, discreete word to an FOI?
Records, logbooks, ATC tapes can all be cross-referenced if they want to get serious.

[boofta]

Ultimately, flying is a calculated risk exercise.
Rules,sadly are often created out of disasters,
not so much from the brilliant forsight of regulaters.
The kid in GA is under pressure regarding his job
versus getting the job done. Even during military
flying I experienced the same pressure by being
sent to PNG with little exposure to blunder through
the most hostile flying imaginable with low hours.
The most structered/regulated system without any
PUSHING by management still has you occasionally
having to manage risk beyond rules.
All risk cannot be eliminated by compliance to rules.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So ignore the ones that have been put in place as a reult of previous experiences?
Management pushes, pilot stuffs up, management denies, pilot gets blamed because he/she chose to conduct the flight.
Find a new manager if they make you BREAK (read as push) rules.

Once a problem is in progress, then there may be an excuse for breaking rules, possibly even prior to (mercy).

Risk can never be eliminated, but the rules are there to minimise it.
You may survive your accident/incident, but you'll go broke once the litigation catches up.