Line Check Ethics
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Line checks are meant to be performed according to a standard criteria, they are not discretionary, non-technical markers assess the CRM and communications and the hands-on bit should be according to OMA/B and SOPs. Line check Captains have to adhere to standard protocol as monitored by the flight standards department/Captains, this avoids "personality issues" Politics and personal issues should not enter the environment if all parties are professional. Having said that, we are human, and if someone raises the conflict bar with constant deviations or over-confidence ,it is likely small errors may be counted as cumulative and result in a partial or fail. The line check should be as a "properly constituted crew" and is normally carried out for both pilots on the same day. If one guy passes and one guy fails then technically as a " crew" it is not a good result. The line check form should clearly detail the areas requiring attention. We often see a persons "perceived performance" and 'actual performance" are worlds apart. There is no reason a pilot cannot discuss the results of a line check with TM, debrief is a required part of the process. Nothing to do with Unions etc etc
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the subject of this thread; a pilot who believes line checks are being used punitively and who “can not go to management to discuss”.
In my opinion, any so-called management pilots and training Captains using or condoning the use, or rather misuse, of the simulator and/or line checks to effect punitive action would have better served the aviation industry had they been toilet bowl abortions.
Via ICAO Annex 6, 3.3.2 “An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation”. ICAO Document 9859 provides SMS guidance.
An EASA AOC requires adherence to:
“AMC 1 ORO.GEN.200 (a)(3) Management system - COMPLEX OPERATORS - SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT
(a) Hazard identification processes
(1) Reactive and proactive schemes for hazard identification should be the formal means of collecting, recording, analyzing, acting on and generating feedback about hazards and the associated risks that affect the safety of the operational activities of the operator”.
A report to management concerning a training department that produces pilots “ill equipped to fly the line” certainly qualifies.
ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 8 requires states to implement national laws to protect persons reporting safety information from punitive action. Furthermore, EU 376/2014 states:
"(42) Employees and contracted personnel should have the opportunity to report breaches of the principles delimiting their protection as established by this regulation, and should not be penalized for so doing. Member States should define the consequences for those who infringe the principles of protection of the reporter and should adopt remedies or impose penalties as appropriate”.
There is another element to this unsavory dilemma; the employment relationship. Although included in paragraph 42 above,“Employees and contracted personnel”, the employment relationship determines the extent of the punitive action by an immoral airline and the options, or lack thereof, available to the victim. No doubt, in addition to perceived criticism of the training department, the preference for union representation would anger anti-union management and provoke a thug regime response - confirmation indeed of the urgent need for union representation.
Airlines circumventing a direct employment relationship and renting staff on temporary contracts from service provider agencies, such as Norwegian, may take punitive action and return crew(s) to their employer agency without notice, reason or recourse (DY7006). Consequently, punitive action as a result of reporting safety issues or a preference for union representation is difficult to prove. Employment Tribunals are only available between employee and employer.
Despite the abundant legislation protecting individuals, including the sham ‘just culture’ ethos, the European regulator seems to have adopted more of an Excepted Airlines and Special Arrangements approach in its oversight. A Freedom of Information request to your national regulatory authority will probably reveal little or no action whatsoever against airlines/managers for punitive action against those reporting safety concerns.
Collate and retain all communications to support your claim, including the frequency of line checks given to colleagues. Ask them to reveal any SOP observations. A formal report to the Safety Manager detailing your concerns is the correct protocol. Your report must be recorded and retained as part of the SMS, available for audit and reference in any legal action. Hopefully, a professional response will be forthcoming.
In my opinion, any so-called management pilots and training Captains using or condoning the use, or rather misuse, of the simulator and/or line checks to effect punitive action would have better served the aviation industry had they been toilet bowl abortions.
Via ICAO Annex 6, 3.3.2 “An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation”. ICAO Document 9859 provides SMS guidance.
An EASA AOC requires adherence to:
“AMC 1 ORO.GEN.200 (a)(3) Management system - COMPLEX OPERATORS - SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT
(a) Hazard identification processes
(1) Reactive and proactive schemes for hazard identification should be the formal means of collecting, recording, analyzing, acting on and generating feedback about hazards and the associated risks that affect the safety of the operational activities of the operator”.
A report to management concerning a training department that produces pilots “ill equipped to fly the line” certainly qualifies.
ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 8 requires states to implement national laws to protect persons reporting safety information from punitive action. Furthermore, EU 376/2014 states:
"(42) Employees and contracted personnel should have the opportunity to report breaches of the principles delimiting their protection as established by this regulation, and should not be penalized for so doing. Member States should define the consequences for those who infringe the principles of protection of the reporter and should adopt remedies or impose penalties as appropriate”.
There is another element to this unsavory dilemma; the employment relationship. Although included in paragraph 42 above,“Employees and contracted personnel”, the employment relationship determines the extent of the punitive action by an immoral airline and the options, or lack thereof, available to the victim. No doubt, in addition to perceived criticism of the training department, the preference for union representation would anger anti-union management and provoke a thug regime response - confirmation indeed of the urgent need for union representation.
Airlines circumventing a direct employment relationship and renting staff on temporary contracts from service provider agencies, such as Norwegian, may take punitive action and return crew(s) to their employer agency without notice, reason or recourse (DY7006). Consequently, punitive action as a result of reporting safety issues or a preference for union representation is difficult to prove. Employment Tribunals are only available between employee and employer.
Despite the abundant legislation protecting individuals, including the sham ‘just culture’ ethos, the European regulator seems to have adopted more of an Excepted Airlines and Special Arrangements approach in its oversight. A Freedom of Information request to your national regulatory authority will probably reveal little or no action whatsoever against airlines/managers for punitive action against those reporting safety concerns.
Collate and retain all communications to support your claim, including the frequency of line checks given to colleagues. Ask them to reveal any SOP observations. A formal report to the Safety Manager detailing your concerns is the correct protocol. Your report must be recorded and retained as part of the SMS, available for audit and reference in any legal action. Hopefully, a professional response will be forthcoming.
