Firstly Holt CJ - I am indeed an airline pilot (on B737's) , and I'm not (and nor would I ever wish to be) any sort of legal chap (reads into that what you will).
Here we go then…….
Just what is it with you legal types, when you write 'I am a little disturbed by the above posts by Devils Advocate' .... Dear oh dear, why don't you just say what you mean ? as in I've 'got under your skin and you're going to try and shoot my argument down' - just like I'm doing to you - so please do try to stop dressing it up in caged concern.
Actually - my 'attempt' to define tort was taken chapter and verse from 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary - New Edition - 1991' - who've obviously got it wrong - either that or the 'true legal' definition has been much dressed-up - by lawyers (I use the term loosely) as part of their normal attempt to make the law as difficult to fathom and as distant (read, expensive) to obtain as possible.
And oh how so magnanimous of you to stoop so low as to indulge in discourse with some poor prole who starts a sentence with 'Uhm', and whom also injects a few common usage phrases, by way of spicing ones posting; I'm humbled !
So, uhm, can I / we take it that in spite of you stating that an employer of aircrew has to fulfil three requirements for their employment, that your use of 'in the wider sense' does indeed reflect the fact that you're having to do some back-peddling w.r.t that initial declaration ?!
Nb. I also don’t recall anybody purporting that we all need to be 'friends' in order to run a safe ship - you've introduced that theme - which suggests, nay proves, that your not familiar with airline operations. I think your getting confused, you see I can go to work with a lot of guys - some of whom I really look forward to working with, and some less so, but in any event we always try to run a safe show and make the best of the day - i.e. it's not mutually exclusive.
I too note sir (well, you seem to like using the 'sir' word, so I thought I'd give it a go too - uhm, it's nicely condescending isn't it ?! ) that you then try to muddy the waters by mentioning some previous military service background. One might say that you wrote that in the hope (or belief) that it will 'influence' the rest of us that you are therefore some sort of font of wisdom when it comes to all things relating to man management. You're not ex-of-Sandhurst by any chance, are you ?
You also made a comment that a ‘popular’ leader was rarely a true professional and familiarity certainly did breed contempt'. Well I'm sorry, sir, but I refute your argument (and for those who prefer that in plain English, not legalese, what he's said is crap) !
E.g. what about Stormin' Norman - both popular and brilliant - indeed I could rattle off loads of examples to disprove your theory.
The point I was making about the Gulf Air tragedy - and for the record, I was most certainly NOT rejoicing about something which resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children ( and how dare you suggest that I was ! ) - is that it was indeed just such a failure, to fully and properly canvas information w.r.t the complete person (or that it was done, but ignored) , which allowed the situation to develop - but as also mentioned, this occurred in a sandy part of the world where use of the 'old-boy network' by the indigenous locals is very much to the detriment of safety (which also confirms what buggs said above).
As far as I can tell from the above, nobody has meant that they
only use the comments of line-pilots as the primary tool in the recruitment armoury - it is you who has suggested / assumed that.
Indeed I think you'll find that it's laid down in some CAA approved tome just what processes (application / interview / sim) within an airline need to be realised in the recruitment of a pilot - the fact that a Chief Pilot may also choose to supplement the 'basic' requirements with some 'extra' background is imho praiseworthy indeed - with a view to the fact that a happy ship is a productive ship - which is how most chief pilots want it - and why not.
With regards to incidents and accidents, and who carries the can for it - have a look in the front of an Airline company Operations Manual / Part A - General / Section 1, where you will find exactly who is tasked by the CAA for what roles and responsibilities - aka. the 'accountable managers'. It is not possible to abrogate that responsibility which makes it all the more vital that a Chief Pilot ensures that an employee (and themselves) are above reproach.
Finally of course and w.r.t me being 'either a most fortunate, outstanding, and very well connected pilot'. Yep, I'm afraid it's all true ! ..... and humility never was one of my strong points.
Ps. I am a little disturbed
that you haven't actually answered my hypothetical questions, posed previously, about what you'd do if told that a future employee was 'a bit suspect'.