Originally Posted by
admikar
Yes, but the fact that she passed after doing those adittional 40 hours shouldn't be used as an argument that she was able to pass.
If it's different line of work, how does that corespond with her being sacked from another operator? If it's the same line of work, those 60 hours received previously have to count for something, which again means that that should not be used as an argument in her favor.
What I do find strange here is why they even bothered? You have allocated hours count. You either pass or you don't. Now every pilot that was sacked before or after her can sue them for not receiving same treatment.
Someone mentioned that it is illegal to keep paper trail of candidates that are not up to par. That's plain stupid, you can bet your behind that I am going to keep every piece of evidence that proves you weren't sacked just because I don't like you.
Which brings me to another point: she said there were comments made about here that were not up to snuff test. Does she have any evidence of those? Or are posters that accepted those claims on open face value signal virtuing all over again?
Lots of good points
Spent many years as an examiner for a big airline and also in GA - for you and the company's own legal protection you need to be extremely careful about the details that you write in a training or test report. If you write up that someone is having great difficulties with a certain skill and that they received perhaps a great deal more training than usual and then they go on to have an accident where that particular skill is the issue (or, indeed, not), then there is a large degree of legal jeopardy out there.
Many will say that when the "student" passed then they were at the correct skill level during that snapshot and so you are in the clear - the lawyers will say that the "student" clearly had a problem during training with a track record of poor performance, etc etc. Not a good place to be and when families are chasing the manufacturer, the airline, the regulator and possibly the airport for money then everyone in the chain, with big, deep pockets, needs it to be your fault. Passing on problem pilots to other trainers and examiners is a good policy - obtaining second, third and, yes, maybe more opinions is a good idea. Personally, when doing a check, I never read the student's training report - just called what I saw during the check - this also offers a degree of legal protection. Final command checks very problematic when the problem is not flying skills but CRM issues.
It's a tricky world out there.