The 1000' IMC and 500' AAL are ICAO recommended figures. The Blue Book.
Airlines follow these recommendations in the same way that they take a certain amount of fuel as reserves or avoid obstacles by a certain minimum amount. These airlines are following 'best practice' as detailed in the ICAO document.
Those airlines that choose not to follow these recommendations are simply choosing to ignore what has become the industry standard procedures to improve flight safety.
Agreed.All good stuff.
The use of the OFDM/FLIDRAS data to initiate contact, through Base Facilitator, with an individual is also 'best practice' and is used in the event that a pilot has exceeded a Class 2 limitation or regularly exceeds the same limitation. To allow the pilot to continue flying in the same manner after this knowledge has been unearthed would be foolish in the extreme.
Might be best practice in easyjet.Best practice is to encourage a culture of safety through slightly less-objectionable means like all airlines used to.Trust between a CP and his pilots should be implicit.The use of QAR's certainly implies otherwise.However,if this proves unworkable(mostly due to logistics)then QAR's are an acceptable replacement with important provisos such as:
i)the purpose of QAR data retrieval must be to detect persistent occurrences and not isolated incidents.A pattern must be proven.
ii)all data confidential in accordance with union rules
iii)right to appeal
It will only be a matter of time before the pilot exceeds the limitation to such an extent that recovery will be a matter of chance or damage or destruction will occur.
I disagree strongly.You make an assumption.Breaking company limits persistently does not necessarily lead to "damage" or "destruction".Breaking ones own limits does this.If a pilot breaks the company rules,he's a maverick,a bit of a rebel as they say.If the same pilot flies beyond his own limitations or capabilities,then he becomes unsafe.However,I am not saying that breaking company limits is not a reason for dismissal.It can be.
If a pilot has been warned, perhaps more than once, that his flying is outside the accepted norms and then chooses to ignore that advice and once again triggers the FLIDRAS/OFDM then his actions will finally be made known to the airline management.
Are you saying that he should be fired after the second infraction(not enough to prove a pattern)or that the initial warning was made after a pattern was established?
If this sequence of events takes place then it is almost certain that he deserves no more than his P45 and a view of the door.
Providing the right to appeal is respected.Mitigating circumstances should be heard.What is being flouted here?And why?ie,are there any problems with the company SOP in the real dynamic world.On paper,lots of things look very workable.What implications does the type of infraction have on actual safety or airmanship.Major or minor?If major,the pattern is proven and the appeal is unsuccessful,then I agree he should be shown the door.
I am certain that this is the procedure followed here by easyJet.
I dont know the facts of the case so cant comment.I will keep my suspicions about this company private.