Once again, it is apparently necessary to point out that in today’s world, there is an ever increasing philosophy directed toward commercial ventures – which holds that such ventures are launched with only one goal in mind … and then maintained strictly through the satisfaction of one, and usually only one, principle. That goal is to generate “income” while committing to an absolute minimum of “expenditures” … and that principle is to manipulate all impressions of the conduct of the business practices such that when applying anything less than extreme scrutiny, each venture is recognized as being conducted in accordance with all rules, regulations, and agreements, while, at the same time, presenting the business managers in a light of having satisfied the most professional and ethical standards of conduct and being fully committed to the successes of the specific venture, and if pressed, to be able to defend their interest in the advancement and welfare of their employees.
While, of course, it isn’t necessarily true across the board, it is certainly known that in a good many circumstances that have generated sufficiently “good cause” to analyze the business practices of some airlines with something that does, in fact, exceed the typical “less-than-extreme” scrutiny, when someone determined the necessity or logic in doing so, it has been found at least some cases, that the business practices fell far short of what might be considered necessary and appropriate … but such an after-the-fact recognition does little to comfort those involved in the circumstance that generated the scrutiny in the first place.
There are some here who will undoubtedly think that my recommendations are “off the mark” or are a result of “old-timer-thinking.” Well, each is more than welcome to his/her own thought process. I have no particular warm spot in my heart for “labor unions:” despite the fact that I’ve been a member of several and even started one – that, although somewhat changed, is still in existence today – but I also have no animosity toward them either. I have no animosity toward airline owners and managers – as I fully recognize the supreme difficulties that exist in making such ventures profitable in a free flowing, capitalistic world – even those which are ostensibly an “arm” of a specific national government. And, as I’ve said many times on these pages … training one’s own crew members does not result in direct income … it only costs. And the delicacy of the mission of the managers is usually found at the “how-much-is-good-enough” level – and that is applicable to at least the amount of training provided in any specific course; the numbers of repetitions of that training conducted in any given time frame; the cost of the equipment used in such training; the costs of instructors, facilities, transportation, per diem, lodging; AND the loss in revenue due to the individuals not performing the jobs for which they were hired to perform … in the case of flight crew members … flying airplanes in revenue service. Of course, insurance companies have a significant impact on what kinds of, the amounts of, and the recurring amounts of, any training deemed necessary.
This is NOT an indictment of “automatic systems” – but it IS a caution that pilots MUST be educated, trained, and found to be proficient on how each automatic system performs and how pilots MUST monitor that performance in order to realize the true benefits of such systems. There is ONLY ONE pilot flying at any given time. Engaging the automatics does NOT relievel the pilot flying from those responsibilities – but I’m not at all sure that all training in those areas are anywhere near where they need to be in respect to who is still in control of the airplane.
Additonally, as I’ve repeatedly said, perhaps the single area that is often overlooked – is that of the originally established regulatory minimums. It has been my experience that, despite what some here believe to be true, i.e., that regulators are not guilty of “being ignorant of, or lack an understanding of, airplane systems … while merely sitting in their armchairs.” Each individual regulator I’ve ever known is responsible to his/her superior – and at some point, while moving “up” the chain … there comes an individual that has to answer to someone’s concern about having to defend a requirement for congressional constituents being required to increase a costly function merely to satisfy some “safety concerns” that those constituents believe to be either irrelevant or ineffectual or superfluous. More often than not a reduction in the amount, the quality, or the required frequency or duration originally drafted in a typically developed set of regulatory requirements (which are often developed in concert with a specifically invited representation of airline owners/managers, pilots, pilot unions, training organizations, and other similarly interested parties) results from someone either within the hierarchy of the regulator or the government office responsible for such actions and wind up “caving” because of political pressure from “above” or from someone in the elected representation of the government. I’m not sure if that will ever change … and I have no logical recommendation as to how that might be achieved … but I DO know that the professional development of appropriate minimum standards, minimum content, minimum performance, minimum understanding, minimum equipment capabilities, etc., etc., simply cannot be compromised, and must not allow any compromise, to such professionally developed standards. This is one, but only one, of the reasons that I’ve recommended, on repeated occasions, that those here become involved in any (all, if possible) of the internationally developed efforts currently underway, and others being considered, that focus specifically on the requirements that should be considered minimum – without having to endure some other “bureaucrat” submission to political expediency. I know it won’t happen if we all sit on our hands. It won’t happen if we each wait for the “other” guy to get involved. It won’t happen if we don’t want to be the “squeaky wheel.” The old adage IS, in fact, true … it is the squeaky wheel that gets the most grease, and gets it first. Where are you?