Glo
The reason the requirements are so low is simple. The incentive to join the EK training department is minimal.
The role of trainer in any reputable Company is a role usually reserved for the most dedicated and able individuals. It's a position to aspire to and one in which the remuneration and benefits reflects the expertise that's being provided. Airlines recognise the fact that training provides the basic building blocks of operational knowledge and thus promote a culture of pride within the role. Unfortunately, EK is different.
Although we still have some excellent individuals, we have also lost a large number due to the short sightedness of fearful and incompetent managers. This shortage reflects on the often brutal EK training rosters which eventually leads to discontent and frustration amongst those undertaking such an important role. Their only option is to resign, putting further strain on an already broken system. To fix it, the Company accepts a policy of employing temporary trainers, at the very time we should be retaining the experienced ones. 'Captains', who effectively will have been in the left seat for only 6 months and may never have previously held a command, can now apply for a star to add to their shiny four stripes. With the challenge of a variety of training duties to undertake and prepare for, the most inexperienced trainers will now be setting the bar for those they instruct. In some cases, this will be very low time recruits off turboprops. Because they are part time, they will invariably be less current than the full time instructors and thus, ironically, their knowledge and exposure to training events will be reduced. You only have to see the FDM playbacks on the current RTGS day to see how wrong this policy is.
Now, combine these threats with the current climate which I believe is getting worse rather than better. Not one pilot, hand on heart, would want to compromise safety. We know that some individuals are not suitable for a command but we must also realise that many are, especially if they're afforded the quality of training and encouragement that's often promised but rarely delivered. There simply must be more emphasis on training rather than checking, especially with lower experience levels compared to say ten years ago. We were always being assured that the standards have remained the same but I beg to differ. Why are we now seeing an increasing number of events and why the necessity for the big stick approach? We operate to many challenging airfields, with little or no continuity and cover all the major Continents throughout the World. We have an exhaustive set of procedures, sometimes vague and confusing, occasionally contradictory and quite often, difficult to access. As a pilot, EK is a challenging airline to work for.
If EK focused more on it's core business rather than spending millions on sporting advertising and
PR, we might not be in this situation. Decent rosters with little to no restrictions with a reduction in hours to acceptable levels, especially given the challenge of our flight timings and range of FDP's. Yearly increments and salary rises in line with inflation. Perhaps most importantly, a management culture of support rather than punishment and the occasional phone call, rather than a day off meeting for a pointless interview after which a pre written warning letter is produced. Perhaps then not only would we retain a larger number of pilots, thus improving experience levels, but we might also recruit a higher calibre to begin with. Just culture? Far from it in reality. Despite the wonderful and reassuring support from Gary Chapman and Tim Clark that's printed all over the company premises, the real culture is what goes on in the offices.
Unless the Company takes ownership of some of these causal factors, the number of serious events will only increase. You can not ignore fatigue. You can not ignore fear (whether real or perceived) and you can not ignore a demotivated and disengaged workforce. Management MUST take some responsibility for this increasing debacle we face. Failure to do so is not only naive, it's also downright negligent!
Harry