For the legal bofs...

[Blah Blah Fishpaste]

This is quite serious, the chief pilot at my company is blatantly running things for his own interest and neglecting his actual responsibilities. This has seriously hampered and upset the careers of many of the pilots and he is constantly breaking the law in his manner of running things. Sometimes even asking pilots to fly against MEL relief. There is plenty of history of this but he is never held accountable. How does one go about a legal vote of no confidence in such a person to remove him from office?

Or next best course of action?

I know this is highly irregular to post this here, so im relying on the people out there that can relate to the safety issues and have the knowledge of the correct proceedings.

Legal advice is pending, but you guys know where im coming from...

enough is enough....

[Solid Rust Twotter]

CAHRS.

Should be on the CAA website.

[orgasmotron]

What kind of operator are you working for? I.e scheduled or ad-hoc. If a scehduled operator, definately make use of the CAHRS of the CAA. Charter operators, I dont know if the CAHRS will be that effective, maybe name and shame the operator.

You get the "Anything goes if managment like it chief pilot's everywhere"
What a shame.


Good luck.

[Phenomenon]

One thing to keep in mind as well is that, especially with the smaller operators, all of them have close relations with eachother and whether we like it or not, if you try and take one of them on, they will make sure that you have a sh!t name through the whole industry.

I've seen it happen to alot of people because alot of different problems...

If you decide to take them on about it... good for you :ok: Just think about it very clearly and just make sure you have the support you need because with some companies it can very well get pretty ugly pretty quickely! :ouch:

[Deskjocky]

Phenomenon is right- take all the advise you wish, the CAA will do f..all. The Chief Pilot will quickly deduce who has been fingering his salad and your name will pop up- is your career really worth it? As you have mentioned he has shown a propensity to act in an unethical manner so burning you is something he would probably enjoy.

If you believe the operation is unsafe then walk away- an incident/accident will have an equally suppressive effect on your future prospects.

[cavortingcheetah]

:yuk:

I wonder if it's anyone I know because I've known a couple such as you describe.
Unless you are a real heavy weight Captain with probably both greater experience and more contacts than your Chief Pilot or unless you have a better man in mind to take his place; I fear that you will have little option but to walk away.:ugh:

[Blah Blah Fishpaste]

We are talking about a large operator here so I know its gona be near a impossible task. Walking away is what this type of person relies on, as he threatens peoples careers when he is challenged. And unfortunately all the other
managers are too cozy to rock the boat, so they are all big buddies.

I also know that the industry is too small to get your named burned for starting something like this. Does this make you a trouble maker? Why should other airlines frown on you if they know about what you have tried to achieve? That makes them just as dodgey!:yuk:

I am just a number there, but a number that is tired of watching and being part of hanus acts that are just accepted because of fear of recourse if you challenge them.

[cavortingcheetah]

:eek:

It couldn't be? It might be! An action replay of a Chief Pilot I used to know?
Blackmail him!?
With respect, you appear to be a fairly inexperienced first officer?
In such a role; if you are stuck in a large company which is advancing your flying career and you don't like the way management works then your choices are limited. I am sure that you know them quite well.
I hope you enjoy the flying you are doing and that you make a note of the behaviour around you of which you so disapprove in order to ensure that you do not duplicate it yourself when you have arrived at a position of power and glory.;)

[Blah Blah Fishpaste]

Inexperience would lead to ignorance and not knowing better, Im nearing the end of my flying career and have whitnessed and allowed plenty. Where do you draw the line and who draws it? Nobody it seems, so i guess that leaves me. Everyody else will bitch about the same stuff but then just allow it to continue so experience has nothing to do with it.

So thats the solution is it? He gets to mismanage the airline, where there is a fair amount at stake, and we who have to operate under him, just have to denie what is actually going on and in so doing, protect him as well? Thats beautiful...
Thats the problem in SA, nobody has the balls to stand up and tell it like it is for fear of recourse.

Maybe Ill just use the small industry its self to let everybody know how this guy operates...not that much will happen i know, but then thats what he knows as well so he can get away with anything.

Ive been in aviation all my life, and most of has been governed and spoilt by pricks like this...

[cavortingcheetah]

:confused:

Humble apologies indeed. A wrong experience diagnosis on my part, the relevance of which would only arise in the proection of a flying career for the future. Obviously an aged Captain can flex a little more muscle, usually, than a buck FO.
It's not ideal by any means but I suppose that your suggestion of invidious publicity is about the only recourse you have.
Best of luck in any event.:)

[TownshipDog]

"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

Surely if this guy remains unchallenged about his actions he will just continue breaking the law and as you say, ruining and hampering careers? I know I'm not in your boots so it's easy to talk but if you don't do anything, in all probability, nobody else will...

[jimmythegong]

The only way to retain your sanity is to name the perpetrator publically, and let nature take it's course.(MENTIONING A FEW OF THE CAR'S HE HAS VIOLATED MAY HELP)
This all depends on whether or not you can do so without exposing yourself to him, leaving you open to reprisal.
GOOD LUCK!:suspect:

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Cut your losses and move on...

[JG1]

Do what he least expects - take him on head on.

Schedule a meeting with him, for which you will be fully forearmed with *facts*, and bring with you someone from the CAA and a CCMA arbitrator.

With things like this, theres a few things you have to bear in mind :

1) Don't go off half cocked
2) Present solid irrefutable facts, not opinion
3) When you strike, strike hard, first

Remember, he will have buddies all over the place, but often when a hollow man comes falling down, they all step aside and watch the dust clear.

[Deanw]

If you work for a South African registered company, then they may have to abide by South African legislation.
If so, the Protected Disclosure Act Act 26 of 2000 ('Whistle blowing Act') may help you. Basically, any disclosure made in good faith and substantially in accordance with any procedure prescribed by the employee’s employer for reporting is considered a protected disclosure under this act. An employee making such a protected disclosure is protected from being subjected to an occupational detriment on account of having made a protected disclosure.
An employee is also afforded the opportunity to remain anonymous should they so require.
The following article from Business Report of 21 November 2005 may help:

Whistleblowers protected by constitution
Employees who report employers for committing illegal or otherwise irregular acts are protected, in the first instance, by the constitution of South Africa. Specifically, section 16 of the Bill of Rights gives everyone the right to freedom of expression and to impart information.
Secondly, the Protected Disclosures Act no. 26 of 2000 (PDA) specifically protects employees from reprisals as a result of having made a protected disclosure. This applies whether the disclosure in question is made to authorities within or outside of the company/organisation concerned.
The PDA appears to take into account the fact that, as far as disclosures are concerned, both employees and employers deserve protection. That is, employees need to be protected from reprisals when making disclosures in good faith. On the other hand, employers need to be protected from employees who make unfounded and malicious disclosures.
Therefore, while the PDA encourages genuine disclosures, it requires the employee, when making an external disclosure, to at least hold a genuine belief that the employer has acted wrongly.
This goes some way towards protecting employers from employees who make unfounded allegations merely because they have an axe to grind.
Thirdly, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) also protects whistle-blowing employees. It does so under sections 186(2)(d) as well as under section 187(1)(h).
The former section classifies as an unfair labour practice any employer conduct short of dismissal resulting in "an occupational detriment" to an employee who has made a protected disclosure as per the PDA. The maximum compensation awarded to an employee successful in such a claim would be 12 months' remuneration.
The latter section of the LRA makes it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for having made a disclosure protected in terms of the PDA.
While very few such cases have been reported in labour law, it appears that the courts are trying to look after the interests of both employers and employees.
In CWU and another v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (2003,8 BLLR 741), a supervisor accused management of fraud and corruption in that it allegedly gave preference to a particular temp employment agency. The employee was summoned to a disciplinary hearing for making this allegation.
The employee applied to the Labour Court for an order to halt the disciplinary action. The court held that:
- The employee's communication did not fall under the PDA because it was
ot a disclosure of information; it was merely an expression of opinion
- There was no basis provided at all for the employee's opinion
- The employee had failed to make use of the employer's internal procedure for reporting alleged wrongdoings.
In light of this the employee's application was dismissed with costs.
In Global Technology Business Intelligence (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others (2005,5 BLLR 487), the Labour Court found that the employee's report to his lawyer of alleged unfair discipline did not fall under the definition of a disclosure for purposes of the PDA.
The court therefore refused to assist the employee. However, in the case of Grieve v Denel (Pty) Ltd (2003, 4 BLLR 366), an employee was suspended and notified of a disciplinary hearing while he was preparing to report to the board of directors alleged wrongdoings of the employer's general manager.
The employee alleged that, when the employer discovered that the employee had obtained certain information against the general manager, it took disciplinary action against him.
Grieve applied to the Labour Court for an urgent interdict against the disciplinary hearing being carried out. The court found that:
There was enough evidence to show that the disclosure the employee wished to make had some substance
Discipline does fall under the heading of occupational detriment.
As a result the court upheld Grieve's application for the interdict.
The legislation protecting whistleblowers is still in its infancy and case law is not yet developed far enough to provide certainty as to when the law's protection does and does not apply. Employers are therefore advised to tread very carefully before acting against any employee who makes allegations involving employer wrongdoing.

Unfortunatelly, whistle blowers must be prepared to be dismissed or victimised, particularly as aviation is such a small world.
Good luck! :ok: