PC Reports demanded?

[Algol]

I'm not long on the job market, so this comes as a surprise to me - some airlines are asking for the previous employers last PC report (Sim Check).

This presents a problem in my case, because my last employer (a large and reputable carrier who I worked with for the last couple decades) has a firm policy of not revealing training records to third parties - even on the pilots request. I saw my PC Form when it was written up, and I signed it (it was fine by the way:p). I can go see my training file any time I like. But I cannot take photocopies, or remove documents.

Now the thing is, I happen to like this policy. IMHO it's nobody elses business what went on in a previous employers training section.
What next? Attendance records? Sickness records? Medical records?

Furthermore, my previous employer feels they could potentially be held liable for providing a glowing PC report about a pilot who later ends up in a smoking wreck. I can see their point.

I could pull a few strings and get the report photocopied, but of what value is that? The company won't stand over it if the new employer asks for verification. In fact they'll hang me for stealing the document!

Instead I've just spelled this out politely, and invited the prospective employer to contact my previous and confirm what I say.
I've had one company tell me to get lost then!:uhoh:

The stupidest point of the issue is this - these airlines carry out Sim screening. So they get to see your performance first hand. It's either up to their standard, or it isn't. Do they have no faith in their own checkers?

Where did this grow up from? Obviously people must be playing along with it - I'd never heard of it before although I've done occasional contract work over the years. Which airlines are handing over these records? Dodgy ones, or all but the one I worked for?:eek:

Please enlighten!

[Firestorm]

I don't know where you're from Algol, but I am guessing UK or Europe.

I always used to ask for and get a copy of my LPC and OPC from the trainer who conducted the check with no problem, and when I left the last crowd I asked for, and was sent a copy of my training records and my personnel file. You should probably check with your union, and with your company or ex-company's HR department. I think that they are obliged to allow you to have copies of anything in those files if you ask for it. You shouldn't have to get a freedom of information request for this information. If you aren't a member of a union check with the CAB or an employment lawyer.

If is a case of getting a reference then your company should supply that on request from a prospective employer.

[Algol]

Sorry Firestorm, but I'm with Pull-Up on this. They can take a hike. I think we've bent over way too far in this industry and a time comes to call a halt.

Never bent one. Never scratched one. Never failed a check. Got 18K hours under the belt.

Put me in the Sim and check me out.

My ex employer has a policy. Its proper. End of story.

[v6g]

Most likely is someone in HR inventing a new policy to protect their own jobs. Remember a lot of HR folks are struggling with lack of work right now also.

[Firestorm]

See your point Algol. It just depends how much you want or need that job!

[G-DAVE]

Don't most line/sim checkers these days just tick the areas you were tested on and write 'satis' in the comment box?

This then only shows what you were checked on, and that you met the required standard, not if you scraped through, or were superb?

This, I thought, was to protect the examiner/tester if you 'end up in a smoking hole' etc etc.

So there would be no valuable information for a new employer on there?

[captjns]

The last carrier I flew with in Europe would scan LPC, OPC and Line check forms which could be accessed, and printed under my user name via the company intranet system.

Under the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 US carriers are are required to provide to provide information to prospective employers.

Algol, I don't know what country your carrier is located or your airman certificate is current, but you can also request a PRIA from your aviation agnecy as it relates of violations or incidents.

HR generally is responsible for employee records ie attendance, sick calls, vacations, company infractions.

Flight Operaitons is responsible for pilot records. Some companies delegate the authority of making pilot records available to others to HR.

Good luck.

[MR7958]

If you're in the UK it might be worth seeing whether the Data Protection Act might help you. There are strict rules concerning information which one party holds about another and a right (I'm not sure how broad) to demand to see such information about oneself. It might just be that the statute also allows you to take copies.

Only an idea though.

[Algol]

See your point Algol. It just depends how much you want or need that job!

Well I applied, so that means I'm interested. But there are other jobs.

To be accurate here - it's actually the local CAA who are demanding the PC Reports, not the airline itself.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised people accept this imposition so readily. Enough to even twist a good previous employers arm to get it! Or dupe them and (for want of a better word) filch it, contrary to their policy.

What about the employers reference the airline will later seek from the guys you just set the law on? Or got caught stealing from?
Do you think it'd be glowing? :uhoh:

Incidentally - I'd be most surprised if any demand that this kind of document be handed over by this local CAA (or airline) was complied with readily. It's a one way street I think!

[Afinehelmet]

The CAA whose authority you fly under will have copies of each LPC you have carried out for the last five years.

You may politely direct your prospective employer to said authority. It's a process I'm in the middle of as we speak (type!!) as my prospective new employer wants these documents.

I must confess to having some of the same frustrations as Algol. Why would my new employer want all this additional paperwork if they like me and my sim check went OK?

I can only guess that in todays world of litigation, maybe insurance costs are reduced if the airline is able to "prove" to an insurer that their new guy has an impeccable history.

As I say, that's just a guess but I have no doubt that this measure is either bean counter or beaurocrat driven if demanded by the airline. If it's the local CAA who are demanding it, then maybe it's a bit of an "olive branch" that's been given to the local unions to justify employing an ex-pat.

[calypso]

The CAA of a sovereign country is surely entitled to ask for whatever documents they see fit to allow foreign license holders to fly under their rules. No amount of indignation is going to change the fact that "abroad" they are in their own country and hence they make their own rules.

[Firestorm]

Algol. I'm unclear about your situation. Obviously you are looking for a new job, but are you being offered a job in a country with a different aviation authority to the one you have been working in up to this point in your career? Is that why your prof check reports are being requested? I haven't heard of that being done before either to qualify for a new foreign licence or for a job in the same country where you have been working for several years. It is odd, but when you go up against an NAA (National Aviation Authority) you might be the rock, but they are the immovable object, and if you don't want to comply with their requests and rules I am quite sure they don't care if you walk away or if you do what they ask.

Whatever happens I hope that you work something out that suits your needs! Good luck.

[Rhayader]

Apologies for the intrusion but there is a way around the DPA in the UK and the railway industry uses it. If a driver is leaving one company for another he is sent an ATOC B1 form by the prospective employer. This contains a series of questions about qualifications, last assessments, present certification and details of any safety critical incidents amongst other questions. This form is filled in by you, signed and sent back. The new employer then sends it to your current employer and they merely confirm or state they are unable to confirm your answers. The form then becomes part of your new companies file on you, there is also a legal requirement for your current employer to answer only with reference to their file on you. Seems to work very well and has no mention of sickness, punctuality or any HR matters only professional qualifications and safety critical information.

[Algol]

Algol. I'm unclear about your situation. Obviously you are looking for a new job, but are you being offered a job in a country with a different aviation authority to the one you have been working in up to this point in your career? Is that why your prof check reports are being requested?
Yes, thats correct.

I haven't heard of that being done before either to qualify for a new foreign licence or for a job in the same country where you have been working for several years.
Indeed. Me either. But I've obviously led a sheleterd life!

It is odd, but when you go up against an NAA (National Aviation Authority) you might be the rock, but they are the immovable object, and if you don't want to comply with their requests and rules I am quite sure they don't care if you walk away or if you do what they ask.

A few of the posters seem not to have grasped a central point here - it's not ME who is refusing the paper, it's my company, and they own it.

The fact that I agree with their policy is neither here nor there - I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place anyhow!

Apologies for the intrusion but there is a way around the DPA in the UK and the railway industry uses it. If a driver is leaving one company for another he is sent an ATOC B1 form by the prospective employer. This contains a series of questions about qualifications, last assessments, present certification and details of any safety critical incidents amongst other questions. This form is filled in by you, signed and sent back. The new employer then sends it to your current employer and they merely confirm or state they are unable to confirm your answers. The form then becomes part of your new companies file on you, there is also a legal requirement for your current employer to answer only with reference to their file on you. Seems to work very well and has no mention of sickness, punctuality or any HR matters only professional qualifications and safety critical information.
You're most welcome Rhayader - and my ex employer has offerred a letter stating - Currency on Type, No Accidents on record, and References as required. My own CAA provides Licence Verification, Currency, PC/IR dates, and Medical Certs.
The ONLY thing these guys aren't getting is the written comments of the checker on the PC form (i.e. comments like -" Good CRM, Well handled EFATO, blah blah blah..."). It's bull****. And none of their business.

The CAA of a sovereign country is surely entitled to ask for whatever documents they see fit to allow foreign license holders to fly under their rules. No amount of indignation is going to change the fact that "abroad" they are in their own country and hence they make their own rules.
If they are ICAO member states are they not obliged to follow some international rules? Recognition of foreign licences? Is there not some regulation to that effect? If they don't accept foreign licences at face value (with verification, ok) - why advertise internationally for pilots? Why not stick to locals? Alternatively why not just force all applicants to do their local ATPL exams?
It's arbitrary nonsense, and a recent innovation as far as I can tell.
Sure, they can probably do what they like, but if all ICAO member states adopt arbitrary local policies on licencing (and the rest) it makes a mockery of their membership.

[Algol]

Here is an extract I found on the ICAO website:

International recognition of flight crew licences

The Convention on International Civil Aviation, often called the Chicago Convention, provides for worldwide recognition of flight crew licences issued by any member State of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provided that:

1. the licence meets or exceeds the ICAO licensing Standards of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing to the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and

2. the licence is used on an aircraft which is registered in the State which has issued or validated the licence.

If the licence is to be used on an aircraft which is not registered in the issuing State, the licence holder must obtain a validation of the licence from the State of Registry or alternatively obtain a new licence issued by the State of Registry.


The international Standards on Personnel Licensing are contained in Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Annex 1 can be purchased on-line and at certain locations. Annex 1 can be accessed on-line by subscription.

ICAO website (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#1)

Anybody got an ICAO subscription?

In fact guys, the more I read and think on this, the more I suspect this CAA is breaking ICAO rules. According to the above convention (to which they are signatories) they are obliged to accept another member state licence (if valid) and THEN apply whatever tests/exams they wish to grant a validation/conversion.
It would appear this CAA is saying - 'We see your licence is valid, and issued by another ICAO Member State - but we don't accept their State Approved Inspectors signature on the document alone. We want further evidence before we'll accept it. We want the Check Pilots scribbled notes. If you don't provide them - we don't recognise your licence.'
Is that not illegal under ICAO?
I certainly think its sailing close to the wind.
Of course, ICAO/IFALPA would have to take it up and challenge it!

[sunbird123]

Algol you may be able to get the copies of the files/pc by using the freedom of information act if in uk.

[Algol]

Nah - won't bend over.

Anyhow there've been developments.
It seems the airlines claim that the local CAA want PC Reports before issuing a validation is in fact dead wrong!
Further clarification awaited.
Standby!