View Full Version : Finally some action made by DGCA
vish02
22nd Dec 2010, 13:53
MUMBAI: A senior SpiceJet pilot lost his licence to test other pilots after he flew a Boeing 737 with his unqualified son in the co-pilot's seat in the cruise phase of three commercial flights between Delhi, Hyderabad and Coimbatore. The incident occurred during a training routine.
The examiner's son was a fresh commercial pilot licence holder who had joined SpiceJet as a trainee. In May last year, at the time of the incident, he was not type-rated for Boeing 737 but his dad let him into the cockpit. The test pilot, who's also a SpiceJet general manager, was stripped of his examiner status for five years last month by the DGCA after several probes.
A fresh CPL holder is generally trained only to fly piston-engine aircraft that operate at speeds in the range of 80-130 knots (150-240 kmph) and need only a single pilot.
Aircraft like B737 demands several crew and operates at speeds of more than 300 knots (over 555 kmph). In 1994, a probe into the crash of a Russian Aeroflot flight that killed 75 passengers and crew revealed that the pilot's 15-year-old son was at the controls of the A310 aircraft.
"A training captain acting on behalf of DGCA and a licence holder is expected to display discipline, professionalism and ensure compliance of the regulatory frame work," said the DGCA order of November 19. "In matters of air safety, leeway is given to no one. These kind of matters also bring a bad name to the sector and will not be tolerated," said director-general of civil aviation Bharat Bhushan. TOI sent a questionnaire to SpiceJet on Monday but the airline said its spokesperson was not available for comment.
"The examiner's son occupied the co-pilot's seat on SpiceJet's Delhi-Hyderabad, Hyderabad-Coimbatore and Coimbatore-Delhi flights, all of which were operated on 17 May, 2009," said a source.
The three flights were flown by three trainee commanders who were undergoing their upgrade training under the instructorship of the suspended examiner. An upgrade training moves a co-pilot to a commander's position. During such flights, the trainee commander occupies the left-hand seat and the examiner is on the right, that is, the co-pilot's seat.
However, during the above mentioned three flights, the examiner's son occupied the right-hand seat after the aircraft was cruising. The examiner himself was in jump seat, located behind the pilot's seat. "Had there been an emergency, the trainee commander would not have been able to handle it," said the source. The SpiceJet violation case came under DGCA lens after then DGCA boss Nasim Zaidi received an anonymous mail in July last year.
vish02
22nd Dec 2010, 13:56
The Pilot should be grounded for ever including his son. so that such incidents do not occur in future where passenger safety is compromised. Crew should not be afraid of lodging such complaints and their identity should be kept confidential
White Knight
22nd Dec 2010, 13:59
Had there been an emergency, the trainee commander would not have been able to handle it," said the source.
Kind of says it all after all the farcical nonsense coming out of India:}:} Anyone want to buy some of my hours:E:E
The DGCA needs to get the balls to remove a few AOC's, actually it really needs to come out and say to the world it is not fit for purpose... Start afresh!
PT6A
Escape Path
22nd Dec 2010, 14:59
I don't know why this action seems to me like a "look, we're doing something to improve our aviation" type of thing. I bet there had been far far worse things than this and no action has been taken by the DGCA. :*
Had there been an emergency, the trainee commander would not have been able to handle it," said the source.
At least some of them are honest about themselves :rolleyes:
Kind of says it all after all the farcical nonsense coming out of India
Agree 100%
Piltdown Man
22nd Dec 2010, 16:05
The SpiceJet violation case came under DGCA lens after then DGCA boss Nasim Zaidi received an anonymous mail in July last year.
So one of these spineless bastards dobbed him in after he passed his command course. I'm not going to condone having a trainee in one seat and an unlicenced person in another but the time to suggest that this shouldn't happen is before the training captain leaves his seat, not when his son is sitting in it. And I hope this remark, who ever wrote it, was just for Sun readers and/or effect:
Had there been an emergency, the trainee commander would not have been able to handle it.
I would expect ANY trainee captain to be able to handle ANY emergency. His method of handling it might not be the most efficient in company terms, which is they are being trained. But if you are ready for the left hand seat should already be a highly proficient operator.
PM
stuckgear
22nd Dec 2010, 16:11
which co-incidentally doesnt lay much faith on their own cpl standards !
:p :E :}
Solar
22nd Dec 2010, 19:39
Don't understand why this is such a big deal. Do pilots not use the toilet when in the cruise.
Mintheskies
22nd Dec 2010, 21:29
Actually seems to me like a vague maneuver to redeem the poor image Indian Civil Aviation has been spreading 'round the world recently. Like "We can take appropriate action... when we want to".
I guess we will see a few bad surprises springing from those companies again anyway. It's not in one night you overcome bad habits.
I don't know if grounding the instructor would have been an appropriate action, since his fault appears to me to be about instruction, not actually flying a liner, but I reckon making a few examples might not hurt either.
Also hanging pirates never stopped piracy (not to be taken literally please).
Rananim
23rd Dec 2010, 04:48
Human nature is funny.When under attack for perceived corruption/negligence,they go completely over the top trying to prove the opposite.And they chose all the wrong instances to make their point.
TopTup
23rd Dec 2010, 05:30
And the FO who gave up his/her seat?
The FA? (If he/she witnessed this as well?)
Loses his TRI status for what, 5 years? What a joke. The S.O.B. should lose his damn LICENSE. Yeah, we all make mistakes but doing so KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS is more than stupid.
captjns
23rd Dec 2010, 06:03
Perhaps not the best judgement exercised by the Instructor Pilot.
But equally poor judgement by the rat bastard who turned in the Instructor Pilot without discussion. Oh well, I'm sure with the good old boy network in India, I would not be surprised to see rat managed out of the cockpit.
I'm not condoning the actions of the Instructor Pilot in quesitons, But at the end of the day can one really compare the crash of the Russian Airbus which was caused by a non trained pilot versus having a qualified CPL, although not in the Boeing, in the seat? You can bet that the future captain in training kept a good eye on the future Boeing Puppy who was keeping Papa's seat warm to ensure that he did not touch anything.
Come on now... how many of you have gone to the biffy an return to the cockpit to find the cabin crew member occupying your seat? Any pilot who remained in the cockpit get turned in for that?
Hotel Tango
23rd Dec 2010, 07:48
And the FO who gave up his/her seat?
You didn't read the post very well TopTup. Read it again.
Come on now... how many of you have gone to the biffy an return to the cockpit to find the cabin crew member occupying your seat? Any pilot who remained in the cockpit get turned in for that? - again, like TopTup, you need to re-read the first post. In your example there is still a qualified pilot in his or her seat.
captjns
23rd Dec 2010, 11:08
As stated by BOAC
- again, like TopTup, you need to re-read the first post. In your example there is still a qualified pilot in his or her seat.
Negative. The term "future captain" does not infer that the future skippers in training being signed off, or relesaed to the line... do you?
Captjns, The person left in the seat had either an Indian CPL or ALTP, neither one inspire confidence in me.
As everyone is aware they are obtained in India by "logbook flying"
PT6A
captjns- I do not really understand your post.
The OP has no qualified pilot in his/her seat.
Your trip to the 'biffy' leaves one qualified pilot in his/her seat.
Spot the difference?
ei-flyer
23rd Dec 2010, 12:49
Whoa, not quite sure I understand - the Commander allowed an unqualified...
...Oh, India, I see...
vish02
23rd Dec 2010, 13:28
Soon after the aviation regulator clipped a senior Spicejet Airline pilot’s authority to test junior pilots on charges of a safety violation in November, he quit the job, said a spokesperson from the airline. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had stopped spicejet’s general manager of training, from conducting tests on junior pilots.
He was found guilty of operating three flights in which his son, , a fresh passout from a flying school, flew as the co-pilot without authorisation.
The violation took place during the operation of three flights in May__Delhi-Hyderabad, Delhi-Coimbatore and a Coimbatore-Delhi flight. According to the DGCA’s rule, a trainer pilot cannot hand over cockpit controls to a trainee pilot.
The airline spokesperson confirmed that Captain Singh resigned from service in November soon after he was grounded.
His son continues to work with the airline because the probe gave him a clean chit.
The regulator had issued a stringent circular last month that stated that training captains could be grounded for five years if found compromising safety norms in favouring junior pilots.
The circular was issued because such cases of favourtism had become common.
av8r76
24th Dec 2010, 09:04
This is hardly a stand taken by the DGCA. There are internal forces within Spice which ensured that Capt Singh was removed from his post and replaced with a more 'friendly' person. Anyone with inside info can determine who he has been replaced with and the motivation to have him supplanted.
For the record I have been trained by him and upgraded during his tenure as GM and I have not come across a more practical and no nonsense airman in my short career so far. In a country burdened with archaic laws and slavish adherence to rote SOP's, his attitude and outlook to training was a breath of fresh air and inspired confidence in all trainees who came across him.
Notwithstading this particular incident, DGCA is still a corrupt, incompetent and indifferent organisation in whose hands millions of lives are put in danger. Don't be fooled by this 'action'.
BOAC,
I think that what captjns is trying to say is that if the PIC leaves the cockpit for physiological reasons they leave behind a qualified co-pilot at the controls. They pointed out that from time to time when said Captain returns there may be a member of the cabin crew sitting in their seat chatting with the FO. In this case there was a qualified copilot at the controls and the Captain remained in the cockpit - just not in their seat.
While I don't condone the actions cited, it is not that unusual for one of the seats to be vacant during the cruise. There does not seem to be any mention of the CPL ever touching anything or doing anything other than keeping the seat warm.
I agree with the other posters who say that if the (now qualified Captain) considered that there was any safety risk they should have spoken up at the time - but clearly they were willing to do something that they believed to be unsafe / against SOP so as to not to rock the boat that was their career. Put that same Captain in another situation where promotion and money have to be balanced against safety and what do you think the answer will be?
In this case there was a qualified copilot at the controls - except the 'co-pilot' was NOT qualified in that seat, which I think you will find renders it illegal? We are talking here about a senior training captain who should have known better. That is the point - we are talking about regulations - I do not believe they will be that different in India. I have no issue with 'empty seats' or any of the other stuff. Technically the 'co-pilot' was not even qualified to sit in the RHS, since when you begin a command conversion your RHS status ceases. The ONLY legal crew compliment then is TC RHS (with commode, of course:)). If the 'son' really needed to sit in, he should have been in the LHS.
masalama
24th Dec 2010, 11:49
pt6a wrote:Captjns, The person left in the seat had either an Indian CPL or ALTP, neither one inspire confidence in me.
As everyone is aware they are obtained in India by "logbook flying"
PT6A
Wow, one line on pprune, you have branded all 5000 CPL /3500 ATPL Indian pilots as frauds. All the years we spent actually earning those hours instructing/ cargo flying/ regional jet / narrow body just went down the drain := .PT6A , there does exist a problem but kindly refrain from gross generalizations as these.
Would you say all XZYZ pilots should be banned from flying as one of them was a fake ??? There's a word for branding everyone of a community/race/color/religion under a common group due to the misdemeanors of a few and I really don't think we want to go there.....
Let's see the positives and try to help our fledgling dynamic country build it's aviation standards up to a respectable level.I think it's possible but requires a lot of work and soul searching within .....
fly safe and masalama.:ok:
hawker750
24th Dec 2010, 12:16
What is the big deal?
Having the Captain's son in the co-pilots seat is no worse than having it empty!
Hell, back in pre PC days the cockpit door was open and the captain made sure the prettiest passenger with the shortest skirt jumped into the P2 seat preferably with the co-pilot still there. Well I guess that was when flying was fun and there was no fear of being "reported"
This incident is no way like the russian captain who allowed his son to take his seat!
Would I brand all DGCA India licence holders as unsafe? Yes, based on the fact their licensing authority has been found to be incompetent, corrupt and not up to the task.
This means that the documents held by Indian flight crew become next to worthless because the actions of the DGCA.
PT6A
Rananim
24th Dec 2010, 12:24
There was a qualified pilot in one of the seats at all times and it only happened during cruise.Personally,I'd sack the rat and tell the training Captain not to do it again but thats just me.I know there are a lot of pencil pushers out there in aviation who just love to get caught up in minutiae.
The DGCA needs to fry bigger fish,like making sure theres complete transparency in the way they operate and investigate accidents,that airlines have enough crews so that FTDL's arent broken,and re-thinking the no TAKEOFF/LAND policy for co-pilots because those co-pilots are second-in-command and if the Captain becomes incapacitated,they must know how to land the plane!Train the co-pilots in SOP's and AFDS operation by all means but also ensure they know how to fly the plane.It might save lives one day.
stuckgear
24th Dec 2010, 14:39
Personally,I'd sack the rat and tell the training Captain not to do it again but thats just me
And that engenders a responsible approach to an environment where an issue of safety is questioned, appropriately or not?
Dare question an action, face the sack... that's not a good environment for safety progression.
- except the 'co-pilot' was NOT qualified in that seat, which I think you will find renders it illegal?
Was he not?
Then if that was the case the flight was illegal from the very start. What if none of this had happened and the Commander (in the right seat) became incapacitated?
My understanding is that the pilot in the left seat was being line-trained to complete a command course. It was a passenger carrying flight and therefore that pilot would have been type rated and have demonstraed the ability to fly from the left seat.
If the pilot in the left seat was not fully type rated and was unable to fly safely from that seat then there are bigger issues here than who was sitting in the right seat.
Well., I'm not dragging this out '#cos I have better things to do, but I was always under the impression that you were not 'Qualified' to operate in a seat until F L Check. Up to that point the crew constitution should be TC RHS, not a bare-bones CPL. You have introduced If the pilot in the left seat was not fully type rated and was unable to fly safely from that seat then there are bigger issues here than who was sitting in the right seat. , not me, which is somewhat irrelevant!
White Knight
24th Dec 2010, 21:59
Well - it's all quite simple really.
India is CORRUPT! For all of you PC do-gooders; just go and spend 24 hours there:ugh::ugh:
Any decent Indian pilot is flying elsewhere - some of them here at EK and I have to say these are great guys, great pilots and great fun... The dross is what we're talking about here in these forums, about fake hours and so on - but DGCA must take action:ugh:
As for this thread - if you are NOT qualified to sit in a pilot's seat then STAY OUT of it. Any so-called TRI/TRE who does otherwise should be keel-hauled (old English sea-farers punishment)...
willfly380
26th Dec 2010, 06:30
PT6A get a life son.
but I was always under the impression that you were not 'Qualified' to operate in a seat until F L Check.
Fare paying passengers can not be carried on training flights.
On a training flight the instructor has to hold an appropriate rating i.e. TRI / TRE.
Line training using Training Captains who are not TRIs or TREs with fare paying passengers onboard can only be done if the pilot being "trained" is legally qualified to fly the aircraft in that situation.
A multi crew aircraft must have two qualified pilots. If we follow your line then we can never do line training with passengers on board.
Finally, in your airline, what is the procedure for a training Captain who needs a physiological break while line training an experienced (but not line cheked) FO?
Fare paying passengers can not be carried on training flights.
Incorrect, line training??
On a training flight the instructor has to hold an appropriate rating i.e. TRI / TRE.
What about line trainers without TRI/TRE?
Line training using Training Captains who are not TRIs or TREs with fare paying passengers onboard can only be done if the pilot being "trained" is legally qualified to fly the aircraft in that situation.
When does somebody become legally qualified? Once they have finished their line training?
Or are we saying that this flight wasn't line training but was base training?
Finally, in your airline, what is the procedure for a training Captain who needs a physiological break while line training an experienced (but not line cheked) FO? - refer post #22 - the answer begins with c and ends with e
blind pew
26th Dec 2010, 13:58
Seen both cabin crew in the RHS and on the skipper's knee flying the aircraft in a famous European carrier. Nothing new except in this case the skipper was probably sober.
Keep the door shut next time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed, Blind Pew - I suspect Captain Singh may have already been on a 'target list'? If only he had exercised some common sense and put his son in the LHS for the three sectors I suspect this thread might not have happened,
Incorrect, line training??
What about line trainers without TRI/TRE?
When does somebody become legally qualified? Once they have finished their line training?
Line training is an internal company process (essential though). That trains a qualified pilot in the company procedures and enables the pilot practice what they have learned under the supervision of a more experienced Captain.
Line trainers are not providing any training towards a licence, rating or to a pilot who does not have the required take-off and landings in the previous 90 days.
The pilot is licensed to fly the aircraft and act as a member of a crew as soon as they get the rating on their licence.
The company usually is a bity more cautious and limits them to flying with a line trainer until they pass their line check. Some companies still restrict pilots who have just passed their first line check to flying with the more experienced people who sit in the other seat.
What you have to rememebr is that there are many cases where there will just be two crew on an aircraft that requires two crew and for example the FO may not have passed their line check. In this case the Capt will at least be a line training Captain. In that case what happens when the Captain needs a physiological break during the say 8 hour cruise? What if they think they can't leave the seat and as a result become incapacitated?
One of the best examples I can think of is the good old 3 take-off and landings in 90 days. Most companies have more strict requirements. If the other pilot is within the 90 days but outside the company requirement they can fly with a line training Captain. As soon as they pass the 90 days then they are no longer legal unless they can (between 90 and 120 days) fly with a TRI on a revenue flight.
Beyond the 120 days they have to either go to the sim or fly the aircraft empty.
In that case what happens when the Captain needs a physiological break during the say 8 hour cruise? What if they think they can't leave the seat and as a result become incapacitated? - then they would be big plonkers, Rodney, who had not read the Ops Manual. This 'need' is covered (in my experience anyway) - and STRICTLY controlled - by company Ops Manuals. What these manuals do NOT 'cover' or 'control' is placing an unqualified pilot in your seat and 'flying' (as part of the constituted crew) from the jump seat! (Well, mine never did, anyway?)
John Boeman
26th Dec 2010, 17:35
Come on now... how many of you have gone to the biffy an return to the cockpit to find the cabin crew member occupying your seat? Any pilot who remained in the cockpit get turned in for that?
That is exactly what happened to a good friend of mine, an experienced Captain with a major UK airline, thirteen months after the event happened. (He had allowed one of the cabin crew to occupy the FO's seat for a couple of minutes while the FO had gone to the toilet. Simply that.)
Mind you it was just after 9/11 when he was called to the office, when they were using any method they could to reduce pilot numbers.
I believe that the individual who reported the event got his upgrade some months afterwards. Nice.
Keep in mind...generally speaking, the best and safest way to fly in India...is in the flight levels, flying over.
Always has been, always will be.:hmm:
Piltdown Man
27th Dec 2010, 09:23
Rananim: -
...and re-thinking the no TAKEOFF/LAND policy for co-pilots...
If this is truly the case, would you like to start a new thread on this? This one would be great.
And returning to this thread, I don't think the safety of the aircraft would have been compromised by this action any more than by leaving the seat empty. We are also assuming it probably would not have been permitted by the company's own regulations. But having said that I'm going to look at my own company's rules... and guess what there is nothing to preclude anybody sitting in one of our crew seats. Unless they are remaining in the cockpit for the entire flight, when they have to sit in the Observer's seat. Now, I just wonder if Spice Jet's Ops. Manuals do actually preclude non-crew members from sitting in one of the pilot's seats?
PM
chopchop7
1st Jan 2011, 12:02
For the record I have been trained by him and upgraded during his tenure as GM and I have not come across a more practical and no nonsense airman in my short career so far.
I agree with AV8r76, Singh has been one of the more mature and balanced TREs in the lot. Not condoning the act though, from the posts here, similar events have been common place around the world.
DGCA could well take a look within to clean up their own mess...
stealthpilot
4th Jan 2011, 12:11
For those not familiar with crew training.
The examiner was sitting in the right seat, he was doing a check for the transition captain sitting on the left. The guy on the left seat was doing his command training.
The examiners son had a CPL and was not type rated on the 737.
The examiner probably got up from his seat (the right one) during cruise and let his son sit there... enjoy the view, keep his seat warm whatever.
All 3 pilots (2 type rated) were in the cockpit. Even though the non type rated chap didn't actually touch anything, there are obvious safety and legal ramifications.
Company and legal policies state only authorised people are allowed in the seat, the son could be an ex navy carrier pilot- it doesn't matter.