Line Check Ethics

[unb5]

So here is the scoop in a nutshell . A group of pilots want a union , another management group do not . The non contenders being management pilots and training Captains . One day a pilot in the union group , says to the management " hey your new hires are coming out of training ill equipped to fly on the line ".
The next day he has a roster change and is scheduled for a line check , not once but four times in the next 2 weeks. The 1st check is passed , the subsequent others are partial passes to no pass as there were too many faults found in minor areas of the SOP as in wording ....but no safety relevant findings. This pilot is now confused as to what to do and can not go to the management to discuss .:ugh:
Any worthy advice out there ?

[TheMightyAtom]

1. In the situation you are alluding to, I don't think many trainers are on the management's side.

2. An SOP point is for that category of SOPs. I.e if you didn't do any paperwork, that's 1 SOP. By the book it is very hard to fail on SOP points. People who have taken the Mick with this have had their wings clipped.

Which leaves safety issues to fail on, I know their is some creative interpretations of what constitutes unsafe out there, however, if it's a complete p***take it would be very hard to defend.

[unb5]

"By the book it is very hard to fail on SOP points." could you elaborate on that please ?
As I said earlier there are no safety issues brought forward , just strictly SOP points.

[Fire and brimstone]

I'll give the advice I would give to a shop worker. I cannot comment on aviation.

1) Ensure you meticulously keep all records and of all conversations that have gone on;

2) Follow the company policy, including the grievance process, making sure you are accompanied at every meeting.

3) Enlist professional help - I assume you do not have a union - so from another point of assistance (do you have any legal advice or protection policy - even house insurance legal protection often covers employment issues?).

4) If you have a regulator - speak to them, and confess all. If your industry is regulated, they are obliged to take an oversight. Technical areas also often have 'operations inspectors' to ensure safety standards are enforced. This way if there has been any wrongdoing, the regulator also has his 'neck in the noose' :ok: Line checks are supposed to be about safety of operation, so a regulator must have a vested interest.

5) If you suspect this is game playing / politics, then let them play their silly games, and don't ON ANY ACCOUNT feed them bullets to use against you. Ultimately if they are wrong and you are innocent, one way or another that will be proven.

6) Sounds like the person concerned has been royally stitched up. Even if they are not in a union, perhaps the union in question would be interested in what this company is doing. The umbrella statute is probably the legal right to be a trades union member. They might not have to recognise a union, but I am pretty sure (armed forces aside) you are within your rights to be a member of a union.

7) If it's not normal to have 4 line checks in such a short period of time - how do they explain this? You could win the jackpot if you can prove discrimination (remember that word). Damages for DISCRIMINATION are unlimited. As you are legally entitled to be a trade union member, and they have done this to you, that is DISCRIMINATION in a nutshell.

I assume you are in a developed country, not North Korea?

If we don't here from you again we will assume you are in North Korea.

[clunckdriver]

I too had an incident like this, my solution worked like a charm, I simply taped the crap coming from the man and gave it to our "normal" check pilots, end of rant and check pilot was returned to line pilot and didn't get much sympathy from the F/Oz and Captains who had to fly with this :mad: as others simply booked of when roistered with this jerk! Good lock!

[Fire and brimstone]

A good point.

I would just say, if this was in - for example - Europe, would the regulator not have something to say?

I am sure it's a very small outfit, in a small country that no-one cares about, and not a large of well know company behaving like this.
In a large, or well know company, don't they have 'training standards', managers, 'Head of Training' people, who are liable fro what happens in their own departments?

When I passed my A levels several hundred years ago, I got to keep the qualification - I did not have to resist the exam to confirm I got a B+. I did not realise some industries operate differently, and tests are not what they are claimed to be.

Ditto my driving test. After I passed, and the DVLA gave me my licence, the examiner did not come around to my house, and insist I keep repeating the test - only being satisfied when I eventually made a mistake.

I am so happy I'm in Europe, we have EASA, and this sort of thing would never, ever happen. Even if it did, it would be stamped out, and the individuals dealt with.

[unb5]

Fire and Brimstone ,
I enjoyed your post and no , I am not in North Korea but yes I am in EASA land . Thank you for your advice/input. Yes , I belong to a trade union and we are a small company in the grand scope of things , trying to establish a Union so that these very episodes do not re-occur in the future.
Does anyone have any documentation over SOP language ? Meaning must someone have the exact wording ? Also what exactly is a SOP deviation ?? Is it the wording or or the actions that count ? If the SOP is to do a departure briefing, than as long as I cover all the items, is this not a completion of the SOP or must it be done exactly as prescribed in the OM.? Word for Word ? and I am not talking about Memory items just plain SOP items ...

[EcamSurprise]

My airline is heavily SOP based and on theory we are meant to say everything in OMB word for word.

As an example, We just had a change so we now say "radio altimeter alive" on the approach instead of "rad alt alive"... go figure.
We also have an SOP for the way we hold the flap handle depending on if we are extending or retracting.

Best of luck.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Where has practicality gone?

[Start Fore]

It went when the snowflakes arrived.

[maggot]

Nah their just catching up for the baby boomers **** ups. Badly

[RAT 5]

ECamS: Oh dear. What happened to KISS. In your case of RA Alive etc. I used to try and find out the reason for the change. No luck, no-one knew. That added to the irritation. I used to fly for airlines that had either "positive rate" or "positive climb" after takeoff. I used to teach what was required, but emphasised that if you forgot under stress which it was then say something sensible so you didn't forget to raise the gear. That was the priority not the mouth music.
Many of todays operational problems can be traced back to management philosophies and dictated training emphasis. If true piloting skills and in-depth a/c knowledge was the culture and training focus IMHO many of recent incidents/accidents would not have happened. And it all started with management, not pilots.

[Gordomac]

RAT5 ; As usual, spot on. T1E ex LHR we changed the reject call from "Abandon" to "Stop!". As a new FO, new sim and new calls, I managed, on reject, to shout "aaaaah,aaaah,arbanstrip ". P1 did a splendid job of controlling, just, amid much laughter. Oh & the flap handle issue had me in fits. Again, old training, high standards but on the Tripot, we all know how easy it was to grab the Leading Edge handle instead of the flap handle. We were fortunate to have rough, tough, FE's who would simply wack the offending hand, quite hard. Very effective.

[PA28161]

I'll give the advice I would give to a shop worker. I cannot comment on aviation.

1) Ensure you meticulously keep all records and of all conversations that have gone on;

2) Follow the company policy, including the grievance process, making sure you are accompanied at every meeting.

3) Enlist professional help - I assume you do not have a union - so from another point of assistance (do you have any legal advice or protection policy - even house insurance legal protection often covers employment issues?).

4) If you have a regulator - speak to them, and confess all. If your industry is regulated, they are obliged to take an oversight. Technical areas also often have 'operations inspectors' to ensure safety standards are enforced. This way if there has been any wrongdoing, the regulator also has his 'neck in the noose' :ok: Line checks are supposed to be about safety of operation, so a regulator must have a vested interest.

5) If you suspect this is game playing / politics, then let them play their silly games, and don't ON ANY ACCOUNT feed them bullets to use against you. Ultimately if they are wrong and you are innocent, one way or another that will be proven.

6) Sounds like the person concerned has been royally stitched up. Even if they are not in a union, perhaps the union in question would be interested in what this company is doing. The umbrella statute is probably the legal right to be a trades union member. They might not have to recognise a union, but I am pretty sure (armed forces aside) you are within your rights to be a member of a union.

7) If it's not normal to have 4 line checks in such a short period of time - how do they explain this? You could win the jackpot if you can prove discrimination (remember that word). Damages for DISCRIMINATION are unlimited. As you are legally entitled to be a trade union member, and they have done this to you, that is DISCRIMINATION in a nutshell.

I assume you are in a developed country, not North Korea?

If we don't here from you again we will assume you are in North Korea.

If you cannot comment on aviation why are you commenting at all on an aviation forum?

[16024]

A lot of high-stakes professions are learning from the hard-won lessons in aviation. It would be reasonable to assume that it could work both ways.

[Fire and brimstone]

Same reason you are on here instead of the 'random questions' forum.

[Avenger]

Unb5 to be perfectly honest guys that deviate from SOPs or make up their own wording etc are a pain. The whole concept of SOPs are that they are standard both in terms of actions, timing and verbiage. It it very difficult to perform PM duties if the PF is doing his/her own version of the procedures and the triggers for incapacitation or overload cannot be actively monitored where the SOPs are deviated from. I had mates at XXX that were put on line checks for calling "Flaps up" not " Flap up", setting the Missed approach altitude too late and making unrequited calls such as "check" whenever the other guy did something. My advice would be get your head in the books, learn the verbiage verbatim and do everything exactly as per the Company OMA/B , that way you cover your own arse and can be assessed on alveoli playing field.

[unb5]

verbiage
ˈvəːbɪɪdʒ/
noun
noun: verbiage; noun: verbage

1.
excessively lengthy or technical speech or writing.

Naturally , as a native English speaker , I prefer to keep things simple and clear .
I do not think that being pedantic about wording solves anything in a cockpit , flap up or flaps up for instance. We can not control what is said at every moment between people interacting ...check or Okay may just be an acknowledgement of an action or statement. Since you cannot always look the other in the eye to see if the action or statement was acknowledged. "on alveoli playing field" not sure what kind of a field this is ? I will say that , yes , there are SOP´s that need to be preformed in a certain order .
But referring to my original post , I suppose I am confused from the varied results of the Line Check pilots ...from great job to totally unacceptable . Is there no standardization for these pilots ?

[Killaroo]

Commencing taxi

"Clear Left" - incorrect
"Clear Leftside" - correct

Why?
What's the safety impact?

[parabellum]

Back to the opening post. Could it be that the union pilot who told the trainers that the latest products of training were not up to standard had previous form as an irritant and wasn't such a hot operator himself? Maybe they just want him to take a good, hard, look at himself?


SOP are there to cope with the worst situation when things are going wrong all about you, which is why standardised call-outs are a necessity rather than an option.

[Avenger]

Line checks are meant to be performed according to a standard criteria, they are not discretionary, non-technical markers assess the CRM and communications and the hands-on bit should be according to OMA/B and SOPs. Line check Captains have to adhere to standard protocol as monitored by the flight standards department/Captains, this avoids "personality issues" Politics and personal issues should not enter the environment if all parties are professional. Having said that, we are human, and if someone raises the conflict bar with constant deviations or over-confidence ,it is likely small errors may be counted as cumulative and result in a partial or fail. The line check should be as a "properly constituted crew" and is normally carried out for both pilots on the same day. If one guy passes and one guy fails then technically as a " crew" it is not a good result. The line check form should clearly detail the areas requiring attention. We often see a persons "perceived performance" and 'actual performance" are worlds apart. There is no reason a pilot cannot discuss the results of a line check with TM, debrief is a required part of the process. Nothing to do with Unions etc etc

[Direct Bondi]

Back to the subject of this thread; a pilot who believes line checks are being used punitively and who “can not go to management to discuss”.

In my opinion, any so-called management pilots and training Captains using or condoning the use, or rather misuse, of the simulator and/or line checks to effect punitive action would have better served the aviation industry had they been toilet bowl abortions.

Via ICAO Annex 6, 3.3.2 “An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation”. ICAO Document 9859 provides SMS guidance.

An EASA AOC requires adherence to:
“AMC 1 ORO.GEN.200 (a)(3) Management system - COMPLEX OPERATORS - SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT
(a) Hazard identification processes
(1) Reactive and proactive schemes for hazard identification should be the formal means of collecting, recording, analyzing, acting on and generating feedback about hazards and the associated risks that affect the safety of the operational activities of the operator”.

A report to management concerning a training department that produces pilots “ill equipped to fly the line” certainly qualifies.

ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 8 requires states to implement national laws to protect persons reporting safety information from punitive action. Furthermore, EU 376/2014 states:

"(42) Employees and contracted personnel should have the opportunity to report breaches of the principles delimiting their protection as established by this regulation, and should not be penalized for so doing. Member States should define the consequences for those who infringe the principles of protection of the reporter and should adopt remedies or impose penalties as appropriate”.

There is another element to this unsavory dilemma; the employment relationship. Although included in paragraph 42 above,“Employees and contracted personnel”, the employment relationship determines the extent of the punitive action by an immoral airline and the options, or lack thereof, available to the victim. No doubt, in addition to perceived criticism of the training department, the preference for union representation would anger anti-union management and provoke a thug regime response - confirmation indeed of the urgent need for union representation.

Airlines circumventing a direct employment relationship and renting staff on temporary contracts from service provider agencies, such as Norwegian, may take punitive action and return crew(s) to their employer agency without notice, reason or recourse (DY7006). Consequently, punitive action as a result of reporting safety issues or a preference for union representation is difficult to prove. Employment Tribunals are only available between employee and employer.

Despite the abundant legislation protecting individuals, including the sham ‘just culture’ ethos, the European regulator seems to have adopted more of an Excepted Airlines and Special Arrangements approach in its oversight. A Freedom of Information request to your national regulatory authority will probably reveal little or no action whatsoever against airlines/managers for punitive action against those reporting safety concerns.

Collate and retain all communications to support your claim, including the frequency of line checks given to colleagues. Ask them to reveal any SOP observations. A formal report to the Safety Manager detailing your concerns is the correct protocol. Your report must be recorded and retained as part of the SMS, available for audit and reference in any legal action. Hopefully, a professional response will be forthcoming.