Why do positions like Chief Pilot, HOFO, HOTAC etc exist?
”Human Resources” is a horrible title, IMNVHO, because it represents a management viewpoint that places human beings alongside finance, material, etc, as mere inputs to the organisation. “Personnel” was a better title. But whatever you call it, you do need a specialist who understands employment law, how to deal with pregnancies, harassment, bullying, redundancy, if necessary firing people, and so on, while navigating the intricacies and pitfalls of modern employment law, which can get you in deep sh*t if not carefully handled.
HR: "Tell me about a time when you used your superior problem-solving skills to avoid having to use your superior flying skill."
Me: "I stayed in bed."
Me: "I stayed in bed."
I've only been in the industry for 3 decades but in my time there has always been a chief pilot (now usually called a HOFO) and a head of training. Now if you want to talk useless, oxygen thieving leeches, let's talk HR and safety departments, these 2 were definitely not around back in the day and have grown like cancer.
Thread Starter
Do the regulators of road, rail & marine transport industries mandate the respective companies have positions similar to that required by the aviation authority.
Thread Starter
Do Accountable Managers have a genuine purpose or is it essentially a feel good title for an operations manual? What are they accountable for?
Last edited by Mr Proach; 13th Jan 2022 at 21:03.
Thread Starter
If an operator has no Chief Pilot approved by CASA the operator cannot lawfully conduct flying operations. A threat by CASA to cancel a Chief Pilot approval, or to delay the approval of an operator’s nominee, gets the operator’s ‘attention’.
Thread Starter
LB noted. However in my view I do not consider any of these positions are necessary to establish a functional air transport operation. I think you could start an operation and providing the aircrew, engineering and managers abide by the rules (which are very very extensive) then the operation will be compliant and safe. These "titled" positions don't contribute to the functionality of an operation, their main role is to generate and submit paperwork for the regulator who in turns reviews it to see that it is line with their guidelines. What does that achieve? The industry has been conditioned to think these positions are essential, they're not. That is evident by the your mention of CASA & lawful, there is the conditioning. Delete the law that stipulates an operation must have a chief pilot and the engines won't run, the wings won't produce lift, the crew will defy ATC instructions? The whole structure needs to be reviewed.
LB noted. However in my view I do not consider any of these positions are necessary to establish a functional air transport operation. I think you could start an operation and providing the aircrew, engineering and managers abide by the rules (which are very very extensive) then the operation will be compliant and safe. These "titled" positions don't contribute to the functionality of an operation, their main role is to generate and submit paperwork for the regulator who in turns reviews it to see that it is line with their guidelines. What does that achieve? The industry has been conditioned to think these positions are essential, they're not. That is evident by the your mention of CASA & lawful, there is the conditioning. Delete the law that stipulates an operation must have a chief pilot and the engines won't run, the wings won't produce lift, the crew will defy ATC instructions? The whole structure needs to be reviewed.
If an air operator didn’t have a Chief Pilot, the other pilots would descend into unsafe anarchy. It’s what pilots do. (In other words, I agree with you.)
Thread Starter
I concur with your point however, isn't the requirement for operational policies, standardisation etc covered under the regulations? The natural consequence would be to have such a person. An accountant developing SOP's would be an interesting scenario especially MCPs. Interesting that you mention BCs, despite all the regulations and titled positions their influence is growing in many sections of the industry and from what I have seen........ no thank-you.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots aren’t the problem. It’s the boss that loses coin when the pilot says the plane’s broken or the weather’s crap - it ain’t going. It’s the boss that says fly it or join the dole queue.
It’s CASA that provides a legal framework to attempt to avoid this - by making one person, other than the pilot, accountable.
I am bewildered that anyone who has flown commercial GA has a problem with this.
And you think there’s no existing law prohibiting the boss from ‘ordering’ that?
What’s preventing the operator from giving the ‘order’ to the Chief Pilot?
What’s preventing the operator from giving the ‘order’ to the Chief Pilot?