Why do positions like Chief Pilot, HOFO, HOTAC etc exist?
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.
You need to understand how the regs and operating procedures came about in the first place. They are developed as a consequence of aviation itself, all the way back to the very beginning, they evolve with technology. Only those exposed to the risks can see the need to implement or change those procedures.
An interesting point.
The change/revolution/bs beginning can probably be sourced back to the late 80s early 90s where there was an explosion of aviation degrees…..the must haves to begin your career in some minds.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.
Aviation isn’t the only one. Have you considered how many expert epidemiologists have been pulled out of the woodwork in the last two years and placed on (insert whichever broadcaster) to advise of your subsequent demise. LinkedIn will share a wealth of knowledge and lack of practical experience for many of them, however they are professors and what they so, goes. Just ask them.
sadly, from the biggest airline in the country right down to the smallest operator, many are afflicted by which piece of paper do you have to gain the job and therefore build the empire. Most add very little except angst amongst the pilot fraternity but one thing uni did teach was how to protect oneself in organisations. Regulators love all of it.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.
Aviation isn’t the only one. Have you considered how many expert epidemiologists have been pulled out of the woodwork in the last two years and placed on (insert whichever broadcaster) to advise of your subsequent demise. LinkedIn will share a wealth of knowledge and lack of practical experience for many of them, however they are professors and what they so, goes. Just ask them.
sadly, from the biggest airline in the country right down to the smallest operator, many are afflicted by which piece of paper do you have to gain the job and therefore build the empire. Most add very little except angst amongst the pilot fraternity but one thing uni did teach was how to protect oneself in organisations. Regulators love all of it.
The change/revolution/bs beginning can probably be sourced back to the late 80s early 90s where there was an explosion of aviation degrees…..the must haves to begin your career in some minds.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.
For all the debate about the necessity or otherwise of specific roles, all that CASA is really saying is that if you want us to give you an AOC, to allow you to take money from Joe and Joanne Six-pack in return for some sort of commercial flying, your organisation needs to have given due consideration to three functions; flying operations, training and checking, and safety. Someone needs to head up each of those functions; the same person can head up ops and training but safety needs to be a different person.
…which makes a nonsense of the argument that the Chief Pilot is some kind of bastion between the commercial imperatives of ‘the boss’ and the poor benighted ‘ordinary’ pilots.
That's certainly what I've been thinking as this discussion has unfolded. Practically, it likely varies from one outfit to another, but from the regulator's perspective the only "bastion" that needs to have separate representation is that of Safety.
Safety at a price
I either want you or I don't
You either want to work for me or you don't
It hasn't really changed in the last 40 years then.
… as if ‘safety’ is separate from ‘flying operations’ and ‘training and checking’.
Thread Starter
The road transport industry evolved just like it's air and sea counterparts. Despite all that accumulated experience and growth in knowledge, the regulator of the part that is concerned with fare paying public was superseded with a smart phone APP. Why should the aviation industry be any different?
Despite all that accumulated experience and growth in knowledge, the regulator of the part that is concerned with fare paying public was superseded with a smart phone APP. Why should the aviation industry be any different?
However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.
https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/requirements/
I can’t see many of those requirements in the link you provided.
Strangely in our federation it varies from state to state. Rolls eyes.
https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/perth/get-started/
https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/perth/get-started/
How did it come about, from memory it all began in the early 90's when it became accepted that company pilots would no longer fly different (cross) types. As new types were brought online, created the need for a type specialist. (a pilot that already has experience in the type and knows what their doing) these created the position of fleet manager. as a consequence of that we now have essentially two very different training departments within the same company. The head of check and training was created in order to keep the companies training organisation as much as possible the same. The chief pilot in name only has varied over the years, manager flight standards, manager flight operations and most companies have more than one approved chief pilot in the event he needs to be replaced at short notice. The CEO and CFO is a companies requirement. I don't know what a HOO is or does. Anybody?
To my mind, these positions have always existed. HOFO used to be called Chief Pilot, yet different companies call them by different names but they are nevertheless, the person approved by CASA to be in charge of Flight Operations. There needs to be accountability somewhere. As for HOTC, it is roughly analogous to the manager of the training department. HOTC exists because it needs (like the other positions) to have certain mandatory qualifications and experience. I have come across at least one organisation way back (last 10 years or so) where the HOTC equivalent was a complete muppet with zero idea of what the purpose of T&C was and suitably minuscule knowledge to go with it - imposing the requirement for the position and minimum standards to be considered is simply an attempt to address that sort of scenario.
Only to a point. It was certainly an interesting spectacle to see; a multinational disruptor (the regulated) telling state transport authorities (the regulator) how it was going to operate. For the most part they got their own way.
However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.
https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/requirements/
However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.
https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/requirements/
You could ask why cars don't require multiple back up systems and a Minimum Equipment List and DDG, again, the answer is obvious. The same reason a bicycle doesn't require traction control.
There's nothing preventing the CEO from also being the Chief Pilot (Head of Flying Operations) so long as they are suitably qualified. The roles of CEO, HoFO and Head of Training and Checking can all be held by the same person so long as that person is suitably qualified. The only "regulatory" role that needs to be held by someone other than the CEO is that of Safety Manager. At least that's my understanding of the regs.
For all the debate about the necessity or otherwise of specific roles, all that CASA is really saying is that if you want us to give you an AOC, to allow you to take money from Joe and Joanne Six-pack in return for some sort of commercial flying, your organisation needs to have given due consideration to three functions; flying operations, training and checking, and safety. Someone needs to head up each of those functions; the same person can head up ops and training but safety needs to be a different person.
For all the debate about the necessity or otherwise of specific roles, all that CASA is really saying is that if you want us to give you an AOC, to allow you to take money from Joe and Joanne Six-pack in return for some sort of commercial flying, your organisation needs to have given due consideration to three functions; flying operations, training and checking, and safety. Someone needs to head up each of those functions; the same person can head up ops and training but safety needs to be a different person.
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.
Totally with you on HR (Human Remains), have worked for organizations where the HR department spent its time dictating about being nice to people and not 'offending' them. Ramming down our throats all sort of nonsense about virtually (I'm using an extreme and made up example here to illustrate the point) suggesting the sack would be your reward if you told someone to 'get the f-ck out of the way' when a roof beam was about to fall on their head because you shouldn't have 'yelled' at them - funny how it seems to me that the concept of yelling is virtually applied these days to the act of whispering disagreement - yet when someone tries to use the system and manipulate it to get out of work and doing their job by accusing a fellow employee or supervisor of 'bullying', the supervisor has to endure weeks or months of stress and concern over their job while these latte sipping, half-witted morons with about as much substance as ectoplasm, completely ignore their own rules by showing no regard for the accused 'feelings' and leave them hanging while they take literally MONTHS to investigate.
Any success I've had in recruiting has NOT been based on so-called 'targetted selection' but on can this person do the job, are they level-headed enough to take a step back and think and will they deal as professionally as possible with people in the workplace then act accordingly. Not whether they solved a problem in their football team or some nonsense, most of which is rehearsed and made up. I've seen plenty of people that interviewed slickly and got jobs that turned out to be as useless as a mud fence when the obvious candidate might not have been as polished but the ability was there.
Is it just me or have we lost sight of reality and what the purpose of someone working in a particular job is meant to achieve and instead concentrating on their 'scorecard' of correct/wanted answers??
I promoted someone many years ago and others said the person was abrasive and rude. I had observed them prior and said 'no, they are just focused on getting the job done'. There was much wailing and hand-wringing until the person actually started doing the job and did it more effectively than anyone else. In comes the chorus of hand-wringers and human remains people saying what a wonderful choice the person was and how they were right behind their appointment.
Don't agree with you about safety, although I have come across some truly idiotic people who saw their safety job as an end in itself rather than a conduit for getting problems addressed.
Totally with you on HR (Human Remains), have worked for organizations where the HR department spent its time dictating about being nice to people and not 'offending' them. Ramming down our throats all sort of nonsense about virtually (I'm using an extreme and made up example here to illustrate the point) suggesting the sack would be your reward if you told someone to 'get the f-ck out of the way' when a roof beam was about to fall on their head because you shouldn't have 'yelled' at them - funny how it seems to me that the concept of yelling is virtually applied these days to the act of whispering disagreement - yet when someone tries to use the system and manipulate it to get out of work and doing their job by accusing a fellow employee or supervisor of 'bullying', the supervisor has to endure weeks or months of stress and concern over their job while these latte sipping, half-witted morons with about as much substance as ectoplasm, completely ignore their own rules by showing no regard for the accused 'feelings' and leave them hanging while they take literally MONTHS to investigate.
Any success I've had in recruiting has NOT been based on so-called 'targetted selection' but on can this person do the job, are they level-headed enough to take a step back and think and will they deal as professionally as possible with people in the workplace then act accordingly. Not whether they solved a problem in their football team or some nonsense, most of which is rehearsed and made up. I've seen plenty of people that interviewed slickly and got jobs that turned out to be as useless as a mud fence when the obvious candidate might not have been as polished but the ability was there.
Is it just me or have we lost sight of reality and what the purpose of someone working in a particular job is meant to achieve and instead concentrating on their 'scorecard' of correct/wanted answers??
I promoted someone many years ago and others said the person was abrasive and rude. I had observed them prior and said 'no, they are just focused on getting the job done'. There was much wailing and hand-wringing until the person actually started doing the job and did it more effectively than anyone else. In comes the chorus of hand-wringers and human remains people saying what a wonderful choice the person was and how they were right behind their appointment.
Totally with you on HR (Human Remains), have worked for organizations where the HR department spent its time dictating about being nice to people and not 'offending' them. Ramming down our throats all sort of nonsense about virtually (I'm using an extreme and made up example here to illustrate the point) suggesting the sack would be your reward if you told someone to 'get the f-ck out of the way' when a roof beam was about to fall on their head because you shouldn't have 'yelled' at them - funny how it seems to me that the concept of yelling is virtually applied these days to the act of whispering disagreement - yet when someone tries to use the system and manipulate it to get out of work and doing their job by accusing a fellow employee or supervisor of 'bullying', the supervisor has to endure weeks or months of stress and concern over their job while these latte sipping, half-witted morons with about as much substance as ectoplasm, completely ignore their own rules by showing no regard for the accused 'feelings' and leave them hanging while they take literally MONTHS to investigate.
Any success I've had in recruiting has NOT been based on so-called 'targetted selection' but on can this person do the job, are they level-headed enough to take a step back and think and will they deal as professionally as possible with people in the workplace then act accordingly. Not whether they solved a problem in their football team or some nonsense, most of which is rehearsed and made up. I've seen plenty of people that interviewed slickly and got jobs that turned out to be as useless as a mud fence when the obvious candidate might not have been as polished but the ability was there.
Is it just me or have we lost sight of reality and what the purpose of someone working in a particular job is meant to achieve and instead concentrating on their 'scorecard' of correct/wanted answers??
I promoted someone many years ago and others said the person was abrasive and rude. I had observed them prior and said 'no, they are just focused on getting the job done'. There was much wailing and hand-wringing until the person actually started doing the job and did it more effectively than anyone else. In comes the chorus of hand-wringers and human remains people saying what a wonderful choice the person was and how they were right behind their appointment.