Something… illegal?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something… illegal?
I was recently made aware that the simulator our ATO is currently using was only certified for Multi Engine training purposes until few weeks ago. The school never bothered to register/certify it for single engine training. The problem is before I joined this company, they have trained loads of students for single engine and SE IR in the same simulator where the students logged those hours for their licensing purposes.
I am just wondering the consequences of this for the ATO, Students and the FIs who provided the training.
I am just wondering the consequences of this for the ATO, Students and the FIs who provided the training.
A large proportion of students do not complete the hours and elements of a course in the minimum hours prescribed. Any time spent in addition can be undertaken on a rocking horse if they choose.
I doubt that the CAA licensing dept. check this although they will claim that they do. You say that the simulator is now approved for single engine training. There will be little benefit for anyone to dig holes in the past. I doubt anything will happen other than a letter of reprimand. Think more about who will benefit from a more serious action.
I doubt that the CAA licensing dept. check this although they will claim that they do. You say that the simulator is now approved for single engine training. There will be little benefit for anyone to dig holes in the past. I doubt anything will happen other than a letter of reprimand. Think more about who will benefit from a more serious action.
As mentioned, you'd be hard pressed to find a student who completed all the regulatory sub-hours within the minimum total time to hold a license or rating. I agree that, more than likely, the regulator will see that it is not in the public interest to interrogate the company beyond a financial penalty of some form. As for the instructors, you're supposed to know the limits of the device that you are instructing on. In a simulator, that includes any training restrictions. More than likely though, they too will get a slap on the wrist (if they hear anything at all). Just a simple: do your job and check the device validity. And the students, they'll likely not hear anything at all. With that said, I believe it is the responsibility of every student to take their education in their own hands, and that includes knowing if the airplanes and devices you're training on meet the requirements for the license or rating you're going after.
However, you asked where it could go, here it goes:
Now, before you consider any of the above hyperbole or exaggerated, the exact scenario I describe happened at a previous company of mine over a single missing grade during an audit of an instructors training record during a routine, run-of-the mill audit that suddenly went mental. We had something like 20 pilots grounded, all of whom required retraining. Although the company ended up winning the argument against the regulator months later, the damage was done and the money spent. And what did the regulatory inspector get from all this grief? A promotion. So if all of that happens from a missing grade, imagine where they could go for a non-certified device?
However, you asked where it could go, here it goes:
- First, you need an auditor or inspector looking for a promotion. Someone who wants to show that they "have what it takes." Most anyone else will work with the company, not against it.
- Second, they'll look at all the current students and will rescind any hours from that device, setting them back a few hours.
- Third, they'll look at past students. They'll do this because if a current student was affected, probability says to too were past students. They'll start with a small subset until they find another individual who, because of the lack of simulator approval, did not have the legal requirements met to hold their license. If they're really nasty, they'll pull that person back in to complete the required training and recomplete the flight test(s).
- Eventually in their audit, they'll find an instructor who was a student whose training experience in the simulator does not permit them to hold their license(s). They'll target that person and, if being nasty still, will invalidate all training that person ever delivered. Why? Because if they weren't legal to teach, then any instruction they gave is invalid. So, all their students are affected. God help you if that student became an instructor themselves, as all their students are now affected too.
Now, before you consider any of the above hyperbole or exaggerated, the exact scenario I describe happened at a previous company of mine over a single missing grade during an audit of an instructors training record during a routine, run-of-the mill audit that suddenly went mental. We had something like 20 pilots grounded, all of whom required retraining. Although the company ended up winning the argument against the regulator months later, the damage was done and the money spent. And what did the regulatory inspector get from all this grief? A promotion. So if all of that happens from a missing grade, imagine where they could go for a non-certified device?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned, you'd be hard pressed to find a student who completed all the regulatory sub-hours within the minimum total time to hold a license or rating. I agree that, more than likely, the regulator will see that it is not in the public interest to interrogate the company beyond a financial penalty of some form. As for the instructors, you're supposed to know the limits of the device that you are instructing on. In a simulator, that includes any training restrictions. More than likely though, they too will get a slap on the wrist (if they hear anything at all). Just a simple: do your job and check the device validity. And the students, they'll likely not hear anything at all. With that said, I believe it is the responsibility of every student to take their education in their own hands, and that includes knowing if the airplanes and devices you're training on meet the requirements for the license or rating you're going after.
However, you asked where it could go, here it goes:
Now, before you consider any of the above hyperbole or exaggerated, the exact scenario I describe happened at a previous company of mine over a single missing grade during an audit of an instructors training record during a routine, run-of-the mill audit that suddenly went mental. We had something like 20 pilots grounded, all of whom required retraining. Although the company ended up winning the argument against the regulator months later, the damage was done and the money spent. And what did the regulatory inspector get from all this grief? A promotion. So if all of that happens from a missing grade, imagine where they could go for a non-certified device?
However, you asked where it could go, here it goes:
- First, you need an auditor or inspector looking for a promotion. Someone who wants to show that they "have what it takes." Most anyone else will work with the company, not against it.
- Second, they'll look at all the current students and will rescind any hours from that device, setting them back a few hours.
- Third, they'll look at past students. They'll do this because if a current student was affected, probability says to too were past students. They'll start with a small subset until they find another individual who, because of the lack of simulator approval, did not have the legal requirements met to hold their license. If they're really nasty, they'll pull that person back in to complete the required training and recomplete the flight test(s).
- Eventually in their audit, they'll find an instructor who was a student whose training experience in the simulator does not permit them to hold their license(s). They'll target that person and, if being nasty still, will invalidate all training that person ever delivered. Why? Because if they weren't legal to teach, then any instruction they gave is invalid. So, all their students are affected. God help you if that student became an instructor themselves, as all their students are now affected too.
Now, before you consider any of the above hyperbole or exaggerated, the exact scenario I describe happened at a previous company of mine over a single missing grade during an audit of an instructors training record during a routine, run-of-the mill audit that suddenly went mental. We had something like 20 pilots grounded, all of whom required retraining. Although the company ended up winning the argument against the regulator months later, the damage was done and the money spent. And what did the regulatory inspector get from all this grief? A promotion. So if all of that happens from a missing grade, imagine where they could go for a non-certified device?
Before you go guns blazing, stop and take stock. Consider what rudestuff suggested, albeit not directly. Are there any regulations or standards that you are not aware of that the company may be using to remain legal? When first starting out as an instructor or line pilot, it can seem as though the company is cutting corners, when in fact the company is quite legal and responsible, they just failed to share the lets and AMOCs (Alternate Means of Compliance) with you. Case in point, I once had a student at my first company who refused to believe me when I was relating that we could fly below the VFR minima and not be IFR. He still did not believe me when I showed him the Special VFR authorization from the regulator. He told me the company was acting in an unsafe manner and would eventually kill someone. Although he didn't go to the regulator over the perceived safety violation, he did end up finding his flying was removed when Captains continually asked not to fly with him. They were sick of listening to his interpretation of the rules, which were clearly wrong. Once he came to realize he would never fly again, he went back, read all the documentation and realized his mistake. He recognized that what seemed to be a safety violation was actually an authorization permitting the company to do something different to meet the operational need of our company, as long as we followed more stringent rules. He did not believe me in the beginning because of a preconceived notion that he couldn't get passed that, such that he couldn't or wouldn't see the evidence in front of him. It was a lesson well learned for both me and him on how to approach that material.
I digress, if you want to succeed in aviation, never jump the chain of command until you are pressed to do so. If you suspect the company is operating in an unsafe manner, talk to them. They may simply have failed to share some key information with you during your onboarding process. It happens. However, if you have proof the company is operating in an unsafe or illegal manner, still take it to them first. That's the whole point of a safety management system, which may or may not have reached your ATO yet. It could be nothing more than a simple misunderstanding of the rules, or a difference in interpretation. That happens quite often. Although common in days' past, wilful non-compliance gets rooted out quickly nowadays. If it is a good company, they'll thank you for pointing out the oversight or will happily explain the 'why' behind things. In another case I dealt with nearing 20 years ago now, the answer to the pilots question required going through seven different regulations and standards to prove our interpretation, which the regulator agreed with. But reading just one of those regs made is seemed we were in deep trouble. So give the company a chance to explain or fix the issues you see.
But if you've done that a few times and nothing is coming to pass; nothing is fixed and you have proven to yourself that it is indeed a safety violation, that's when go to the regulator. But you should only do that if you've already gone through chain of command: the chief instructor, the president, the owner (or whatever the chain looks like in your company; they could be one in the same). Just know that your boss(es) will have some say in how you'll be perceived at the end of that. I don't say that to scare or intimidate, or attempt to persuade you not to go to the regulator. Going higher up the chain is needed sometimes to improve an organization. But very rarely do whistleblowers come out unscathed, especially if their first and only stop was present position direct the regulator.
I digress, if you want to succeed in aviation, never jump the chain of command until you are pressed to do so. If you suspect the company is operating in an unsafe manner, talk to them. They may simply have failed to share some key information with you during your onboarding process. It happens. However, if you have proof the company is operating in an unsafe or illegal manner, still take it to them first. That's the whole point of a safety management system, which may or may not have reached your ATO yet. It could be nothing more than a simple misunderstanding of the rules, or a difference in interpretation. That happens quite often. Although common in days' past, wilful non-compliance gets rooted out quickly nowadays. If it is a good company, they'll thank you for pointing out the oversight or will happily explain the 'why' behind things. In another case I dealt with nearing 20 years ago now, the answer to the pilots question required going through seven different regulations and standards to prove our interpretation, which the regulator agreed with. But reading just one of those regs made is seemed we were in deep trouble. So give the company a chance to explain or fix the issues you see.
But if you've done that a few times and nothing is coming to pass; nothing is fixed and you have proven to yourself that it is indeed a safety violation, that's when go to the regulator. But you should only do that if you've already gone through chain of command: the chief instructor, the president, the owner (or whatever the chain looks like in your company; they could be one in the same). Just know that your boss(es) will have some say in how you'll be perceived at the end of that. I don't say that to scare or intimidate, or attempt to persuade you not to go to the regulator. Going higher up the chain is needed sometimes to improve an organization. But very rarely do whistleblowers come out unscathed, especially if their first and only stop was present position direct the regulator.
