Why should I vote for the FDMP agreement?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should I vote for the FDMP agreement?
Why should I vote for the FDMP agreement, when it appears that they use the information from it to discipline pilots (i.e. Nagoya 777 incident).
Similar programs such as the ASAP program in the States (8000.82 Designation of Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Information as Protected from Public Disclosure Under 14 CFR Part 193) realize that it has to be anonymous and no jeopardy in order to make it effective.
Until then, why would I ever participate in this program to put myself and my crew under the spotlight and risk demotion and/or termination?
Similar programs such as the ASAP program in the States (8000.82 Designation of Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Information as Protected from Public Disclosure Under 14 CFR Part 193) realize that it has to be anonymous and no jeopardy in order to make it effective.
Until then, why would I ever participate in this program to put myself and my crew under the spotlight and risk demotion and/or termination?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lion rock bottom
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not very good, but isn't it at least better than the one already in place?
What happens if the agreement is turned down? Back to the negotiation table or back to the good old invitation for tea with no biscuits after each incident?
What happens if the agreement is turned down? Back to the negotiation table or back to the good old invitation for tea with no biscuits after each incident?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, without AOA support, not sure if they can use FDAP, or at least "claim" insurance benefits from an FDAP program.
How about we work on getting no punitive action for honest mistakes instead of getting better protection? Voting for this agreement is kind of like putting on a sweater before turning the air conditioner off. You won't need more "protection" if the program is utilized as it was designed.
How much do you trust CX? If you vote yes, then you trust them lots. Lets turn this down and make a deal that actually does something to improve safety.
How about we work on getting no punitive action for honest mistakes instead of getting better protection? Voting for this agreement is kind of like putting on a sweater before turning the air conditioner off. You won't need more "protection" if the program is utilized as it was designed.
How much do you trust CX? If you vote yes, then you trust them lots. Lets turn this down and make a deal that actually does something to improve safety.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens if the agreement is turned down? Back to the negotiation table or back to the good old invitation for tea with no biscuits after each incident?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC58, how does this new agreement offer crew better protection ?
Ex Cathedra, I cannot see how this agreement is an overall improvement on the existing one. Am I missing something here?
The fact that crew are identified and contacted if certain parameters are met is of concern as existing arrangements forbid such.
Previously the mantra of the FDAP agreements worldwide was that the anonymous reporting culture aided safety. How has this changed? Until these questions are answered then how can any of us vote yes to an agreement that has the potential to put our careers in jeopardy ?
Ex Cathedra, I cannot see how this agreement is an overall improvement on the existing one. Am I missing something here?
The fact that crew are identified and contacted if certain parameters are met is of concern as existing arrangements forbid such.
Previously the mantra of the FDAP agreements worldwide was that the anonymous reporting culture aided safety. How has this changed? Until these questions are answered then how can any of us vote yes to an agreement that has the potential to put our careers in jeopardy ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire wall
this is not correct as I understand it; even under the present agreement crews can be identified. With the present FDAP setup the head of the Corporate Safety department can and does contact the captain of a flight which triggers a FDAP with a safety risk and no ASR was filed. If the captain would not cooperate (like filling out an ASR which would identify the crew) and the flight was a significant safety risk this information (incl. the crew names) could be forwarded to the 3rd floor with the associated consequences. I believe this never happened, however with the new FDMP a specific procedure has to be followed in a case like this, which also involves the AOA, which benefits the crew.
At least thats my understanding, of course I could be wrong.
this is not correct as I understand it; even under the present agreement crews can be identified. With the present FDAP setup the head of the Corporate Safety department can and does contact the captain of a flight which triggers a FDAP with a safety risk and no ASR was filed. If the captain would not cooperate (like filling out an ASR which would identify the crew) and the flight was a significant safety risk this information (incl. the crew names) could be forwarded to the 3rd floor with the associated consequences. I believe this never happened, however with the new FDMP a specific procedure has to be followed in a case like this, which also involves the AOA, which benefits the crew.
At least thats my understanding, of course I could be wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT , thanks for the response.
You are quite correct re the contact under present arrangement,my apologies. It is true that head Corp safety can invite the crew to come and discuss event but crew can refuse. Am not sure re next step going to 3rd floor but I will find out. I am all for measures to increase safety, just can't see any protection for crew against abuse of protocols regardless of AOA involvement (know what I mean?). Would be happy to be proved otherwise.
You are quite correct re the contact under present arrangement,my apologies. It is true that head Corp safety can invite the crew to come and discuss event but crew can refuse. Am not sure re next step going to 3rd floor but I will find out. I am all for measures to increase safety, just can't see any protection for crew against abuse of protocols regardless of AOA involvement (know what I mean?). Would be happy to be proved otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Helping out on the 3rd floor
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm voting NO to this agreement until it is completely anonymous. This is ridiculous that they want us to put a spotlight on ourselves. Here is a direct quote with two points I have problems with:
Flight Data should be kept in house (#1), and (#2) how is this agreement better in that we are now required to submit a report and "thus turning the event into a reported event where anonymity is not possible." Great, where do I sign up!
Has anyone flown with the Captain of the Nagoya incident? Great guy, great Captain, and they mess up once. It can happen to anyone of us, and don't think that it'll never happen to you. All it takes is a split second and you can find yourself in a bad situation. Now he's demoted and the F/O nearly fired. How would you like to be in that situation? It could be anyone of us...
1. The Corporate Safety Department owns and administers all Flight Data recorded or derived from any Flight Data Recording Systems. This is in contrast to many other airlines where flight operations departments control flight data.
2. The FDMP is a component part of an overall Safety Management System operated by the airline through CSD. Cathay Pacific has a Just Safety Reporting and Investigation Policy as detailed in Vol 1. This FDMP agreement describes the treatment of data for unreported events captured by recorders in our aircraft. However, whereas the old FDAP agreement permitted you to decline to report, the new FDMP agreement means that you may be required to submit a report following an SFDE (Significant Flight Data Exceedance), thus turning the event into a reported event where anonymity is not possible.
2. The FDMP is a component part of an overall Safety Management System operated by the airline through CSD. Cathay Pacific has a Just Safety Reporting and Investigation Policy as detailed in Vol 1. This FDMP agreement describes the treatment of data for unreported events captured by recorders in our aircraft. However, whereas the old FDAP agreement permitted you to decline to report, the new FDMP agreement means that you may be required to submit a report following an SFDE (Significant Flight Data Exceedance), thus turning the event into a reported event where anonymity is not possible.
Has anyone flown with the Captain of the Nagoya incident? Great guy, great Captain, and they mess up once. It can happen to anyone of us, and don't think that it'll never happen to you. All it takes is a split second and you can find yourself in a bad situation. Now he's demoted and the F/O nearly fired. How would you like to be in that situation? It could be anyone of us...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post iFlylow, those are exactly the points which concerned me. I don't want CX to have the benefit of touting that they have a Union sponsored FDAP program. I want it to be known that if they do, they are one of a small list of airlines that use such a tool without the endorsement of the pilot group.
This is exactly my point of view. It is very easy to second-guess and scrutinize a crew's decision in the heat of battle while comfortably sitting in a desk which is moving at 0 mph and is firmly planted on the ground.
FDAP was created to find and fix mistakes and trends, not to hunt and kill. I can guarantee you CX's idea of safety management is punishment for those that fack-up. I just don't feel that we should support this philosophy by endorsing the current program.
Has anyone flown with the Captain of the Nagoya incident? Great guy, great Captain, and they mess up once. It can happen to anyone of us, and don't think that it'll never happen to you. All it takes is a split second and you can find yourself in a bad situation.
FDAP was created to find and fix mistakes and trends, not to hunt and kill. I can guarantee you CX's idea of safety management is punishment for those that fack-up. I just don't feel that we should support this philosophy by endorsing the current program.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: home
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have spoken to the CSD and their unofficial role now is primarily for the investigation of incidents, accidents and the new FDMP agreement. They will not be proactive in safety matters i.e. scheduling, engineering, etc. that will be the DFO’s concern.
With regard to ASR’s/MOR’s, they will be filed by The CSD. If a MOR is filed and a response is needed, the GMA will reply to the CAD and give the company’s version of what happened and the CAD will accept that response in almost 100% of the time.
The pilots job in not to submit ASR/MOR’s but only to make a note the commander’s administrative report. This will cut down on the secretarial services of our Corporate Safety Department so we ask all of you to do your part.
Over the last 10 years the DFO have reduced the CSD to a mere paper filing entity. The CSD does not and never will have the power to influence any FOP safety concerns. In the past the CSD have raised concerns to the DFO and the DFO has given the head of corporate safety the appropriate lip service and will remain with the status quo.
The DFO’s belief is over time, the pilots will tire of writing ASR’s/MOR’s and will see the futility in writing such documents.
Scheduling/Crew Control for example will have carte blanche in their interpretation of the AFTL’s and this will increase productivity, which we all know will increase my bonus.
It does not matter what kind of agreement we have with regard to FDMP past or present. We will do what we want, when we want. In actuality do you believe this statement: “working in a spirit of mutual cooperation towards improving flight safety.” “Mutual cooperation” will stop as soon as there is a significant incident occurs and we are in disagreement.
These agreements are binding in honor only.
This is what will actually happen:
The line pilots will identify the incident/exceedance and will de-identify it for the time being. If the head of corporate safety deems in necessary to interview the pilots (yes all pilots on board) he will call the pilots in for an interview and have an FOP Manager present. If in the end, this FOP Manager will give recommendations to other FOP Managers if the need for discipline arises. This recommendation will carry much weight with the D&G procedures.
The 3rd and 4th pilots will be interviewed, if boarded. If at any time we believe any pilot in not necessarily divulging all information, these pilots will be threatened will a discipline and grievance procedure. This means those pilots can have their command terminated, upgrades postponed due to lack of judgment or in severe cases, have their contract terminated.
A word of advice is to save oneself and to give all relevant information even if it will shatter the other pilots. YOUR job will depend on it. In most cases it will be the captain that will go but remember everyone will move up the list.
In the end, it is our aircraft and we will do whatever possible to ensure it and our passengers remain safe. If we cast out a couple of pilots in doing so, it is just another factor in keeping control of our employee group.
We will be starting a file on commanders to see if certain names keep popping up and if they do, that commander may have a D&G procedure brought against them for lack of judgment and we may lose confidence in that commander.
With regard to pay, how is your 13th month?
We have received a copy of the AOA’s newsletter from some AOA members and we don’t like to see statements like this from the AOA being made public about our Managers. Comments like this will show the Director of Flight Operations and Chief Executive Officer being hypocritical especially about pay:
We will notify the AOA to have this stopped immediately. We don't need our package being made public.
Our Managers make more important decisions, than mere pilots, that affect our bottom line and they are paid accordingly. The amount of the DFO’s package in the last 10 years is minuscule to the amount we saved by not giving pilots pay rises.
What will the pilot group do; go on strike, have a sick out, stop smiling, not wear a tie (latest NTC has taken care of that), etc. You will NEVER see another pay rise in The CPG. We will continue to chip away at your contracts by offering lower conditions to pilots whether extending or new joiners. We will be offering COS 2010 later in the year.
To My Bonus
The Management
With regard to ASR’s/MOR’s, they will be filed by The CSD. If a MOR is filed and a response is needed, the GMA will reply to the CAD and give the company’s version of what happened and the CAD will accept that response in almost 100% of the time.
The pilots job in not to submit ASR/MOR’s but only to make a note the commander’s administrative report. This will cut down on the secretarial services of our Corporate Safety Department so we ask all of you to do your part.
Over the last 10 years the DFO have reduced the CSD to a mere paper filing entity. The CSD does not and never will have the power to influence any FOP safety concerns. In the past the CSD have raised concerns to the DFO and the DFO has given the head of corporate safety the appropriate lip service and will remain with the status quo.
The DFO’s belief is over time, the pilots will tire of writing ASR’s/MOR’s and will see the futility in writing such documents.
Scheduling/Crew Control for example will have carte blanche in their interpretation of the AFTL’s and this will increase productivity, which we all know will increase my bonus.
It does not matter what kind of agreement we have with regard to FDMP past or present. We will do what we want, when we want. In actuality do you believe this statement: “working in a spirit of mutual cooperation towards improving flight safety.” “Mutual cooperation” will stop as soon as there is a significant incident occurs and we are in disagreement.
These agreements are binding in honor only.
This is what will actually happen:
The line pilots will identify the incident/exceedance and will de-identify it for the time being. If the head of corporate safety deems in necessary to interview the pilots (yes all pilots on board) he will call the pilots in for an interview and have an FOP Manager present. If in the end, this FOP Manager will give recommendations to other FOP Managers if the need for discipline arises. This recommendation will carry much weight with the D&G procedures.
The 3rd and 4th pilots will be interviewed, if boarded. If at any time we believe any pilot in not necessarily divulging all information, these pilots will be threatened will a discipline and grievance procedure. This means those pilots can have their command terminated, upgrades postponed due to lack of judgment or in severe cases, have their contract terminated.
A word of advice is to save oneself and to give all relevant information even if it will shatter the other pilots. YOUR job will depend on it. In most cases it will be the captain that will go but remember everyone will move up the list.
In the end, it is our aircraft and we will do whatever possible to ensure it and our passengers remain safe. If we cast out a couple of pilots in doing so, it is just another factor in keeping control of our employee group.
We will be starting a file on commanders to see if certain names keep popping up and if they do, that commander may have a D&G procedure brought against them for lack of judgment and we may lose confidence in that commander.
With regard to pay, how is your 13th month?
We have received a copy of the AOA’s newsletter from some AOA members and we don’t like to see statements like this from the AOA being made public about our Managers. Comments like this will show the Director of Flight Operations and Chief Executive Officer being hypocritical especially about pay:
“However, the salary review for the pilot community is carried out in July, rather than at the end of the year. We have made a point of highlighting this matter to both Messrs Rhodes and Tyler and will be pushing for a full review to be carried out at the correct time, in light of the economic conditions extant at the time. For a matter of comparison however, we provide the following:
It should be noted that over the last 9 years, the pilot community has had a single pay rise, amounting to little more than 5% for a few. Most have received less than this and a significant number have received nothing at all.
Compare this to just the 2004 to 2008 period for Mr Rhodes. Over this period Mr Rhodes has seen his salary (Basic + BONUS) increase from HK$2,139,000.00 to HK$3,359,000.00. That is 57%. When you look at his "overall" package, which he, himself, so likes to quote about the Pilot community, we see the change being from HK$4,838,000.00 to HK$7,847,000.00 a whopping 62%.
Also of note is that both Mr Rhodes and Mr Tyler have gone on record as stating that they regard our incremental pay scale as pay rises ‐ a point we strenuously dispute. The incremental pay scale is both a method of retaining the loyalty of staff, and of reducing the pay offered to new joiners ‐ the "carrot" being the future increments expected. Indeed, Mr Tyler himself seems unable to follow his own logic; he made a comparison (in a management briefing) with BA pilots, who received no pay rise this year. They did, however, receive their increments. So which is it, Mr Tyler? Are increments pay rises or not ‐ you can't have it both ways.”
It should be noted that over the last 9 years, the pilot community has had a single pay rise, amounting to little more than 5% for a few. Most have received less than this and a significant number have received nothing at all.
Compare this to just the 2004 to 2008 period for Mr Rhodes. Over this period Mr Rhodes has seen his salary (Basic + BONUS) increase from HK$2,139,000.00 to HK$3,359,000.00. That is 57%. When you look at his "overall" package, which he, himself, so likes to quote about the Pilot community, we see the change being from HK$4,838,000.00 to HK$7,847,000.00 a whopping 62%.
Also of note is that both Mr Rhodes and Mr Tyler have gone on record as stating that they regard our incremental pay scale as pay rises ‐ a point we strenuously dispute. The incremental pay scale is both a method of retaining the loyalty of staff, and of reducing the pay offered to new joiners ‐ the "carrot" being the future increments expected. Indeed, Mr Tyler himself seems unable to follow his own logic; he made a comparison (in a management briefing) with BA pilots, who received no pay rise this year. They did, however, receive their increments. So which is it, Mr Tyler? Are increments pay rises or not ‐ you can't have it both ways.”
Our Managers make more important decisions, than mere pilots, that affect our bottom line and they are paid accordingly. The amount of the DFO’s package in the last 10 years is minuscule to the amount we saved by not giving pilots pay rises.
What will the pilot group do; go on strike, have a sick out, stop smiling, not wear a tie (latest NTC has taken care of that), etc. You will NEVER see another pay rise in The CPG. We will continue to chip away at your contracts by offering lower conditions to pilots whether extending or new joiners. We will be offering COS 2010 later in the year.
To My Bonus
The Management
Last edited by The Management; 13th Jan 2010 at 23:14.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Seat
Yea just hammer at you til you confess/
We have a CYA culture and nothing more. If you have an incident, even if it is something like a depress and you divert. You will be scrutinized to the finest detail as to whether or not you made any mistakes. The process is not meant to gain info so that we can all learn from the incident, it is designed to hang the mistakes on anyone besides the co.
You will be asked to go in front of CSD and FOP with no representation and divulge info that they may or may not use to demote or fire you.
At the very least you should be allowed council or AOA rep with you to monitor the direction and the details of the inquiry.
I will vote no in an effort to bring this agreement fully into the light of day in the hopes that we can add some protections to the agreement.
Cheers
We have a CYA culture and nothing more. If you have an incident, even if it is something like a depress and you divert. You will be scrutinized to the finest detail as to whether or not you made any mistakes. The process is not meant to gain info so that we can all learn from the incident, it is designed to hang the mistakes on anyone besides the co.
You will be asked to go in front of CSD and FOP with no representation and divulge info that they may or may not use to demote or fire you.
At the very least you should be allowed council or AOA rep with you to monitor the direction and the details of the inquiry.
I will vote no in an effort to bring this agreement fully into the light of day in the hopes that we can add some protections to the agreement.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Five Green
you are missing the point. As per HKCAD ANO and VOL 1 any serious incident or accident has to be reported by the captain/crew. If you have an incident compromising safety (e.g. a depressurization or the Nagoya incident) you have to fill out an ASR and the FDMP will not apply.
you are missing the point. As per HKCAD ANO and VOL 1 any serious incident or accident has to be reported by the captain/crew. If you have an incident compromising safety (e.g. a depressurization or the Nagoya incident) you have to fill out an ASR and the FDMP will not apply.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification
GTC58:
Yes my apologies you are abseolutely correct. The FDMP is one part of the reporting culture here.
I for one do not see how you can seperate the two avenues of reporting.
The Nagoya incident (or so I have been told) would not have even triggered FDAP alarms. Please correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case then they voluntarily came forward and were subsequently disciplined. I am in no way defending the actions of the crew on the day, but I am also not prepared to condem them either. CSD and FOP did use monitered flight data to convict the crew in question. So I think that the FDMP should include any investigation that uses flight data whether FDAP triggered or not.
Since the FDMP is the only document that discusses the procedure for an investigation initiated by FDAP, it could be expanded to include volunteered information as well. That or alternatively drafted in a similar document dealing with any FOP related investigation.
THe current proposal does not go far enough. Having a rep from FOP on hand during the CSD interview is problematic. The CSD interviewer may be less likely to ask a question that puts FOP in a bad light. It would be a lot better to have an impartial representative who will make sure the flight crew's rights are protected. Until we have better protection during an investigation, regardless of how that investigation was initiated, I think that we should make a stand and vote no on the one issue we can : FDMP
Hope that clears up where I am coming from.
Cheers
Yes my apologies you are abseolutely correct. The FDMP is one part of the reporting culture here.
I for one do not see how you can seperate the two avenues of reporting.
The Nagoya incident (or so I have been told) would not have even triggered FDAP alarms. Please correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case then they voluntarily came forward and were subsequently disciplined. I am in no way defending the actions of the crew on the day, but I am also not prepared to condem them either. CSD and FOP did use monitered flight data to convict the crew in question. So I think that the FDMP should include any investigation that uses flight data whether FDAP triggered or not.
Since the FDMP is the only document that discusses the procedure for an investigation initiated by FDAP, it could be expanded to include volunteered information as well. That or alternatively drafted in a similar document dealing with any FOP related investigation.
THe current proposal does not go far enough. Having a rep from FOP on hand during the CSD interview is problematic. The CSD interviewer may be less likely to ask a question that puts FOP in a bad light. It would be a lot better to have an impartial representative who will make sure the flight crew's rights are protected. Until we have better protection during an investigation, regardless of how that investigation was initiated, I think that we should make a stand and vote no on the one issue we can : FDMP
Hope that clears up where I am coming from.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Western Hemisphere
Age: 41
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with many people here that the FDAP programs needs to have more anonymity and more focus on overall system safety as opposed to one individual's actions or errors.
Maybe the HKAOA could discuss their document with ALPA or other unions with similar FDAP/FOQA/ASAP programs and see what protections are in place. I think the idea should be to advance saftey, not a means to discipline pilots.
Maybe the HKAOA could discuss their document with ALPA or other unions with similar FDAP/FOQA/ASAP programs and see what protections are in place. I think the idea should be to advance saftey, not a means to discipline pilots.
