Boeing C&T screw up
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds as though some of you need to resit your Aviation Law exams as you appear to not understand rules regarding your licence. Just the usual bile and pontification about which you know little.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point swh,
Putting this together and if I have this correct, it seems these checkers have to be licenced and hold a valid Class 1 medical. But isn't there a requirement to be current, as in 3 TOs and Ldgs in 90 days?
I guess HKCAD felt being current in the same job/role/environment (on any aircraft?) as those you are licensing is not important. I wonder over which course of the "fizzy lunch" that decision was made.......
Putting this together and if I have this correct, it seems these checkers have to be licenced and hold a valid Class 1 medical. But isn't there a requirement to be current, as in 3 TOs and Ldgs in 90 days?
I guess HKCAD felt being current in the same job/role/environment (on any aircraft?) as those you are licensing is not important. I wonder over which course of the "fizzy lunch" that decision was made.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the point.
This error happened and is being covered up because the individual is "one of the brotherhood". Anyone else and they would have been out on their ear. That's the news.
This error happened and is being covered up because the individual is "one of the brotherhood". Anyone else and they would have been out on their ear. That's the news.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
I understand that people get their currency back in the sim. That's necessary. There's no other way and it's industry standard.
However, the aircraft/instrument rating is entirely different as it is essentially a "peer review". No disrespect, but these people are not our "peers". Two points;
1. How can they assess us when they no longer do our job?
2. Unlike the currency issue, there is an alternative and that is only use checkers that are current.... Like other airlines do (and like we used to).
unitedabx,
I think we all get it. However, a few us want to treat others as we wish to be treated. I make mistakes and I would hope that genuine mistakes would be treated as "learning points" rather than "termination points". Isn't that the philosphy which made aviation as safe as it is today?
I understand that people get their currency back in the sim. That's necessary. There's no other way and it's industry standard.
However, the aircraft/instrument rating is entirely different as it is essentially a "peer review". No disrespect, but these people are not our "peers". Two points;
1. How can they assess us when they no longer do our job?
2. Unlike the currency issue, there is an alternative and that is only use checkers that are current.... Like other airlines do (and like we used to).
unitedabx,
I think we all get it. However, a few us want to treat others as we wish to be treated. I make mistakes and I would hope that genuine mistakes would be treated as "learning points" rather than "termination points". Isn't that the philosphy which made aviation as safe as it is today?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
It is essentially NOT a peer review. They work not just for the company whilst conducting the check but the HKCAD. There are "checkers and trainers" like this in many states. They also have to complete the PC and RT just like you, but without any practice/currency in the real aircraft.
It is essentially NOT a peer review. They work not just for the company whilst conducting the check but the HKCAD. There are "checkers and trainers" like this in many states. They also have to complete the PC and RT just like you, but without any practice/currency in the real aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a bizarre cockup. There are so many ways this could have been handled better. perhaps instead of Accenture playing around with asiamiles and teh blockchain, they could have looked at how these renewals are digitally signed and how and when those signing certificates expire / get revoked?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Iceman is this checker carrying the resulting mess? Is he paying the millions that has been pissed away on this screw up? No, he isn't. Just being swept under the rug in classic third floor fashion.
It would appear that certain posts highlight a lack of understanding into the qualifications required to check and / or instruct in the simulator. Basically one can be a SFI / SFE ad infinitum subject to certain conditions dependant on the specific role. The animus directed at certain retired members of the star chamber are a different matter. Personally I hope that they rot for their disgraceful and disgusting participation in the 49ers debacle. However, it is possible and quite legitimate to check / train into late old age if the will is there.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: HK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical. Here’s a serious issue of checker / trainer as well as the airline completely failing in his & its duties, which apart from the legal concerns also has serious cost ramifications, yet most people are more concerned with pecker-measuring about who knows the regs better. Throw in some nationality bashing for good measure too. Ignore the real issues here & bring out the tape measure!
The regs are what they are. End of. How & why this occurred as well as with respect to the current industrial climate should be the topic?! For me it’s another case of administrative & beautocratic blunders lining up like the proverbial Swiss cheese theory, yet you all prefer to argue about brand of Swiss cheese in your sandwiches & who knows best.
The regs are what they are. End of. How & why this occurred as well as with respect to the current industrial climate should be the topic?! For me it’s another case of administrative & beautocratic blunders lining up like the proverbial Swiss cheese theory, yet you all prefer to argue about brand of Swiss cheese in your sandwiches & who knows best.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical. Here’s a serious issue of checker / trainer as well as the airline completely failing in his & its duties, which apart from the legal concerns also has serious cost ramifications, yet most people are more concerned with pecker-measuring about who knows the regs better. Throw in some nationality bashing for good measure too. Ignore the real issues here & bring out the tape measure!
The regs are what they are. End of. How & why this occurred as well as with respect to the current industrial climate should be the topic?! For me it’s another case of administrative & beautocratic blunders lining up like the proverbial Swiss cheese theory, yet you all prefer to argue about brand of Swiss cheese in your sandwiches & who knows best.
The regs are what they are. End of. How & why this occurred as well as with respect to the current industrial climate should be the topic?! For me it’s another case of administrative & beautocratic blunders lining up like the proverbial Swiss cheese theory, yet you all prefer to argue about brand of Swiss cheese in your sandwiches & who knows best.
My best guess as to why this particular situation came about is that SSIs may not have the same page on Crew Direct that operating pilots have, which highlights recency requirements and licence validity. I standby to be corrected on this as it's speculation on my part. Whatever the case may be, it was both an individual and systemic error that allowed this situation to occur. Perhaps in future, it should be mandated that all candidates check the licence validity of the examiner, to minimise the chance of recurrence? Additionally, perhaps we should all be encouraged to put reminders in our calendars as to when our licence expires? As iceman50 states quite correctly, it is our licence.
STP
Er, knowing what the regs are is key to this issue. Administrative blunders are a direct result of not knowing or ignoring the regs. The devil is in the detail and if the implication that knowing the detail is somehow willy waving then the point has been spectacularly missed. If the by product of anal introspection is avoiding cock ups then that is surely a good thing, regardless of Austronaut jibes etc.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: HK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve - yes. Can't deny having a look here every now and then. Frustration got the better of me after too many years. Since too many moons ago achieving a CPL onwards and before electronic calendars, updates, & reminders I can not for the life of me fathom how any "professional" airman could allow the backbone of their livelihood lapse. There's self regulating and professional discipline as well as the airline's own fail-safe protocols and built-in protections, I'd assume (and we know what assumption makes of us all too often, obviously!). The fact that in this case both of these failed is troubling and to me the issue here.
Olster - true. Knowing the regs is vitally important. Healthy debate is always a good thing. It's the d!ck measuring that is the sad part, in my opinion.
Olster - true. Knowing the regs is vitally important. Healthy debate is always a good thing. It's the d!ck measuring that is the sad part, in my opinion.