Boeing C&T screw up
 

The first slide in the current P2/K2 simulator sessions asks " when does your medical expire ?".
How ironic then that one of the scab sim instructors who now does these renewals as part of the FOP 'cheapcheck' policy has been found not to have a valid medical himself thus rendering at least 30 crews recent P2 renewals invalid. These crews are being re-rostered to do their ratings again with properly qualified STC's at huge cost.
Is this being investigated ? No. The sim instructor involved is high up in the "brotherhood" so no questions being asked.

Time To Win :ok:

Happened on the bus fleet last year, October time, another very senior (Number 1, don't you know) RF had a lapsed medical and renewed quite a few p6's. Ask the CAD how many of these then went on to illegally operate...

SSI's
 

Geeze gents/gals, get up to date. They require a medical, like you. If they have and also have STC background they can "Check" till they drop (i.e. forever).. CAD bends over and for CX, "Time to Win"
I wonder, did the AOA "ever" say anything about this? There is even some "Star Chamber" gents in there doing this (just a little salt in the wound ey wot)
This has been kicked around on this site for a year + now.. Your EX-STC pals are taking line trainer jobs... Get it ??

Yes I know it's very very complicated letsfly but here are the basics. To "check" (i.e.representing the CAD for license issue or renewal purposes), you must have a "valid license" and to have a valid license, you "must" have a valid Class 1 medical.. Too complicated ???

When you think about it, it does make some sense. The checker is acting as an extension of the regulatory authority to make sure a pilot can perform certain maneuvers according to regulatory standards. While he or she isn't charged with the lives of 300 or 400 people in the back, he or she is still charged with re-validating the license which allows the checkee to carry those people.

As a regulatory authority, would you want one of your examiners checking people (and certifying them) who had an untreated psychosis (all jokes aside), had an untreated substance abuse disorder, or even maybe a stroke which had left mental faculties impaired ? In that it might be difficult (but certainly possible--and potentially worthwhile) to come up with a different set of medical standards for certification of designated examiners, the existing ones for pilots are simply used.

A few years ago some hero decided to save some $ by not having an Airbus sim re-certified for both 340 and 330, just 330. No one told training control (or they didn't understand) so the sim was still used for 340 PCs. A bunch of guys were flying without valid ratings, had to re-do PCs.

More recently with CAD giving CX a hard time over all the licence screw ups, Manager Training asked a Capt to 'loose' his licence, so a new, valid one could be issued by CAD. Capt wasn't too keen as it would mean making a false declaration to HKG Police.

Now CX is pushing the responsibility back onto us, with reminders to check licences. It would be nice if CX could actually manage something as fundamental to an airline as air crew licencing.

controlledrest

It is YOUR licence make sure it is valid, don't rely on anyone else, YOU will carry the resulting mess. Cathay does not own your licence.

I am surprised one of the local papers hasn't picked this up. Cathay pilots fly passengers without valid license due simulator stuff up. CAD does nothing (again).

mr did

excellent point and one I was alluding too in the original post. This is being "buried" by management but the cost on the 777 fleet alone for repeated sim time/STC's/loss of pilot productivity runs into the HKD millions.

Farman Biplane
They are spent forces. Sad little men grasping at their last chance for power or so they think. Sad really. Actually pathetic.

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.

Iceman, what part of Australia are you from?

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.

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?

Do other states allow Sim instructors (ex pilots) to certify current pilots? Perhaps these states would like to know?

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.

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?

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.

And the ego trip...

Are you really surprised by the meandering of this discussion? As you yourself said in your second post, you stayed away from this forum for many years but although you refrained from posting, I assume you perused the pages occasionally?

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

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.