View Poll Results: EK Pilots only please - Would you carry a LOSA observer?
Sure, it'll serve to improve the future operation
52
60.47%
No way; sort the jumpseat authority out first
34
39.53%
Voters: 86. This poll is closed
LOSA observers at EK
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMDS .You have totally missed the point.
Management does not get told how many flights were black banned so whats the point ?
Management does not get told how many flights were black banned so whats the point ?
2) You refuse to carry the LOSA guy. Enough refusals and the program fails.
What GMDS, does (2) achieve? Other than reinforcing the opinion that we are a bunch of childish idiots?
What GMDS, does (2) achieve? Other than reinforcing the opinion that we are a bunch of childish idiots?
Again: I do not mean to be childish by refusing. My simple point is that this program will achieve nothing with this EK management, but if it fails it might at least have a little impact by raising questions.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time we had an external safety audit, the idiot that was running it became our chief pilot. Anyone remember TCK and the damage he caused to the airline.
I agree that absolutely nothing positive can come out of LOSA, not because of the process, but because our management have closed minds to negative feedback. They just want this as another box ticked.
Having the audit fail due to lack of co-operation by crews would send a far clearer message to both the auditors and management. Still, nothing will change no matter which path it goes down. So as far as i am concerned, i see no benefit to having someone sitting in my flightdeck conducting a useless survey.
I am open to being convinced other wise.
V
I agree that absolutely nothing positive can come out of LOSA, not because of the process, but because our management have closed minds to negative feedback. They just want this as another box ticked.
Having the audit fail due to lack of co-operation by crews would send a far clearer message to both the auditors and management. Still, nothing will change no matter which path it goes down. So as far as i am concerned, i see no benefit to having someone sitting in my flightdeck conducting a useless survey.
I am open to being convinced other wise.
V
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: home
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree about refusing the LOSA guy just because of the jumpseat issue.
The way I see it, if this happens regularly, the observers can only see us as a bunch of spoiled brats.
Most of EK's pilots are very professional at what they do - what next, refusing a TRE on the jumpseat on your line check? (Can't see THAT happening as it would effectively ground you.......)
Or worse, deliberately lowering safety standards as a protest against the company?
I say let the observers do their work - and by all means speak your mind to them about whatever's bugging you.
The way I see it, if this happens regularly, the observers can only see us as a bunch of spoiled brats.
Most of EK's pilots are very professional at what they do - what next, refusing a TRE on the jumpseat on your line check? (Can't see THAT happening as it would effectively ground you.......)
Or worse, deliberately lowering safety standards as a protest against the company?
I say let the observers do their work - and by all means speak your mind to them about whatever's bugging you.
Last edited by picu; 16th May 2007 at 12:04. Reason: clarity of intent
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IN THE PIT
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts exactly Fluke (besides I thought I was the EK Poll Master).
Maybe a better poll might have been-
Just thought, why bother! Hence the Edit to scrub. I'm getting PPRUNE fatigue and I read it about twice a month! Same story, different poster name.
Maybe a better poll might have been-
Just thought, why bother! Hence the Edit to scrub. I'm getting PPRUNE fatigue and I read it about twice a month! Same story, different poster name.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blingland
Age: 56
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CW, the LOSA guys are not ticketed, they came through with us on the GD, same security procedures. One of our own colleagues. From the Bus fleet mind, but i let that go 
SyB
SyB
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vorschit says
As is all too often the case with final reports from outside consultants, TCK wrote one recommending that EK needed someone with qualifications that exactly matched his own.
****
Unlike most posters on EK threads here, I'm really not unduly unhappy at EK. However, I sometimes find myself wishing that some genie could wave a magic wand, and give the people who followed the advice of TCK and others a way out of the corner their current policies have painted them without their losing face.
It ain't gonna happen, unfortunately, unless perhaps in the aftermath of an "MK moment" - and no one but no one wants to pay that price to fix the current situation – or perhaps I should say ‘impasse’, because an impasse is what it’s fast becoming.
The last time we had an external safety audit, the idiot that was running it became our chief pilot.
****
Unlike most posters on EK threads here, I'm really not unduly unhappy at EK. However, I sometimes find myself wishing that some genie could wave a magic wand, and give the people who followed the advice of TCK and others a way out of the corner their current policies have painted them without their losing face.
It ain't gonna happen, unfortunately, unless perhaps in the aftermath of an "MK moment" - and no one but no one wants to pay that price to fix the current situation – or perhaps I should say ‘impasse’, because an impasse is what it’s fast becoming.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why be so negative about such a positive project???
Line Operations Safety Audit.
Funded through a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration Human Factors Division, AAR-100, our research project has been involved in the study of crew performance during normal flight operations since 1994. The methodology we have developed, called the Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA), utilizes trained observers riding in cockpit jump seats to evaluate several aspects of crew performance. At the core of the LOSA process is a model of threat and error management, which provides a framework for data collection. In-flight observers record the various threats encountered by aircrew, the types of errors committed, and most importantly, they record how flight crews manage these situations to maintain safety. Our observers also collect data on CRM performance and conduct a structured interview to ask pilots for their suggestions to improve safety. These combined data sources provide the airline conducting the LOSA with a diagnostic snapshot of safety strengths and weaknesses in normal flight operations. On the research end, the large LOSA dataset maintained by the University of Texas Human Factors Research Project, which allows us to study crew performance issues across a number of different airlines within the commercial airline industry.
Funded through a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration Human Factors Division, AAR-100, our research project has been involved in the study of crew performance during normal flight operations since 1994. The methodology we have developed, called the Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA), utilizes trained observers riding in cockpit jump seats to evaluate several aspects of crew performance. At the core of the LOSA process is a model of threat and error management, which provides a framework for data collection. In-flight observers record the various threats encountered by aircrew, the types of errors committed, and most importantly, they record how flight crews manage these situations to maintain safety. Our observers also collect data on CRM performance and conduct a structured interview to ask pilots for their suggestions to improve safety. These combined data sources provide the airline conducting the LOSA with a diagnostic snapshot of safety strengths and weaknesses in normal flight operations. On the research end, the large LOSA dataset maintained by the University of Texas Human Factors Research Project, which allows us to study crew performance issues across a number of different airlines within the commercial airline industry.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thylakoid
Funny, because i'd have thought that by going independent is the best way to ask for improvemments WITHOUT the confrontation.
Vorsicht
You say you're 'open to being convinced'. Then why not let the LOSA team do it's job and wait to see what results come back. Refusing access is hardly being open.
Flying Spag Monster
Perhaps you should read your crew portal more often or the monthly fleet updates. If you knew 'nothing' about LOSA, makes me wonder how you keep up with the SOP changes? Something that i'd be surprised wasn't mentioned in the findings.
GMDS
Obviously the results will go to EK. They're paying for it. However, even this Company would be foolish to think it could massage the findings to fit its at times inflated ego. LOSA has an established Worlwide reputation that would not let even our wonderful PR machine destroy.
Ultimately, nothing MAY come of this but if we refuse the LOSA guys purely out of childish spite for a jumpseat policy that only TC agrees with, then nothing CAN come from it. And it's us, the Pilots, that have the most to gain. Believe me!
BYMONEK
Funny, because i'd have thought that by going independent is the best way to ask for improvemments WITHOUT the confrontation.
Vorsicht
You say you're 'open to being convinced'. Then why not let the LOSA team do it's job and wait to see what results come back. Refusing access is hardly being open.
Flying Spag Monster
Perhaps you should read your crew portal more often or the monthly fleet updates. If you knew 'nothing' about LOSA, makes me wonder how you keep up with the SOP changes? Something that i'd be surprised wasn't mentioned in the findings.
GMDS
Obviously the results will go to EK. They're paying for it. However, even this Company would be foolish to think it could massage the findings to fit its at times inflated ego. LOSA has an established Worlwide reputation that would not let even our wonderful PR machine destroy.
Ultimately, nothing MAY come of this but if we refuse the LOSA guys purely out of childish spite for a jumpseat policy that only TC agrees with, then nothing CAN come from it. And it's us, the Pilots, that have the most to gain. Believe me!
BYMONEK
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Heavens
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice approach there BYMONEK, shoot every one in sight and you might get someone worth hitting. I might point out that Ed's letter came out after I was approached by LOSA and I did say I would take them next time. But you are correct, refusing LOSA because of the jump seat is silly, I never read the news letters, log onto the portal or infact update my FCOMs. Don't know how I survive really....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blingland
Age: 56
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spag mate. The LOSA programme was announced back in February by TCAS. Then there was the letter asking for recruits. I find it amazing you haven't heard of it, given you sarcasm towards BYMONEK.
Can you say toys out of the pram.......
SyB
Can you say toys out of the pram.......
SyB
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately, nothing MAY come of this but if we refuse the LOSA guys purely out of childish spite for a jumpseat policy that only TC agrees with, then nothing CAN come from it. And it's us, the Pilots, that have the most to gain. Believe me!
The LOSA outcome will be based on what the observers see, not on what we rant over with them. So basically, if we want to point out the burning deficiencies at EK, we would be more or less obliged to demonstrate them. Will we demonstrate microsleeps, to hint at the fatigue problem? Will we let the new pilots demonstrate their pretended substandard performance or English? Will we deliberately and religiously stick to silly SOP’s as to show off their inadequacy? I pretend we won’t, most of us are too professional to do so. That’s why EK operation is still pretty good up to now. We save or cover up the inadequacies.
Then even IF LOSA would reveal these problems: Will EK improve the rostering as to curb fatigue? Will they adapt the standards back up again as to only hire suitable pilots? Will they question their FCTM and SOP’s? I seriously doubt it. They’re way too convinced of doing everything right and even more way too short of pilots.
So, what CAN we expect then? Many of us pretend: Nothing.
The only thing that could eventually pop up, would be a rampant discontent shown by refusing to participate in anything going beyond the contractual constraints. I am pretty sure that LOSA would uncover and point this out to EK and THAT would be more than valuable.
Therefore it’s leading beyond the jump-seat, or about being childish, it’s about a message we’d like to get through: We want more than just being told how everything is supposed to be an improvement for us. We need dialogue and not monologue, and some REAL improvements…..
GMDS
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMDS
I can't disagree with most of what you say in that first paragragh.
I too, like many here, find the lack of transparency in this Company disappointing at times. Non existent official feedback from in house incidents only contributes to most Pilots distrust of how valid safety issues and concerns are dealt with. The latest example being our 'non compliance' of logging stick time. How we can be non compliant when we employ a more restrictive rule is beyond me. The GCAA's interpretation is different to the UK's CAA ( who made the rules) and Emirates is happy to go along with it. Rather strange then that Companies like British Airways have for many years employed their own more restrictive scheme without falling foul of the Authority. It's complete Bull***t and we all know it is.
My only gripe against those that are so negative against LOSA is that we have little to lose by embracing it. My personal view is that by refusing the observers and making it fail is not the way forward.
I can't disagree with most of what you say in that first paragragh.
I too, like many here, find the lack of transparency in this Company disappointing at times. Non existent official feedback from in house incidents only contributes to most Pilots distrust of how valid safety issues and concerns are dealt with. The latest example being our 'non compliance' of logging stick time. How we can be non compliant when we employ a more restrictive rule is beyond me. The GCAA's interpretation is different to the UK's CAA ( who made the rules) and Emirates is happy to go along with it. Rather strange then that Companies like British Airways have for many years employed their own more restrictive scheme without falling foul of the Authority. It's complete Bull***t and we all know it is.
My only gripe against those that are so negative against LOSA is that we have little to lose by embracing it. My personal view is that by refusing the observers and making it fail is not the way forward.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GCAA's interpretation is different to the UK's CAA
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beg to differ on that my friend!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blingland
Age: 56
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what did your friends do about it then????? Did they get a pledge of corrective action from the man at the GCAA??? I for one would be very interested to know.
SyB
SyB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then if that's true, how can EK send out an FCI stating it's the GCAA?
If these two Pilots had met with the GCAA and informed them as such, the Authority would immediately look into this Companies interpretation. Because they havn't, makes me believe that ultimately it is the regulator and not the Airline. If the GCAA choose to do nothing,which appears to be the case, then ultimately it has to be the GCAA who are fault. Who's pulling who's strings here?
I think you'd find that a phone call to our own regulatory affairs office over at the Ops centre will confirm that. Ultimately, i'm not making excuses for the Company. I've already stated that we could still employ a more restrictive scheme but we don't.
If these two Pilots had met with the GCAA and informed them as such, the Authority would immediately look into this Companies interpretation. Because they havn't, makes me believe that ultimately it is the regulator and not the Airline. If the GCAA choose to do nothing,which appears to be the case, then ultimately it has to be the GCAA who are fault. Who's pulling who's strings here?
I think you'd find that a phone call to our own regulatory affairs office over at the Ops centre will confirm that. Ultimately, i'm not making excuses for the Company. I've already stated that we could still employ a more restrictive scheme but we don't.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: the world
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bymon, my dear boy - it is that old evil known as politics.
The Regulator wrote to the Company about the logging of flight time - specifically with respect to frozen ATPL holders wishing to thaw that licence.
It was not the best-worded letter ever written. The Poms in Flight Ops seized upon this and interpreted it in the way that most favoured the company. The Regulator does not want to create a $#!t storm by rejecting the FCI. But he was quite clear to the guys who went to see him. The letter referred to logging of flight time only.
Exceed the 900 hrs at your peril.
The Regulator wrote to the Company about the logging of flight time - specifically with respect to frozen ATPL holders wishing to thaw that licence.
It was not the best-worded letter ever written. The Poms in Flight Ops seized upon this and interpreted it in the way that most favoured the company. The Regulator does not want to create a $#!t storm by rejecting the FCI. But he was quite clear to the guys who went to see him. The letter referred to logging of flight time only.
Exceed the 900 hrs at your peril.