Harry, sorry, most things you write make sense. This does absolutely not and i would guess you even know it to be somewhat naive.

Naive in what sense? I take it you don't trust the Confidential system in the Company. I'm not referring to the GCAA one, but the one in EK. I would like to know why you feel qualified to make that comment as I think that's more ignorance on your part than naivety on mine. I've used the system and it worked for me. Slow, yes, but it did what it was designed to do. There is one filter and it's not management.

Don't knock it until you try it. Sitting back and accepting something's not going to work without at least trying it is just the sort of apathy we as a group should be avoiding, wouldn't you agree? We are, after all, battling for the same goals.

Harry

Harry,

Back in the days of Ed the Talking Horse I sent an e-mail to our safety department. It ended up on AAR's desk, although he wasn't copied in on it. He decided he didn't like the tone of my words and I got hauled into the office.

Things may have changed since those days but it wasn't that long ago and I still don't believe anything in this company is confidential- you may remember not that long ago some of the findings of a "deidentified" LOSA audit were e-mailed out and they included the flight number and the date.

confidential+Emirates=I'll keep quiet thanks.

I've sent a complaint to the chairman after I have visited his office. His secretary told me to send it on her email address. I did so and after a while I got a warning email from now former HR manager not to write emails to HH and to communicate only with those whose names are in my termination letter.

So, we can say that everything that happened afterwards is the exclusive mistake of that secretary. She has decided not to forward my email to HH, she notified my managers about it instead and therefore indirectly caused everything that happened afterwards.

One secretary decides whether your letter or complaint is important and she filters everything. This is how stupid it gets inside EK. Nevertheless, this example is the proof that nothing is confidential in EK, that incompetent people decide about it and it is naive to believe that they use the system in any other way than to protect themselves in front of HH, who is, himself, probably unaware of the extent of discontent in his own company.

What a disgrace that the confidential reporting system is anything but.

But management will no doubt claim that the lack of reports shows there is nothing to hide, rather than the real fact that the entire system is compromised.

SOPS. Believe the individual to which you refer, also filed an ASR or CSR that implicated him, not the confidential one. As an aside, I congratulate you on your escape, but not sure why you feel the need to stir the pot. Cut the cord man!

Agree with Curry. SOPS, you're sounding like a retiree with too much time on his hands. Do some gardening.

497 posts and still sounds like a plain troll. :D

:sad::sad:

Geordie and VLS, thanks for the info.
These rules appear to me as plain illegal.
I would think this is good ammo for an article as well. Have not read anything about that before.
Unbelievable, that EASA and FAA allow such tricks. Is there any US or EU airline around that does the same?

I've heard that when the EASA rules come into effect in July, that factoring will be a thing of the past. But, somehow, someway EK will find a way to "interpret" a paragraph which completely allows them to do it a bit sneakier than any other airline… and probably get away with it!

K

Ah, so that is meant by "factoring".
Read the term before but didn't understand the meaning.

As far as I can find, EASA ftl have 1000 hrs in 12 months...

ORO.FTL.210 Flight times and duty periods

(a) The total duty periods to which a crew member may be assigned shall not exceed:

(1) 60 duty hours in any 7 consecutive days;

(2) 110 duty hours in any 14 consecutive days; and

(3) 190 duty hours in any 28 consecutive days, spread as evenly as practicable throughout that period.

(b) The total flight time of the sectors on which an individual crew member is assigned as an operating crew member shall not exceed:

(1) 100 hours of flight time in any 28 consecutive days;

(2) 900 hours of flight time in any calendar year; and

(3) 1 000 hours of flight time in any 12 consecutive calendar months.

(c) Post-flight duty shall count as duty period. The operator shall specify in its operations manual the minimum time period for post-flight duties.


Definition of operating crew: operating crew member” means a crew member carrying out duties in an aircraft during a sector

So as far as I understand, bunk time is included.

Whilst I can understand the reluctance of some to trust any system, there is a huge difference between sending an open letter to Flight Safety and using the CSR system. This system is for cabin crew and pilots, not ground staff (Nikita!)

The airline is required to have a Confidential Safety Reporting system and regardless of what we think of the current management or the culture within the organisation, they too are aware of it's importance. It takes a long while to build up trust and seconds to destroy it. Posting our opinions is fine. Posting that a system doesn't work when you haven't tried it is ignorant. I would not trust writing a letter to AAR via his invitation but I would, however, recommend voicing safety concerns through the correct confidential channel. At least you have recourse should the process fail. You don't through an open system.

The Company could only access the reporters details through the facilitator so unless you don't trust them, I can't see how your details can be released to management. It would need only one person to highlight this shortcoming for it to blow the whole process out of the water. In the last 5-7 years, I've not heard of that and would not expect it anyway.

I think it's about time some people took more ownership of their problems. The forms are on the aircraft ladies and gents, start using them!

BYMONEK, I'm glad you have pointed out how we all I'm sure hope the confidential reporting system works.
Speaking hypothetically for a moment, and when I say hypothetically I mean it in the literal sense as well as what was conveyed to me by way of a colleagues opinion.
Whose to say for example that the facilitator is put under pressure to reveal details? are there checks and balances? is the information contained secure and free from external influence? Given the level of hypocracy and collective arse covering/nepotism displayed in various departments, how can we be sure that pressure wouldn't be bought to bear on the individual facilitator? Yes it it most certainly a question of trust and integrity, but it is also a fact that those who have been identified previously have been punished. Is the facilitator above influence/coercion, or are they merely an unwitting yet genuine player in another initiative that is merely paying lip service to the very real benefits of confidential safety reporting? How can we be sure that tomorrow, next week or next year there won't be a decree that forces the system to now identify those individuals on the grounds of "whatevertheyfeckinglike".
If any of that can be REASONABLY assured, then I'm certain more reports would be forthcoming.
Not my thoughts as I say, but an opinion expressed to me by a senior individual recently which to be frank is quite troubling to my sensitive trusting soul.

EASA Flight Time Limitations have been delayed until Feb 2016.

1000 hrs ultimate limit, no factoring of bunk time.

Whether the GCAA adopt EASA FTLs is an entirely different matter...

http://www.slideshare.net/garretheal...6-module-1-v12

The new EASA FTLs.

Have a look at the definition of Class 1 In-flight rest areas. That's quite interesting - "Free from passenger noise and disturbance".

VLS with ice, your post #34 regarding GCAA flight time limitations is correct, BUT a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) was made by the GCAA last year for CAR OPS 1 and was open for comments on 24 November 2014 with only 30 days to submit a response. The document is 513 pages long with quite a few changes.

The current CAR OPS 1 dated Feb 2014 on page 272 states what VLS says and is correct. However the new CAR OPS 1 NPA valid soon and ambiguous as to exactly when (look under NPA on GCAA website), page 288 makes ones eyes water and I’m sure the people in the bouncy castle are celebrating big on this one, there are three additional new notes in this amendment and Note 3 is the killer for cumulative fatigue in my humble opinion. New CAR-OPS 1, 1.1125 Absolute limit on flying hours Note 3 states;
A crew member is not considered operating crew member, during the time spent at his/her rest in an acceptable in-flight rest facility, or its equivalent under unforeseen circumstances, which will be reported to the GCAA. The duration of the flight rest time is not to be included in the flight time cumulative limits, but will be included in the Flight Duty Period Duty time for cumulative limits consideration.

As it goes the UAE airlines can say that they simply follow the regulator, but in reality the regulator is being driven by who?? I will leave that one to your imagination. Certain airlines in the ME have regularly been using the limit as a target plus a bit of dubious fudge factoring here and there as it suits. I personally don’t think any sane reputable medical professional that understands cumulative fatigue would recommend flying to these limits continuously as part of your career given the wide variable schedule we have nowadays. But then again you can always leave if you don’t like it.

True. Nevertheless, behaviors and intentions are the same.

Same happened when I sent complaint on harassment at workplace to HR (which should be one of the most confidential things in HR). The person I complained on (DVP Anoma Manuel) was informed about it and I was fired almost immediately (nobody replied on my complaint until many days later when it was obvious that I will not give up). Just another example.

Positive stability, very observant post. Not that the regs you are referring to differentiate between Block hours and cumulative duty hours. Rest is not recognised for cumulative duty but the block hours count, which remain at 900, the cumulative duty hours are 2000, but these have to include online learning etc!!

AAR says he wants to open a channel of communication but most seem reluctant to use his form. Why is this? Fear of jeopardy and intimidation, belief he won't read it?

If we assume the senior management really wants feedback, what can the company do to get feedback? What about a drop box in briefing where the flight docs are put in with the ability to drop a letter directly to a senior manager? Can you think of a better way?

Positive stability,
I have indeed read that proposal for amendment, however, for now the rules I posted are still in effect as far as I can tell. Do you have any idea if that amendment has been approved and if so, when it will be applied? If that comes in to force, we are well and truly :mad:

Smile and wave...

harry and BYMONEK

You can cut off the lecturing and assuming:
Been there, done that, didn't work

I am all for filing reports, i actually encourage us to do so, but keep everything factual to be able to sign it. Some stuff even helps.

But to believe that anything can be maintained confidential in these regions is, i am sorry again, blatantly naive.

To me the very nature of Confidential Reports is not suited and thus oblivious for this kind of government/management.

glofish

It's certainly not my intention to lecture. We all have our opinions and are free to voice them, at least for now anyway. Neither am I trying to convince you or others that you should place faith in the system. You're either going to trust it or you're not and nothing that AAR, AS, STC or your best friends maid will convince you otherwise. I'm merely trying to think of a process that's as near as possible to voicing concerns without fear of repercussions.

ekwhistleblower

Good idea, can the Confidential Safety Report drop box not count as a starter?

falconeasydriver

Yes, valid points and concerns. I'd like to think that if indeed pressure was to be brought upon the facilitator, though I sincerely doubt it would, the reporters details would unfortunately get mislaid! ;) The facilitator would then no doubt resign and it wouldn't be too long before the truth unfolded.

..as someone who works with the CSR facilitator, I know with absolute certainty that there is ZERO chance of any confidentiality being betrayed (unless the reporter chooses to do so-as has happened before in the 'alleged leak'). The secure processes are in place, all you have to do is make the effort to report, no cojones required.

In my time at EK pilots were intimidated with guns during interviews by Head of Security and evidence acquired through phone tapping was used against pilots.

As i understand it Dubai inc is still the same family business that it was when I was there, so unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, I would treat any committment to confidentiality by EK management as a fairy tale.

Nikita81

While you have had the vote of confidence from many on here, I don't support your efforts at trying to hijack a serious issue such as the one we're discussing. The reporting system we're referring to is unlike anything that would have been in place for yourself when you were employed here. I, like many, will have empathy with your frustration and the appalling way you were treated and have given you that support by various means on these forums. This is a public forum and you've just as much right as anyone to post.

However, you know nothing about this particular process. You know nothing of the facilitator nor how the reports are submitted and to whom. You also, I suspect, know nothing about their outcomes. Until you do may I kindly ask you to refrain from posting less than helpful comments or images. Many people have put considerable time and effort over many years to slowly build up this tentative trust and do not want to see what little trust there is ruined by uneducated and ignorant viewpoints. You of all people should know that the stronger the voice, the more likely it is to be heard. That's what we're trying to achieve.

If a few more of your own colleagues had been prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with you, I doubt you'd even have heard of PPRune.

I am sorry Bymonek, I wasn't aware that you are trying to "achieve something" on a rumor Internet forum. Maybe this is why you are unsuccessful in your efforts? After all this is just a forum and after all you are taking it too seriously probably because you ignore real life actions that you can do.

On the other hand, you don't know whether I am ignorant on this subject or just avoid to comment it directly in respect towards people who do know more than me, and I choose to give just side comments in support of your viewpoints regarding confidentiality.

You were my colleague and I didn't see you standing shoulder to shoulder with me. Maybe because you have so much more to lose (including your much bigger salary) and I didn't ask you to do it, but I am not the guilty one for your sense of lack of dignity. Just a girl on a forum.

I don't read comments I am not interested in. I advise you the same.

These issues should be discussed somewhere else. In real life with relevant people. Interesting to read though. I use this forum as a source of information. And that is all that one website can ever be (forums even less). You said it yourself - I would never heard about it if it wasn't... Just my two cents.

BYMONEK:

1) "trying to hijack a serious issue such as the one we're discussing". Newsflash, chum. There are no serious issues here, this is a circus.
2) "Until you do may I kindly ask you to refrain from posting less than helpful comments or images"... blah, blah, blah. That reads as though it was penned by one of our managers.
4) The lady posted a funny cartoon, get over yourself.
3) If you want to be the judge of content on this forum, get a job as a moderator.
5) You don't get to call the lady's viewpoints as "uneducated and ignorant".

In short; wind your neck in.
Carry on, Nikita.

So.... Nikita thinks anything posted here is unimportant and doesn't need to be accurate or taken seriously?

Interesting that she uses it as a vehicle to publicise her OWN plight, and gets very techy when her viewpoint is challenged.

The confidential reporting system IS a very good tool, and is well administrated.

How did you come to that conclusion? I like reading your viewpoints, I respect them and find them wise and smart. It's a real shame that they stay on this website only.

You ban me, kick me off topics and sometimes say negative things on my "whining", yet I am still here. It means something.

Carry on, I will not bother you in your boys' club (much:}).

Edit: fyi only, Mr.Rory from WSJ and me are communicating from the very first blog post of mine, so I do know how hard was it for him to publish the story on your case.

This message is hidden because Nikita81 is on your ignore list.
 

Try it, you'll like it.

Dropp

Maybe you should start a blog of your own. "Truth about Nikita. Ignore her and she will disappear. Maybe." Whole campaign. You might "achieve" something. :}

Something doesn't add up and what a contrast! Classic :ok:
Show some sensitivity at least for yourself if you find it difficult for others.

Nikita81

Probably trying to achieve the same things you are but hopefully with more success. At least I'm still gainfully employed at this stage. The reports do get read by 'real' people, which is why I'm suggesting this as a format to respond to management. If you do genuinely know how the system works, please tell us. I'll then happily take Snake man's advice and wind my neck in.

But until then, and while emotions still blur facts, i'll carry on too.

Okay, if Nikita isn't "allowed" to comment because she (maybe) doesn't know how the Confidential(?) Reporting System works I'll chip in. I do know how it is supposed to work.

I want to believe in it as well. I have a small niece who wants to believe in unicorns and fairies at the bottom off garden but if she is wrong about those things it won't affect her career.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. I have so little confidence left in our management I don't intend to be the one who finds out the hard way that the company definition of confidential is different to mine. I suspect a lot of people think the same way I do. So I'll continue to keep quiet and keep my head down as much as possible unless something really needs to be said (and yes, I have put in fatigue ASRs in the past, and complained about the noise in the A380 CRC when screaming babies have kept me awake for hours).

Nikita has more guts than 90% of the people on here and I really hope she keeps posting.

Well spoken, BigGeordie.

BYMONEK:
1)"Probably trying to achieve the same things you are but hopefully with more success." I would suggest not. She has spoken with a reporter from the WSJ. Have you?
2) "At least I'm still gainfully employed at this stage." Pure spite. Shame on you, and quite frankly, you have no idea whether the lady is presently employed or not.
3) "I'll then happily take Snake man's advice and wind my neck in." Best idea you've had in years. Do it.

Carry on, Nikita

Big Gordie

I'm also with you on this one!!:ok:

Tell me, Bymonek, what am I trying to achieve?

There is only one way for you to check if the system is confidential. Writing on PPRuNE and mocking me for not having a job (that's just a low blow) are not that way.