Help me justify actions and save my career
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help me justify actions and save my career
I have just been chopped on my pre-FNT for WSO training prior to the OCU, and am trying to find out if I was really in the wrong... The failure was that I briefed the SALT using an MSA pie chart from a TAP. I looked at the heading that we had in a straight line to the destination, and used that section from the pie chart, rather than the highest. I was an Air Trafficer before, so am used to using "Sector Altitudes" to get an aircraft down safely. I knew about the higher figure in the MSA pie chart, but was trying to show that I could do that little bit extra thinking (which eventually has led to my downfall!!!). The aircraft was never in danger as we converted from visual to the TAP prior to descending anywhere near SALT. Please could anyone let me have any ideas, or comments on the severity of my case. Thanks in advance...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were inbound to Glasgow, and FL75 heading 120, 20 miles out... If you have the TAP, you could see my thinking... I also had a ll chart out for Glasgow, so had a 3D view of the terrain. I was monitoring our postion, using the radar, BDHI, and all other Dominie nav kit.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As BEagle says, what was your range from the field; MSAs are only out to 25nm. Also, did the procedure involve any manoeuvering (sp?!) which would have taken you into a more limiting quadrant? I hate to seem cynical, but I doubt an otherwise glowing trg record would be marred by the event you're describing. Was this just the final nail in the coffin?
Best of luck with your endeavours.
Best of luck with your endeavours.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sortie was a refly after I had a fuel hiccup. The fuel was perfect on this trip. However, because a SALT mistake is an automatic fail, 2 failed trips and you are out!!! There was seeming no money available for another flight. My instructor was initially going to pass me, acknowledging himself that I was safe at all times, then decided to fail me. Has anyone else done this? This is how it is done in ATC- how is it done in the "real flying world" outside the training environment?
WSO1
The fleet I am currently serving on uses the highest MSA figure, we do not make use of the sectors. Also of course an MSA (highest ground/obstacle +1,000ft) does not translate directly into a safety altitude if the ground/obstacle in question is above 3,000ft (If you were 20 nm out from Glasgow heading 120 and quoted 4000 as a safety altitude, based on the sector MSA, then you were wrong even if you are allowed to use sectors - it should have been 5000 in that case).
However, as to whether or not you are allowed to use MSA sectors depends on the rules in use by the Nav School at the moment. YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE, AND HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THEM!! It is no good trying to bring previous knowledge into any RAF training system! They are nearly all inflexible. You learn the rules of that particular game and jump through the hoops put in front of you without questioning them!! If the Nav School rule is to use the highest MSA then you were wrong, period. It doesn't matter what other fleets, ATC etc do!!
The fleet I am currently serving on uses the highest MSA figure, we do not make use of the sectors. Also of course an MSA (highest ground/obstacle +1,000ft) does not translate directly into a safety altitude if the ground/obstacle in question is above 3,000ft (If you were 20 nm out from Glasgow heading 120 and quoted 4000 as a safety altitude, based on the sector MSA, then you were wrong even if you are allowed to use sectors - it should have been 5000 in that case).
However, as to whether or not you are allowed to use MSA sectors depends on the rules in use by the Nav School at the moment. YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE, AND HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THEM!! It is no good trying to bring previous knowledge into any RAF training system! They are nearly all inflexible. You learn the rules of that particular game and jump through the hoops put in front of you without questioning them!! If the Nav School rule is to use the highest MSA then you were wrong, period. It doesn't matter what other fleets, ATC etc do!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand why you are asking the question here, but it's not going to get you reinstated. Your instructor should have given you a full debrief on what went wrong and you should not have walked out of that debrief without knowing exactly why you failed.
If in doubt, go back and ask again, but make sure you know the full facts and rules beforehand - it's your career! Best of luck.
If in doubt, go back and ask again, but make sure you know the full facts and rules beforehand - it's your career! Best of luck.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with brit bus driver - I suspect that the real reason for your failure is not the mistake on the test. To me, the latter does not appear to be too fundamental to air safety, and is therefore, not a reason for failure.
When you try a redress (and if you do), go a bit further into why they've failed you. Don't get annoyed, don't argue and don't shout them down. Listen to what they have to say; there may be other, more basic reasons, why you failed and knowledge of that may help you in the future.
Good Luck!
A
When you try a redress (and if you do), go a bit further into why they've failed you. Don't get annoyed, don't argue and don't shout them down. Listen to what they have to say; there may be other, more basic reasons, why you failed and knowledge of that may help you in the future.
Good Luck!
A
Heed the words of the very experienced mates like britbusdriver and Airbedane, WSO1.
But what concerns me is that you stated "My instructor was initially going to pass me, acknowledging himself that I was safe at all times, then decided to fail me." That just doesn't ring true. Any instructor who said such a thing is leaving himself open to redress; if you are sure of your facts then present them calmly to your boss as such and ask for a refly if at all possible due to the margins of doubt in your instructor's alleged assessment.
Is it really '2 fails and you're out' nowadays? After investing as much as they have in you, the RAF should be bending over backwards to graduate you - unless there really are fundamental doubts about your future employability.
Good luck - keep us posted.
But what concerns me is that you stated "My instructor was initially going to pass me, acknowledging himself that I was safe at all times, then decided to fail me." That just doesn't ring true. Any instructor who said such a thing is leaving himself open to redress; if you are sure of your facts then present them calmly to your boss as such and ask for a refly if at all possible due to the margins of doubt in your instructor's alleged assessment.
Is it really '2 fails and you're out' nowadays? After investing as much as they have in you, the RAF should be bending over backwards to graduate you - unless there really are fundamental doubts about your future employability.
Good luck - keep us posted.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think the chop was valid. What you failed for was two things. One was choice of the wrong safety altitude. You should brief the safest and then look for ways to reduce your altitude safely from the MSA.
The other reason was for a compensatory failure. In other words your initial failure was fuel handling. On the next flight you ensured that that failure did not reoccur but another 'failure' became apparent.
It is all a question of juggling and priorities. You dropped two different balls on successive trips. How well had you passed your earlier exercises. When I was at the ANS we were also surprised that one of our studes was also chopped from the advanced multi-engine phase on his final sortie.
I had a stude who fell to pieces completely in the air and wanted to RTB shortly after TOC. I kicked him around the route and failed him when he landed but . . .
He was SAFE. He did not overshoot his Stornoway turn nor did he bust safety altitude. Last I heard he was a GR1 flt cdr.
In the final analysis there is always the question of what if.
The other reason was for a compensatory failure. In other words your initial failure was fuel handling. On the next flight you ensured that that failure did not reoccur but another 'failure' became apparent.
It is all a question of juggling and priorities. You dropped two different balls on successive trips. How well had you passed your earlier exercises. When I was at the ANS we were also surprised that one of our studes was also chopped from the advanced multi-engine phase on his final sortie.
I had a stude who fell to pieces completely in the air and wanted to RTB shortly after TOC. I kicked him around the route and failed him when he landed but . . .
He was SAFE. He did not overshoot his Stornoway turn nor did he bust safety altitude. Last I heard he was a GR1 flt cdr.
In the final analysis there is always the question of what if.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mate but the flying training system just doesn't work like that anymore. To look after 'themselves' there is a complicated review system that relies heavily on an awful lot of harsh sounding paperwork churned out by those higher up. i.e your flt cdr, that is breifed to you before you sign it, having understood the situation generated by your airborne mishap.
It's not a case of two shots and you're out. You should (will) have gone onto review comprising a re-flight (level 1) or a short remedial package with more experienced instructors (level 2). This doesn't go on in secret and its well documented so that you can't say that they crept up and chopped you.
If you are completely honest with yourself......... was there more to it than you have let on?
Ray.
It's not a case of two shots and you're out. You should (will) have gone onto review comprising a re-flight (level 1) or a short remedial package with more experienced instructors (level 2). This doesn't go on in secret and its well documented so that you can't say that they crept up and chopped you.
If you are completely honest with yourself......... was there more to it than you have let on?
Ray.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you have to remember is that you are in a training environment and the real world has nothing to do with it.
Your examiner wants to see you using procedures and information from the prescribed curriculum, not from your previous experience.
This may have swayed his decision.
Your examiner wants to see you using procedures and information from the prescribed curriculum, not from your previous experience.
This may have swayed his decision.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think everyone's being a bit harsh.
I guess a lot depends on how you put across that MSA . If it was " MSA in this sector 2300, highest in 25nm is 3300" then no problem in my opinion.
Like most things, I think you'll find that even if you couldn't see it yourself, there were other things that may have swayed it. On the other hand the trg system can be a little unfair ( No personal axe to grind, have been there, done that etc and seen it with others).
I'd contest it. Fight tooth and nail to get re instated. May not make you very popular and Flt Lt will be the best in promotion you'll get but at least you'll be flying, earning a good wage and still have a job. In this day in age people have to have all the i`s dotted and t`s crossed for a succesful chop so check it. Were you instructed on your failings ? Did you have all the warnings ? Did you request an instructor swap that never happened ?
On the other hand, if you really are crap, gash and dangerous then don't. I don't want you in my aircraft making things harder than they already are !!
I guess a lot depends on how you put across that MSA . If it was " MSA in this sector 2300, highest in 25nm is 3300" then no problem in my opinion.
Like most things, I think you'll find that even if you couldn't see it yourself, there were other things that may have swayed it. On the other hand the trg system can be a little unfair ( No personal axe to grind, have been there, done that etc and seen it with others).
I'd contest it. Fight tooth and nail to get re instated. May not make you very popular and Flt Lt will be the best in promotion you'll get but at least you'll be flying, earning a good wage and still have a job. In this day in age people have to have all the i`s dotted and t`s crossed for a succesful chop so check it. Were you instructed on your failings ? Did you have all the warnings ? Did you request an instructor swap that never happened ?
On the other hand, if you really are crap, gash and dangerous then don't. I don't want you in my aircraft making things harder than they already are !!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking a politicians approach to the general subject of course failures, not knowing the full facts of this individual case, generally a chop is not a one or even two fault situation. The system will have had doubts about the student for some time so although the final failure may appear to be about a single error the checker is using that error as a focal point in the debrief when in his mind he is saying "Sorry Blogs it is just one more to add to our previous concerns and its one too many". In 30 years as a trainer in the RAF I found the system generally fair though I had my doubts about the Buccaneer course.
Amen to that, Art!
Bucc OCU in about 1976-7 hadn't graduated a single crew with an ab-initio pilot and an ab-initio nav for over 2 years. They graduated 30% of the allocated student output, yet flew 100% of the allocated hours. When student numbers dwindled, hours were used on things like 'Staff Bombing Competitions'.....
Other charm from that bunch of ar$eholes (with few exceptions - the exceptions normally being RN back-seaters who were mostly a good bunch of guys):
'OCU Dining-In Night. Priority of allocation - 1. Staff who didn't go last time, 2. Staff who did go last time, 3. Students...'
Any ex V-force students arriving were immediately dubbed 'VFW' - it stood for 'V-Force W@nker'
When the Stn Cdr gave his arrival brief, he scowled at us and announced "Few of you lot will be good enough. Most of you will fail"...
The course photograph was modified whenever anyone failed - his head would be cut off, an axe superimposed and the head stuck in a heap of others at the bottom.
A thoroughly appalling training system. Nowadays most of the staff would have been fired for harrassment - perhaps the EO programme does have some merit?
However, B**** C****** was at least 'Firm but fair'! He taught us a lot and was totally honest. Others, particularly the RAF navigators, most certainly weren't!
I was having a nice day until you awoke those memories. Oh well - shall have a commiseratory glass of champoo in this rather couth airport lounge where I'm waiting for my next flight!
Bucc OCU in about 1976-7 hadn't graduated a single crew with an ab-initio pilot and an ab-initio nav for over 2 years. They graduated 30% of the allocated student output, yet flew 100% of the allocated hours. When student numbers dwindled, hours were used on things like 'Staff Bombing Competitions'.....
Other charm from that bunch of ar$eholes (with few exceptions - the exceptions normally being RN back-seaters who were mostly a good bunch of guys):
'OCU Dining-In Night. Priority of allocation - 1. Staff who didn't go last time, 2. Staff who did go last time, 3. Students...'
Any ex V-force students arriving were immediately dubbed 'VFW' - it stood for 'V-Force W@nker'
When the Stn Cdr gave his arrival brief, he scowled at us and announced "Few of you lot will be good enough. Most of you will fail"...
The course photograph was modified whenever anyone failed - his head would be cut off, an axe superimposed and the head stuck in a heap of others at the bottom.
A thoroughly appalling training system. Nowadays most of the staff would have been fired for harrassment - perhaps the EO programme does have some merit?
However, B**** C****** was at least 'Firm but fair'! He taught us a lot and was totally honest. Others, particularly the RAF navigators, most certainly weren't!
I was having a nice day until you awoke those memories. Oh well - shall have a commiseratory glass of champoo in this rather couth airport lounge where I'm waiting for my next flight!
haven't got the TAP for Glasgow, but ....
...is the MSA definitely the SALT, don't MSA's only have 1000' clearance? Possibly the SALT should be 1000' higher than the figure you briefed.
AND
what is the teaching at the school? If they teach use the highest MSA regardless of the arrival sector, then that's what you should do. If, however, they teach use the most appropriate sector then you may have a case.
...is the MSA definitely the SALT, don't MSA's only have 1000' clearance? Possibly the SALT should be 1000' higher than the figure you briefed.
AND
what is the teaching at the school? If they teach use the highest MSA regardless of the arrival sector, then that's what you should do. If, however, they teach use the most appropriate sector then you may have a case.
Excuse my ignorance, but I haven't been following this too well. What precisely are your definitions of SALT and MSA?
For example, someone said MSA only goes out to 25nm - that's not so, although the sectorised MSA shown on TAPs does. Apart from the 4nm buffer, that is. But a route can have an MSA, too. And the "contour envelopes on Aerad charts are MSAs, too, aren't they?
I must have known this once, but it seems to have gone...
This relates to another thread on the Flight Deck Forum. Someone was asking about En Route Safety Altitudes, Sector Safe Altitudes, and now JAR has "Minimum Flight Altitudes". I think we're all in danger of getting confused over something quite important.
For example, someone said MSA only goes out to 25nm - that's not so, although the sectorised MSA shown on TAPs does. Apart from the 4nm buffer, that is. But a route can have an MSA, too. And the "contour envelopes on Aerad charts are MSAs, too, aren't they?
I must have known this once, but it seems to have gone...
This relates to another thread on the Flight Deck Forum. Someone was asking about En Route Safety Altitudes, Sector Safe Altitudes, and now JAR has "Minimum Flight Altitudes". I think we're all in danger of getting confused over something quite important.