EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your paragraph Rubrik relates to very serious breaches and there is no question that if the incident is serious enough the data should be de-identified. In Ezy however any ASR will de-identify the data even if unrelated and this means that even though you may file an ASR for a TCAS event you may end up having to explain why you did not descend at econ speed later on in the flight. In practical terms this means that for most folk (ie most of us that would file ASR when needed and not only in extreme cases) the data is not protected. You may be surprised to hear that some people even file an ASR for very minor excedances (Vref +12 at 500´ on a turbulent day and after a fully stable approach from 1000´).
A different issue that comes up in your post is who manages the system. In Ezy we have a couple of young FO´s as well as a number of captains. While I am sure they are very bright and able pilots I feel that this is a job where some extra experience will be quite beneficial.
A different issue that comes up in your post is who manages the system. In Ezy we have a couple of young FO´s as well as a number of captains. While I am sure they are very bright and able pilots I feel that this is a job where some extra experience will be quite beneficial.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes though all the FLIDRAS data in the world won't protect people from themselves.
We had a case a couple of years' ago at one of our European bases when a Captain decided to carry on his day after a weather related incident required that he get the aircraft checked over.
He thought he knew better and didn't get it checked - he got the proverbial boot. In this case I believe that his attitude was as much the cause of his demise as the incident.
We had a case a couple of years' ago at one of our European bases when a Captain decided to carry on his day after a weather related incident required that he get the aircraft checked over.
He thought he knew better and didn't get it checked - he got the proverbial boot. In this case I believe that his attitude was as much the cause of his demise as the incident.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Willy Walsh's post make anyone else wonder quite why anyone with a brain cell would bother to register with PPRUNE simply so that they can write a post saying' We'll give him a job.'?
I am astounded at the idiocy of the comment and also at the thought process that prompted the totally inappropriate post in the first place.
If the mods find that I have insulted the idiot that wrote it, please delete my post, but if you do, please delete his idiotic post too!
There had been some interesting discussion on this thread until WW's stupid post brought it to a frustrating halt.
I am astounded at the idiocy of the comment and also at the thought process that prompted the totally inappropriate post in the first place.
If the mods find that I have insulted the idiot that wrote it, please delete my post, but if you do, please delete his idiotic post too!
There had been some interesting discussion on this thread until WW's stupid post brought it to a frustrating halt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not sure if Rubik 101's faith in the system is entirely rational. Sometimes in flying all Professor Reason's holes line up, we then have to be very unequivocal and direct indeed to save the situation.
Not always that easy on day1 after stars removal with a pilot of dubious ability sat next to him. Still, at least the brand protected its own ego.
Not always that easy on day1 after stars removal with a pilot of dubious ability sat next to him. Still, at least the brand protected its own ego.
Not sure if Rubik 101's faith in the system is entirely rational. Sometimes in flying all Professor Reason's holes line up, we then have to be very unequivocal and direct indeed to save the situation.
Not always that easy on day1 after stars removal with a pilot of dubious ability sat next to him. Still, at least the brand protected its own ego.
Not always that easy on day1 after stars removal with a pilot of dubious ability sat next to him. Still, at least the brand protected its own ego.
Does anyone understand this posting??
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Jock, why so angry?
Your EZY procedures are not more strict than the recommeneded, merely different.
If Big Orange wants you to use 1000' for every approach, so be it.
I was merely trying to explain the use of the system to those who evidently have little or even no knowledge of the system. This forum is an ideal medium for spreading information so why do you spend your precious time trying to shoot people down? Ridiculing posters for no apparent reason seems counter productive to me but you obviously have your own agenda here.
The pilot in question must have tansgressed the limits on one or more occasions or he would still have his job. You seem to know everything so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it was that he actually did wrong.
Until then, stop slagging me off for writing what most others seem to think is good information.
Happy Christmas to you all.
Your EZY procedures are not more strict than the recommeneded, merely different.
If Big Orange wants you to use 1000' for every approach, so be it.
I was merely trying to explain the use of the system to those who evidently have little or even no knowledge of the system. This forum is an ideal medium for spreading information so why do you spend your precious time trying to shoot people down? Ridiculing posters for no apparent reason seems counter productive to me but you obviously have your own agenda here.
The pilot in question must have tansgressed the limits on one or more occasions or he would still have his job. You seem to know everything so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it was that he actually did wrong.
Until then, stop slagging me off for writing what most others seem to think is good information.
Happy Christmas to you all.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
It might be worth pointing out to your company the huge savings in insurance premiums that are possible with a proven and effective FLIDRAS system. I know at my company these savings have, over the last few years, offset a large part of the cost of the system. In addition, it means trends can be very quickly identified and be addressed through OPC/LPC training cycles. Rubik's description and particularly his attitude to this system reflect, in my opinion, the attitude of most current line pilots. We have to squeeze out of the system all those pilots who for the sake of their own ego ignore SOPs and regulations that have been developed through years of experience, sometimes tragic, to enhance flight safety.
It might be worth pointing out to your company the huge savings in insurance premiums that are possible with a proven and effective FLIDRAS system. I know at my company these savings have, over the last few years, offset a large part of the cost of the system. In addition, it means trends can be very quickly identified and be addressed through OPC/LPC training cycles. Rubik's description and particularly his attitude to this system reflect, in my opinion, the attitude of most current line pilots. We have to squeeze out of the system all those pilots who for the sake of their own ego ignore SOPs and regulations that have been developed through years of experience, sometimes tragic, to enhance flight safety.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"PF will request the After Start checklist only when all ground personnel and
equipment are seen to be clear of the aircraft" Ops Manual B
I would be interested to know how the GB data compared with EZY before you start slagging the SOP's! I used to fly the monitored approach procedure on the VC10 many years back and never rated it!
equipment are seen to be clear of the aircraft" Ops Manual B
I would be interested to know how the GB data compared with EZY before you start slagging the SOP's! I used to fly the monitored approach procedure on the VC10 many years back and never rated it!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other point that needs mentioning is that the blame culture at easyjet has reduced voluntary ASRs by 75% from the levels we enjoyed during the GB days.
Ah, the good old days of GB. Those 'GB' pilots have decided to leave professionalism at home now they are working for EZY, have they? Give us all some credit.
There's no checklist item for "Take off clearance...obtain" or "Coffee...checked not too hot" but most pilots seem to manage OK.
I have filed ASRs at EZY, some involving errors on my part, but not been disciplined/sacked for being honest (yet). I have found the culture at EZY open and objective, and have been here longer than most. Still, I never worked at GB which was obviously the greatest airline in the world. I shall just have to manage for myself the cockpit gradient and CRM issues that our sub-standard SOPs cause, oh what a strain.
eezeegeebee.
I will not pick at your post, but the attitude it conveys discredits the majority of your Ex GB colleagues who are carrying on with the job and getting used to the different ways Easyjet does things.
As for your concern about the Ground Crew after engine start, I suggest you have a look at part B before you next act as PF. Your post only displays your lack of SOP knowledge on this matter.
I will not pick at your post, but the attitude it conveys discredits the majority of your Ex GB colleagues who are carrying on with the job and getting used to the different ways Easyjet does things.
As for your concern about the Ground Crew after engine start, I suggest you have a look at part B before you next act as PF. Your post only displays your lack of SOP knowledge on this matter.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
By the way, its only a matter of time before a ground crew guy gets dragged under the nosewheel because there's no checklist item for "Ground Crew Clearance ..... Received"
There's no checklist item for "Take off clearance...obtain" or "Coffee...checked not too hot" but most pilots seem to manage OK.
Now, if we can just get the commies to quit using metric altitudes...I remember riding with some Deltoids on a 767 a while back. They had about twenty items on the Before Takeoff checklist, they must have got it from a DC-8 or CV880. The Boeing company manual 76 Before Takeoff checklist has one item.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At GB, we followed the BA SOPS
The monitored approach is the safest way to fly as it ensures that both pilots are "in the loop" from TOD to touchdown
If one pilot is losing the plot, the other can always say, "OK, thanks, I'll take it from here".
The other point that needs mentioning is that the blame culture at easyjet has reduced voluntary ASRs by 75% from the levels we enjoyed during the GB days.
By the way, its only a matter of time before a ground crew guy gets dragged under the nosewheel because there's no checklist item for "Ground Crew Clearance ..... Received".
pitotheat;
Thanks very much - we pointed that out years ago but in fact any flight operations management worth their pay would/should already know that fact - maybe they do, maybe they don't - I don't know.
We have a program in place, (a superb one - highly detailed and capable) but the other aspect of data collection is using it, presumably to advantage. I don't think it is too cynical to observe that the insurance company almost certainly doesn't know what is actually done with the data in fact, likely hasn't a clue what "FOQA/FDA" is or how it works. They just know what they hear (I doubt if they read) so, so long as the box is ticked which takes about 30 seconds from question to response in the forms, there may be a reduction in premiums. Someone from a suitable and knowledgeable insurance company involved in insuring airline assets can correct me (and I welcome such correction) but if they really know more than what I've said here, then they're not looking after their own risks very well and someone else is cheating. In fact we've been trying to get this program going for a decade now and it has been a tremendously tough, uphill battle with logs thrown in front of our horses at every turn, even today; when inconvenient, the data isn't believed and when it is, it's either a maintenance item or the exceedance(s) is/are "normalized" so it can be ignored. This issue is so pervasive as to be institutional rather than related to any one (or group) of individuals. I don't think the draw of cheaper premiums will resolve that issue.
Thanks very much - we pointed that out years ago but in fact any flight operations management worth their pay would/should already know that fact - maybe they do, maybe they don't - I don't know.
We have a program in place, (a superb one - highly detailed and capable) but the other aspect of data collection is using it, presumably to advantage. I don't think it is too cynical to observe that the insurance company almost certainly doesn't know what is actually done with the data in fact, likely hasn't a clue what "FOQA/FDA" is or how it works. They just know what they hear (I doubt if they read) so, so long as the box is ticked which takes about 30 seconds from question to response in the forms, there may be a reduction in premiums. Someone from a suitable and knowledgeable insurance company involved in insuring airline assets can correct me (and I welcome such correction) but if they really know more than what I've said here, then they're not looking after their own risks very well and someone else is cheating. In fact we've been trying to get this program going for a decade now and it has been a tremendously tough, uphill battle with logs thrown in front of our horses at every turn, even today; when inconvenient, the data isn't believed and when it is, it's either a maintenance item or the exceedance(s) is/are "normalized" so it can be ignored. This issue is so pervasive as to be institutional rather than related to any one (or group) of individuals. I don't think the draw of cheaper premiums will resolve that issue.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eezegeebee, your opinion that BA SOPs are by far the best implies that everyone else's are inferior, a grandiose and somewhat arrogant assumption, in my opinion.
Having used BA SOPs for a few years some time ago, I agree that they are different but I cannot see how anyone would consider that they are better.
They seem to be different only on the basis that conformity is for others.
Boeing/Airbus SOPs have been proved to be quite acceptable and satisfactory for many thousands of operators, apart from BA.
When there is one soldier out of step with everyone else in the squad, it is somewhat arrogant of him to express the opinion that everyone else is out of step apart fror him.
Monitored approaches, the primary difference to 'mainstream' SOPs have their place on our operations but only in marginal weather conditions. To force a hand-over of control from PF to PNF and back again at minimums, when you can see the runway from TOD, is simply pedantry.
In my opinion, of course.
Having used BA SOPs for a few years some time ago, I agree that they are different but I cannot see how anyone would consider that they are better.
They seem to be different only on the basis that conformity is for others.
Boeing/Airbus SOPs have been proved to be quite acceptable and satisfactory for many thousands of operators, apart from BA.
When there is one soldier out of step with everyone else in the squad, it is somewhat arrogant of him to express the opinion that everyone else is out of step apart fror him.
Monitored approaches, the primary difference to 'mainstream' SOPs have their place on our operations but only in marginal weather conditions. To force a hand-over of control from PF to PNF and back again at minimums, when you can see the runway from TOD, is simply pedantry.
In my opinion, of course.
Last edited by rubik101; 20th Aug 2008 at 09:08.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rubik
To force a hand-over of control from PF to PNF and back again at minimums, when you can see the runway from TOD, is simply pedantry.
Engine Mode Selector - As Required
At the end of the day its different strokes for different folks...not something to get too worked up about.
brgds
