EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't condone silly or dangerous flying - if that's what the sacked pilot did
Whatever the reasoning behind his departure I enjoyed flying with him and he will be missed.
Controversial, moi?
Interesting discussion.
In BA we have had SESMA for years and I believe BA were the first airline in the world to implement a monitoring program. Both pilots and management have the utmost faith in the system and it has most definitely proved its worth many times over.
The system is anonymous. If during the SESMA review process the joint panel which examine events that are triggered by the system would like to know more then the ONLY person authorised and able to obtain the flight crew names is the appointed BALPA SESMA rep. He will telephone the pilot(s) concerned and discuss the event.
In reality BA has a very open and non-jeopardy safety culture and providing a pilot has not been wilfully negligent NO disciplinary action is taken should I or any other pilot walk in to the office and admit to making an error of judgement.
Such is our trust of the safety culture that if we suspect that we may have triggered a SESMA 'event' we may telephone the SESMA rep. to tell him or even walk in to the office to explain the situation. The pilot may be offered further training but the end result is no shame, no disciplinary and, hopefully, a safer operation. Safety, of course, being the whole point of the expensive system!
On the subject of SOP 'gates' EZ appear to have adopted the stabilised approach criteria which BA have been using for years. i.e. at 1000' RA an aircraft will be:
in the planned landing configuration, on the correct vertical profile, have approach power set, be at a speed no more than target approach speed +15kts.
If those criteria are not met at 1000' RA then CONSIDERATION must be given to a go-around. If the criteria are not met at 500' RA then an immediate go-around MUST be made.
At many US airfields with the shambolic, multiple and often totally unrealistic speed instructions it is difficult to comply with those approach criteria. Many years ago there was liason between BA and ATC at London where our requirements and theirs were discussed and suitable mutually acceptable speeds were agreed. Notwithstanding the slight difficulties of '160 to 4' in certain types I believe the speeds requested at the London airports and the above stabilised approach criteria work well.
Oh that such speed requests were as consistent and practical elsewhere in the world.
In BA we have had SESMA for years and I believe BA were the first airline in the world to implement a monitoring program. Both pilots and management have the utmost faith in the system and it has most definitely proved its worth many times over.
The system is anonymous. If during the SESMA review process the joint panel which examine events that are triggered by the system would like to know more then the ONLY person authorised and able to obtain the flight crew names is the appointed BALPA SESMA rep. He will telephone the pilot(s) concerned and discuss the event.
In reality BA has a very open and non-jeopardy safety culture and providing a pilot has not been wilfully negligent NO disciplinary action is taken should I or any other pilot walk in to the office and admit to making an error of judgement.
Such is our trust of the safety culture that if we suspect that we may have triggered a SESMA 'event' we may telephone the SESMA rep. to tell him or even walk in to the office to explain the situation. The pilot may be offered further training but the end result is no shame, no disciplinary and, hopefully, a safer operation. Safety, of course, being the whole point of the expensive system!
On the subject of SOP 'gates' EZ appear to have adopted the stabilised approach criteria which BA have been using for years. i.e. at 1000' RA an aircraft will be:
in the planned landing configuration, on the correct vertical profile, have approach power set, be at a speed no more than target approach speed +15kts.
If those criteria are not met at 1000' RA then CONSIDERATION must be given to a go-around. If the criteria are not met at 500' RA then an immediate go-around MUST be made.
At many US airfields with the shambolic, multiple and often totally unrealistic speed instructions it is difficult to comply with those approach criteria. Many years ago there was liason between BA and ATC at London where our requirements and theirs were discussed and suitable mutually acceptable speeds were agreed. Notwithstanding the slight difficulties of '160 to 4' in certain types I believe the speeds requested at the London airports and the above stabilised approach criteria work well.
Oh that such speed requests were as consistent and practical elsewhere in the world.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Shka Zulu
Have you ever flown a 73NG with a lightfuel/payload. On a >3deg slope its a nightmare to slow down without chucking the gear out to get the speed back.
Whats the problem with lowering the gear when as an aicraft commander you feel it prudent to do so for any number of reasons.
Some posters on here have been well and truly SOP'd. I fully understand a stable approach criteria and the need for regulation to account for a broad spectrum of command personalitys and abilitys, but inflicting your speeds on other operators to keep your insurance premiums down is just a bloody p*ss take!
People go on about pressures of command and decision making, when its seems to me that captains are in effect having these decisions made for them in a windowless head office somewhere regardless of the conditions on the day. Where will we be in 10 years?
Im not ATC but imagine trying to facilitate everybodies SOP on a daily basis and trying to get maximum runway useage (to avoid delays) with 20 airlines having 20 different ideas of how to do it safely.
Have you ever flown a 73NG with a lightfuel/payload. On a >3deg slope its a nightmare to slow down without chucking the gear out to get the speed back.
Whats the problem with lowering the gear when as an aicraft commander you feel it prudent to do so for any number of reasons.
Some posters on here have been well and truly SOP'd. I fully understand a stable approach criteria and the need for regulation to account for a broad spectrum of command personalitys and abilitys, but inflicting your speeds on other operators to keep your insurance premiums down is just a bloody p*ss take!
People go on about pressures of command and decision making, when its seems to me that captains are in effect having these decisions made for them in a windowless head office somewhere regardless of the conditions on the day. Where will we be in 10 years?
Im not ATC but imagine trying to facilitate everybodies SOP on a daily basis and trying to get maximum runway useage (to avoid delays) with 20 airlines having 20 different ideas of how to do it safely.
Thats's because the teaching is to maintain the "selected" speed i.e. 160kts to 5dme then go "managed" and select the gear down. It generally takes a mile for the speed to drop to 150 kts so we have maintained 160+/-10kts to 4dme.
AFAIK, BA and Easy have broadly similar SOPs (should be stable at 1000', must be stable at 500') so why are BA 319s so much better at it than Easy?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not ATC but imagine trying to facilitate everybodies SOP on a daily basis and trying to get maximum runway useage (to avoid delays) with 20 airlines having 20 different ideas of how to do it safely
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ G-Spot
you must have misinterpreted my posting. i certainly do not have any issues getting the gear out. in fact when i used to fly into turin, i didnt hesitate to ask for the gear at 8000' and 200kts to get it in. the point i was making is that there might have been factors on the day that made him slow down sooner rather than later. who am i to sit here and judge what happened??? all i know is that the guys flying for ezy are well trained, perhaps a little over sop'ed, but in general it is very very sensible and safe
you must have misinterpreted my posting. i certainly do not have any issues getting the gear out. in fact when i used to fly into turin, i didnt hesitate to ask for the gear at 8000' and 200kts to get it in. the point i was making is that there might have been factors on the day that made him slow down sooner rather than later. who am i to sit here and judge what happened??? all i know is that the guys flying for ezy are well trained, perhaps a little over sop'ed, but in general it is very very sensible and safe
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, BA and Easy have broadly similar SOPs (should be stable at 1000', must be stable at 500') so why are BA 319s so much better at it than Easy?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado if we really are so poor at maintaining given speeds compared to other operators and are causing problems how about NATS contacting ezy flight ops management to discuss the problem? It might help us all out.
M.Mouse;
Your SESMA Program is a model for all those wanting an effective and appropriate flight data monitoring system. You are correct - BA began doing data monitoring on the BAC111 in the late 50's. The program, and your safety culture, grew out those early processes.
As we built ours, we spent time at your Compass Center viewing the facilities, guided by Mike Holtom. Your safety culture remains a model for all others, notwithstanding differing views offered here. Among notable others such as Lufthansa, QANTAS was (and hopefully remains) such an example.
It is heartening to hear such observations about one's own company which are backed up by independant, experienced observations by outsiders. Yes, it is expensive and today that is all the executives and accountants are looking at. I post what I do about FOQA/FDA precisely because FDA is NOT expensive "on balance" and that it does indeed work.
It is starting to work at our organization in spite of, not because of management because it is the pilots, who want the program and not the executive or Flight Operations management who are anything but overtly supportive or even knowledgable about the program. We've been at it ten years now and they still have no clue, no comprehension and thereby no basis upon which to champion the program. It is as though we don't exist - all we are, are "expensive resources" and, frankly, an unwelcome intervention in their operation.
The safety culture is admirably "non-punitive", they have an excellent safety policy, ASR reporting us shooting up but they simply don't know what to do with FOQA data and when something serious did happen, they didn't believe the data. There are varying degrees of "buy-in" of course, the where it counts - at the executive and the senior management levels, there is no formal "push" and no overt, "public" support. They don't think anything can happen. They seem, as Pink Floyd's lyrics go, "comfortably numb".
Thanks for your post.
Your SESMA Program is a model for all those wanting an effective and appropriate flight data monitoring system. You are correct - BA began doing data monitoring on the BAC111 in the late 50's. The program, and your safety culture, grew out those early processes.
As we built ours, we spent time at your Compass Center viewing the facilities, guided by Mike Holtom. Your safety culture remains a model for all others, notwithstanding differing views offered here. Among notable others such as Lufthansa, QANTAS was (and hopefully remains) such an example.
It is heartening to hear such observations about one's own company which are backed up by independant, experienced observations by outsiders. Yes, it is expensive and today that is all the executives and accountants are looking at. I post what I do about FOQA/FDA precisely because FDA is NOT expensive "on balance" and that it does indeed work.
It is starting to work at our organization in spite of, not because of management because it is the pilots, who want the program and not the executive or Flight Operations management who are anything but overtly supportive or even knowledgable about the program. We've been at it ten years now and they still have no clue, no comprehension and thereby no basis upon which to champion the program. It is as though we don't exist - all we are, are "expensive resources" and, frankly, an unwelcome intervention in their operation.
The safety culture is admirably "non-punitive", they have an excellent safety policy, ASR reporting us shooting up but they simply don't know what to do with FOQA data and when something serious did happen, they didn't believe the data. There are varying degrees of "buy-in" of course, the where it counts - at the executive and the senior management levels, there is no formal "push" and no overt, "public" support. They don't think anything can happen. They seem, as Pink Floyd's lyrics go, "comfortably numb".
Thanks for your post.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado,
EZY and BA have quite different SOPs but the concept of aiming to be stable by 1000ft and it being mandatory to be stable at 500ft is now virtually an industry standard.
As I wrote in my first post, it's the company's teaching. We start the reduction to V approach at 5dme. If there is a problem as far as ATC is concerned (I assume you are a controller at LGW) then perhaps you should let EZY know via the LGW Base Captain. He can then feed it to the Standards and Policy Captain and a change to the training may be made.
There is no difficulty with maintaining precisely 160 kts to exactly 4dme given benign weather; it is quite simply that EZY, given the low level of experience of some crews, wishes to have an extra margin in a few areas. Another example of this is the 180kts on base leg instruction from the Director. It is EZY policy not to fly below 'S' speed (Flap 1 speed, to the non-airbus people) without selecting the next stage of flap despite it being perfectly safe to do so. This often means that in order to fly 180 kts, flap 2 has to be selected which means extra drag which means more fuel burnt. Not economic. The upshot is that cost-conscious EZY pilots will fly 'S' speed on base leg and LOC intercept which will generally be anywhere between 180 and 190 kts depending on the aircraft's gross weight. Only if the aircraft is very light will 180kts be flown in flap1 configuration.
BA Airbus pilots (I used to be one until I hit 55) are probably better at it, if that is your perception, because they are used to LHR where shorthaul aircraft come down the slope 2.5 miles apart. Precise speed control is critical. The other thing to bear in mind is that there has been a huge amount of EZY training going on at LGW - pilots are sent there from other bases to do line training and there may be some EZY crews operating from day to day who are not LGW-based.
If you'd like to discuss it further, PM me.
AFAIK, BA and Easy have broadly similar SOPs (should be stable at 1000', must be stable at 500') so why are BA 319s so much better at it than Easy?
As I wrote in my first post, it's the company's teaching. We start the reduction to V approach at 5dme. If there is a problem as far as ATC is concerned (I assume you are a controller at LGW) then perhaps you should let EZY know via the LGW Base Captain. He can then feed it to the Standards and Policy Captain and a change to the training may be made.
There is no difficulty with maintaining precisely 160 kts to exactly 4dme given benign weather; it is quite simply that EZY, given the low level of experience of some crews, wishes to have an extra margin in a few areas. Another example of this is the 180kts on base leg instruction from the Director. It is EZY policy not to fly below 'S' speed (Flap 1 speed, to the non-airbus people) without selecting the next stage of flap despite it being perfectly safe to do so. This often means that in order to fly 180 kts, flap 2 has to be selected which means extra drag which means more fuel burnt. Not economic. The upshot is that cost-conscious EZY pilots will fly 'S' speed on base leg and LOC intercept which will generally be anywhere between 180 and 190 kts depending on the aircraft's gross weight. Only if the aircraft is very light will 180kts be flown in flap1 configuration.
BA Airbus pilots (I used to be one until I hit 55) are probably better at it, if that is your perception, because they are used to LHR where shorthaul aircraft come down the slope 2.5 miles apart. Precise speed control is critical. The other thing to bear in mind is that there has been a huge amount of EZY training going on at LGW - pilots are sent there from other bases to do line training and there may be some EZY crews operating from day to day who are not LGW-based.
If you'd like to discuss it further, PM me.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse etc the system easyJet used was taken onboard when easyJet bought Go-Fly. Go used FLIDRAS when it was owned by BA so it's very similar.
People know they can't pass 500 feet unstable without a good reason (i.e on fire!). The company have made it very clear that a unstable approach is not acceptable.
Sorry, but I'm glad this Capt is not in our company any more, we strive to be a safe and efficient operation- cowboy's aren't part of the team.
People know they can't pass 500 feet unstable without a good reason (i.e on fire!). The company have made it very clear that a unstable approach is not acceptable.
Sorry, but I'm glad this Capt is not in our company any more, we strive to be a safe and efficient operation- cowboy's aren't part of the team.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<160kias to 4dme on request by ATC >>
It is not a "request" but an ATC instruction. If you are unable to comply you must warn ATC in good time - and that doesn't mean when the instruction is given!
It is not a "request" but an ATC instruction. If you are unable to comply you must warn ATC in good time - and that doesn't mean when the instruction is given!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and that doesn't mean when the instruction is given!"
HD - my native language is german, so forgive me if I ask you:
you actually mean us pilots have to apply black magic during final approach or
is second sight a new requirement for the medical ?
Being a clairvoyant is not in my jobdescription....
Now, seriously: if that is a published requirement/constraint, then one clearly
have to tell ATC ASAP. Since Easy is not an adhoc charter organization IŽd
think they and ATC now what to expect from each other...
HD - my native language is german, so forgive me if I ask you:
you actually mean us pilots have to apply black magic during final approach or
is second sight a new requirement for the medical ?
Being a clairvoyant is not in my jobdescription....
Now, seriously: if that is a published requirement/constraint, then one clearly
have to tell ATC ASAP. Since Easy is not an adhoc charter organization IŽd
think they and ATC now what to expect from each other...
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD old fruit its Aviate Navigate Communicate! Given the less than accurate, track miles, "land afters" and other traffic management solutions I think we can apply what is considered as the safest option.
You would be surprised how often the Pilots amend the plan to compensate for other traffic departing and arriving.
Sometimes I think you guys work for the airport owners, otherwise UK ATC is the best in the world.
You would be surprised how often the Pilots amend the plan to compensate for other traffic departing and arriving.
Sometimes I think you guys work for the airport owners, otherwise UK ATC is the best in the world.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
EZY and BA have quite different SOPs but the concept of aiming to be stable by 1000ft and it being mandatory to be stable at 500ft is now virtually an industry standard.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What HD is saying is if you know you won't be able to do 160kts to 4, then tell us before we give you the instruction (i.e. whilst downwind so that we can build in some extra room). If you only mention it once you're on final and you can't fly the speed, then you either fly the speed or we break you off the approach and start again. We are quite happy to accomodate people as long as they inform us in good time.
Del Prado if we really are so poor at maintaining given speeds compared to other operators and are causing problems how about NATS contacting ezy flight ops management to discuss the problem? It might help us all out.
I should add I have nothing against Easy, in every other aspect they are a great operator and when it's quiet I offer 160kts to 5d and if they want to fly 185/190 on base leg (and ask) I'll always accommodate it.
After being suspended from radar a few times because of losses of separation caused by pilots slowing early, catching many go arounds because the one in front slowed down and having to take remedial action on a weekly (almost daily) basis to resolve conflicts caused by pilots not obeying speed instructions, it is a mystery to me why pilots will readback a speed clearance they have no intention of following.
I don't just want compliance for the sake of it, I do understand the problems you have with the 319s but if this is a conversation we need to have, why are we not having it? And why don't you tell us on base leg?
Sometimes I think you guys work for the airport owners