EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elephant in room?
This whole thread so far is mainly focusing on only partly relevant details, 160/4 or 180/5, who cares?! IMHO we should focus more about the big picture: who is now in charge of the safety of an aircraft and is FDM the correct (legal?) tool to prosecute and fire pilots?
If this captain in LPL did something 'unsafe' (i.e. against SOP's) by busting the 500' gate then so be it, but did he/she almost crash an aircraft? Was it really a close call (long landing, nearly an overrun etc) or was it just a bureaucratic decision to fire this person for not sticking to the SOP?
When is common sense, airmanship and thinking outside the box allowed? Is it only allowed after the crash, when the company/managers need a scapegoat?
If this captain in LPL did something 'unsafe' (i.e. against SOP's) by busting the 500' gate then so be it, but did he/she almost crash an aircraft? Was it really a close call (long landing, nearly an overrun etc) or was it just a bureaucratic decision to fire this person for not sticking to the SOP?
When is common sense, airmanship and thinking outside the box allowed? Is it only allowed after the crash, when the company/managers need a scapegoat?
Firstly, there is not nearly enough information about this particular situation for me to pass judgement directly. Those who are passing judgement really aren't helping, IMHO.
At my company, the FDM agreement with our pilots union is pretty solid in terms of protecting pilot identity. Union gatekeepers are the only persons who have access to crew identy in our program. While I believe we have a management commitment that would "do the right thing" when the crew of a significant event were identified, I also understand why our pilot group wants nothing to do with that in our FDM process. Past performance by past management probably has alot to do with that perception, and only through a long term management commitment that is truly non-punitive, will that perception ever change.
In my opinion, pilot unions, operations managers and even FDM programs themselves should not be in the business of protecting or sheltering rogue pilots. But I also believe that the number of rogue pilots is a very small percentage of the total. The vast majority are professionals who take their safety commitments seriously. So, when events are discovered (through FDM or any other means) that point to a possible deficiency in skills and/or knowledge, the program should be focussed on helping the individuals involved to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to prevent a recurrence of the event. But if that process identifies an individual who feels they haven't done anything wrong; who refuses to change; or who is un-trainable; there has to be a way to prevent that individual from being in a position where they could threaten the safety of the operation. IMHO, the only way such a process could ever be accepted is if it included peer involvement (i.e. the union sits at the table) from the outset to ensure that the process is fair and reasonable. It most certainly requires a delicate touch if you're going to do it right. But for the sake of all concerned, it's also important that it be done.
At my company, the FDM agreement with our pilots union is pretty solid in terms of protecting pilot identity. Union gatekeepers are the only persons who have access to crew identy in our program. While I believe we have a management commitment that would "do the right thing" when the crew of a significant event were identified, I also understand why our pilot group wants nothing to do with that in our FDM process. Past performance by past management probably has alot to do with that perception, and only through a long term management commitment that is truly non-punitive, will that perception ever change.
In my opinion, pilot unions, operations managers and even FDM programs themselves should not be in the business of protecting or sheltering rogue pilots. But I also believe that the number of rogue pilots is a very small percentage of the total. The vast majority are professionals who take their safety commitments seriously. So, when events are discovered (through FDM or any other means) that point to a possible deficiency in skills and/or knowledge, the program should be focussed on helping the individuals involved to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to prevent a recurrence of the event. But if that process identifies an individual who feels they haven't done anything wrong; who refuses to change; or who is un-trainable; there has to be a way to prevent that individual from being in a position where they could threaten the safety of the operation. IMHO, the only way such a process could ever be accepted is if it included peer involvement (i.e. the union sits at the table) from the outset to ensure that the process is fair and reasonable. It most certainly requires a delicate touch if you're going to do it right. But for the sake of all concerned, it's also important that it be done.
J.O.
Precisely, and I hope this re-focuses this important thread on the original topic of how FDA is used at various carriers. I, and I suspect many, are deriving great benefit in this "general meeting", comparing others' programs and issues. Gentlemen?...
At our airline we have an agreement between the airline and the pilots' association which has provisions for dealing with those very rare cases which can come along, and which you cite. Very definitely the matter is one for peer review/counseling and the airline management trusts this process.
In fact, generally if it gets to this stage, (either via FDM, ASRs or pilots coming in to talk), it is an HFACs problem and not merely a flight safety issue.
The union too, is fully supportive of the process. Notwithstanding our frustrations with support and involvement in terms of what the data is telling us (and which we convey to our operations people on a regular basis), our airline is very supportive of this aspect of the program, which, as you probably well know, obviously involves a great deal of trust between the two groups.
I can say with a high degree of confidence that our airline would never use the data in an inappropriate manner. Firing a pilot using FDA data would finish the program but that doesn't mean we are gun-shy with the data - where appropriate, the crew is contacted, discussions had, explanations offered and, again where appropriate, we create animations and presentations of the event and use them in recurrent training sessions and other venues appropriately discrete and de-identified.
At the same time, Flight Operations expect that the issues, as they arise in the data, will be dealt with as per the agreement. That is where the resources and support issues begin to get difficult as there just aren't the people to do the work but we're slowly making progress.
In fact, it is the pilots who desire and use the program (in terms of calls to the association FDA reps) - quite a reversal from the usual, I understand.
Kind regards,
PJ2
Precisely, and I hope this re-focuses this important thread on the original topic of how FDA is used at various carriers. I, and I suspect many, are deriving great benefit in this "general meeting", comparing others' programs and issues. Gentlemen?...
At our airline we have an agreement between the airline and the pilots' association which has provisions for dealing with those very rare cases which can come along, and which you cite. Very definitely the matter is one for peer review/counseling and the airline management trusts this process.
In fact, generally if it gets to this stage, (either via FDM, ASRs or pilots coming in to talk), it is an HFACs problem and not merely a flight safety issue.
The union too, is fully supportive of the process. Notwithstanding our frustrations with support and involvement in terms of what the data is telling us (and which we convey to our operations people on a regular basis), our airline is very supportive of this aspect of the program, which, as you probably well know, obviously involves a great deal of trust between the two groups.
I can say with a high degree of confidence that our airline would never use the data in an inappropriate manner. Firing a pilot using FDA data would finish the program but that doesn't mean we are gun-shy with the data - where appropriate, the crew is contacted, discussions had, explanations offered and, again where appropriate, we create animations and presentations of the event and use them in recurrent training sessions and other venues appropriately discrete and de-identified.
At the same time, Flight Operations expect that the issues, as they arise in the data, will be dealt with as per the agreement. That is where the resources and support issues begin to get difficult as there just aren't the people to do the work but we're slowly making progress.
In fact, it is the pilots who desire and use the program (in terms of calls to the association FDA reps) - quite a reversal from the usual, I understand.
Kind regards,
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 14th Jul 2008 at 21:20.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been posted earlier.
Found within the public domain.
EASYJET PILOT GETS SACK FOR SPEEDING
13 July 2008
People
AN easyJet pilot has been sacked for repeatedly flying too FAST. The senior captain is believed to have had a string of warnings about breaking strict speed limits. He was axed when a routine check of his flight records by bosses at the budget airline exposed yet another breach.
An easyJet source said: "It wasn't for just one mistake - because like anyone else pilots sometimes make small errors. "But if the very strict speed restrictions are continuously broken it stands to reason that safety may be compromised."
The pilot, who has not been named, was booted out last week after the latest incident when he landed a holiday jet in Spain. Officials said he was speeding when his plane with up to 100 passengers arrived at Malaga. It has not been revealed how fast the shorthaul aircraft was going. News of the dismissal was the hot topic for discussion on a pilots' website.
One easyJet flier hinted that more than one speeding pilot may have been fired recently. He wrote online: "We know there were more based on flight data recorders." The airline source added: "Some pilots are not happy about his departure but the rules are there for everyone's safety. "The company has an excellent safety record and the last thing it wants is to be known as 'SpeedyJet'."
Found within the public domain.
EASYJET PILOT GETS SACK FOR SPEEDING
13 July 2008
People
AN easyJet pilot has been sacked for repeatedly flying too FAST. The senior captain is believed to have had a string of warnings about breaking strict speed limits. He was axed when a routine check of his flight records by bosses at the budget airline exposed yet another breach.
An easyJet source said: "It wasn't for just one mistake - because like anyone else pilots sometimes make small errors. "But if the very strict speed restrictions are continuously broken it stands to reason that safety may be compromised."
The pilot, who has not been named, was booted out last week after the latest incident when he landed a holiday jet in Spain. Officials said he was speeding when his plane with up to 100 passengers arrived at Malaga. It has not been revealed how fast the shorthaul aircraft was going. News of the dismissal was the hot topic for discussion on a pilots' website.
One easyJet flier hinted that more than one speeding pilot may have been fired recently. He wrote online: "We know there were more based on flight data recorders." The airline source added: "Some pilots are not happy about his departure but the rules are there for everyone's safety. "The company has an excellent safety record and the last thing it wants is to be known as 'SpeedyJet'."
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some really bad examples of CRM here. To the ATC guys, do you think it’s fair to come on this website and put pressure on the pilots to maintain 160 to 4D. No. We (at EZY) are doing EXACTLY what our company tell us. This thread was started to say what happens if you deviate slightly from SOP. If you deviate and are not stable resulting in a few G/A's you have not got a leg to stand on. We are all quite keen to stay in employment!
This is not the place to sort out procedure, you may be putting pressure on guys. If it’s a problem (clearly it is) please please please go through the official channels and speak to the company(s). This way the company can turn round and say our aircraft will be flown like this.....!
This gives you lots of notice. Telling us that when you issue an instruction it’s too late for us to turn round and tell you that we cannot follow it isn’t helping. These instructions vary every day. 160 to 4d. min clean now. 180 to 6D (same thing) etc, glideslope U/S can you continue visually..... Do we have to phone ahead at push back to see what we are going to get!!?!?!?
Little threats of “well if you don't comply we can always break you off and bring you round for another go” are not professional and a little smiley face after doesn’t make it ok. You know that we don't carry sh*t loads of fuel and we don't need this.
We are doing as we are told. End of! The company dictate these rules for safety but also for financial reasons (to my understanding). We get reduced insurance if we can show that a high percentage of approaches are stable at 1000 feet. Apparently it’s a significant saving.
The company dictate the rules for good reason. We stick to them for good reason (mortgage, wife, kids!!). We are not doing it to be difficult. We don't sit there thinking lets slow now it will really fu*k ATC off and the company traffic behind who happens to be a mate!
I am disappointed that guys on here from UK ATC (generally thought of as the best in the world) have posted without thinking how their comments may apply pressure. Think CRM next time please!!!!
Once again please don’t have a go at the FD on here, pass your comments on up the line and we can get it sorted out. Don’t target us, the last thing we need is on approach after already holding for a while due to heavy traffic etc is, right I’m sick of this, this will teach him. “Right 90 degrees hold at XX for 10 mins for re-sequencing ”....””pan pan”
And while I am ranting typical gutter press reporting on last post.
This is not the place to sort out procedure, you may be putting pressure on guys. If it’s a problem (clearly it is) please please please go through the official channels and speak to the company(s). This way the company can turn round and say our aircraft will be flown like this.....!
This gives you lots of notice. Telling us that when you issue an instruction it’s too late for us to turn round and tell you that we cannot follow it isn’t helping. These instructions vary every day. 160 to 4d. min clean now. 180 to 6D (same thing) etc, glideslope U/S can you continue visually..... Do we have to phone ahead at push back to see what we are going to get!!?!?!?
Little threats of “well if you don't comply we can always break you off and bring you round for another go” are not professional and a little smiley face after doesn’t make it ok. You know that we don't carry sh*t loads of fuel and we don't need this.
We are doing as we are told. End of! The company dictate these rules for safety but also for financial reasons (to my understanding). We get reduced insurance if we can show that a high percentage of approaches are stable at 1000 feet. Apparently it’s a significant saving.
The company dictate the rules for good reason. We stick to them for good reason (mortgage, wife, kids!!). We are not doing it to be difficult. We don't sit there thinking lets slow now it will really fu*k ATC off and the company traffic behind who happens to be a mate!
I am disappointed that guys on here from UK ATC (generally thought of as the best in the world) have posted without thinking how their comments may apply pressure. Think CRM next time please!!!!
Once again please don’t have a go at the FD on here, pass your comments on up the line and we can get it sorted out. Don’t target us, the last thing we need is on approach after already holding for a while due to heavy traffic etc is, right I’m sick of this, this will teach him. “Right 90 degrees hold at XX for 10 mins for re-sequencing ”....””pan pan”
And while I am ranting typical gutter press reporting on last post.
Last edited by one post only!; 15th Jul 2008 at 07:42.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just what is an 'Holiday Jet' I wonder? Wearing a silly 'kiss me quick' hat and sunnies? Factor 15 slapped all over its bonce?
Journos.....?????
The rest of the information would certainly lead the airline to take the action it has done. If he was warned and still continued to fly outside SOPs then he deserved what was coming to him, imho.
People have been sacked for much less serious incidents, to my certain knowledge.....
Journos.....?????
The rest of the information would certainly lead the airline to take the action it has done. If he was warned and still continued to fly outside SOPs then he deserved what was coming to him, imho.
People have been sacked for much less serious incidents, to my certain knowledge.....
). We get reduced insurance if we can show that a high percentage of approaches are stable at 1000 feet. Apparently it’s a significant saving.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this all rather odd. I am regularly in amongst ezy of arrival and if anything in my opinion they fly quite slowly. I am often having to slow a few miles earlier.
I was talking with one chap, he explained about the new econ flying mentality resulting in cost index 20 and a subsequent econ descent speed of 265 kts IAS?
Ezy you need to fly faster.
I was talking with one chap, he explained about the new econ flying mentality resulting in cost index 20 and a subsequent econ descent speed of 265 kts IAS?
Ezy you need to fly faster.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ eagerbeaver: Why?
If ATC tells them to speed up they will otherwise they'll default to their econ descent speed, whatever that may be!
I think that's entirely appropriate. When I flew for them the econ descent spd on the 737 was less than 280kts. We regularly did less unless a specific speed was requested by ATC.
What's the problem?
We are all aviators and I'm trying to do my bit for the company. If ATCO units have an issue let them liaise with our Management, there are appropriate channels for this sort of thing
If ATC tells them to speed up they will otherwise they'll default to their econ descent speed, whatever that may be!
I think that's entirely appropriate. When I flew for them the econ descent spd on the 737 was less than 280kts. We regularly did less unless a specific speed was requested by ATC.
What's the problem?
We are all aviators and I'm trying to do my bit for the company. If ATCO units have an issue let them liaise with our Management, there are appropriate channels for this sort of thing
Current 737 cost index is 10. This equates to 250 IAS from about FL340 but if ATC ask you to fly quicker for sequencing just do it.
The irony is that most of the time London want 280 or 300kts so we will probably burn more fuel in the descent than if we had kept using the old Cost Index which had a more practical descent speed.
The irony is that most of the time London want 280 or 300kts so we will probably burn more fuel in the descent than if we had kept using the old Cost Index which had a more practical descent speed.
er82.
If we all flew at the same CI this would not be an issue. Slowly but surely all companies will reduce their cost index to save fuel. Easyjet are just leading the way!
If we all flew at the same CI this would not be an issue. Slowly but surely all companies will reduce their cost index to save fuel. Easyjet are just leading the way!
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the thrust levers are at idle it doesn't matter what speed you're doing in the descent, the burn is the same...
Sounds like a classic case of the company looking for an excuse to get rid of a guy....its been done before...
My $0.02.
Sounds like a classic case of the company looking for an excuse to get rid of a guy....its been done before...
My $0.02.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes
on
57 Posts
SR71, At risk of sounding like a pedant, not exactly correct. Idle thrust and flying faster = higher rate of descent = sooner level off = more time in (low lvl) crz = more fuel burn.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BANANAS - all correct apart from the fact that you start your descent later because of that higher rate of descent and therefore level off at the same point. Result - less fuel burnt.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With lower descent speeds the rate of descent is lower, therefore the time spent at lower fuel burn is longer (and less time spent at cruise fuel flow settings). The FMC thinks it is more economical to do it that way.
But Airbrake has hit the nail on the head, if we descend based on CI 10, we start down early but are then asked to speed up which is generally in the lower levels. Here the fuel burn goes through the roof, nullifying any gain we would have made.
edit Sadly Cynical:- Also not quite correct as more fuel burnt at top of descent due to descending later with cruise thrust fuel flow for longer (see above).
But Airbrake has hit the nail on the head, if we descend based on CI 10, we start down early but are then asked to speed up which is generally in the lower levels. Here the fuel burn goes through the roof, nullifying any gain we would have made.
edit Sadly Cynical:- Also not quite correct as more fuel burnt at top of descent due to descending later with cruise thrust fuel flow for longer (see above).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LATLONG
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too find myself being held up a lot behind those guys drifting down.
While they might like going down at 250 kts we try to keep a sensible speed, and so are often given stepped decents and often left high.
250 below ten, not fl 380. Nobody likes the little old lady doing 45mph in the middle lane on the motorway do we?
The managed decent is not at idle either!
While they might like going down at 250 kts we try to keep a sensible speed, and so are often given stepped decents and often left high.
250 below ten, not fl 380. Nobody likes the little old lady doing 45mph in the middle lane on the motorway do we?
The managed decent is not at idle either!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 55 North
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is contributing to thread creep...but late (ie high speed) descents do not save fuel!
Even at idle a jet engine requires fuel to keep it lit. This is directly related to the mass of air flowing through the engine. More speed = more air = more fuel. The fuel saved by extending the cruise, typically 20 to 30nm is outweighed by the extra fuel burned in the high speed "idle" descent. In the 737 it's not unusual to burn an extra 100 to 200kgs in a high speed descent. The most economical descent is to trade time for fuel and descend early and slow, which is exactly what the FMC does when you change the CI.
Even at idle a jet engine requires fuel to keep it lit. This is directly related to the mass of air flowing through the engine. More speed = more air = more fuel. The fuel saved by extending the cruise, typically 20 to 30nm is outweighed by the extra fuel burned in the high speed "idle" descent. In the 737 it's not unusual to burn an extra 100 to 200kgs in a high speed descent. The most economical descent is to trade time for fuel and descend early and slow, which is exactly what the FMC does when you change the CI.
Gender Faculty Specialist
It's quite simple really. Fly at the speed you, or your company, prefer until given speed control by ATC. Then you fly at that speed.
All aircraft can fly at 160 knots to 4 miles, you just have to configure for the speed. The only real reason you should have for refusing an ATC request is to preserve the safety of your aircraft. If you find that your SOP's are too restrictive for Gatwick then get the SOP changed. Remember Gatwick and 160/4 was here long before easyJet and there are hundreds of airlines flying into Gatwick who can do 160/4 without any problem, why should that change?!
Remember SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. They can be departed from or even adjusted slightly if required. 'Phone the Chief Pilot if you find yourself continually having problems with an SOP and he can and will change it if he thinks it's appropriate...and in the 160/4 case it would appear to be so.
All aircraft can fly at 160 knots to 4 miles, you just have to configure for the speed. The only real reason you should have for refusing an ATC request is to preserve the safety of your aircraft. If you find that your SOP's are too restrictive for Gatwick then get the SOP changed. Remember Gatwick and 160/4 was here long before easyJet and there are hundreds of airlines flying into Gatwick who can do 160/4 without any problem, why should that change?!
Remember SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. They can be departed from or even adjusted slightly if required. 'Phone the Chief Pilot if you find yourself continually having problems with an SOP and he can and will change it if he thinks it's appropriate...and in the 160/4 case it would appear to be so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes
on
57 Posts
Afraid not Sadly Cynical. Min fuel burn (in this descent context) = max time spent with thrust levers at idle. Less time at idle (hi spd descent) = more time with them open - be it prior to TOD or intermediate level off - it still means more burn.
Think about it, if you start your descent later you are spending a portion of time in the crz (with thrust applied) prior to a hi spd descent which could all have been spent at lower speed descent with thrust levers closed.
Now, back to the thread?
Think about it, if you start your descent later you are spending a portion of time in the crz (with thrust applied) prior to a hi spd descent which could all have been spent at lower speed descent with thrust levers closed.
Now, back to the thread?