EZY Captain gets the boot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY Captain gets the boot
Rumour has it that a fairly senior Captain from easyjet has been sacked for being fast on an approach. Apparently the Flight Data was used to sack him.
Living the Dream
Living the Dream
It wasn't just as simple as that, but although I know more I am not saying anything on Pprune to avoid any sort of embarrassment to all parties.
No-one just gets sacked for a basic Flydras on its own, there is always more to it.
No-one just gets sacked for a basic Flydras on its own, there is always more to it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we EZY pilots know, that there was more than one sacking based on FLIRDAS, of course other contributing points added.
So, for others, following us on final approach, we are always (at least me) looking for the safe (according the EZY books) approach.
Helps to keep the job for longer time!
So, for others, following us on final approach, we are always (at least me) looking for the safe (according the EZY books) approach.
Helps to keep the job for longer time!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not over familiar with being an EJ apologist, but feel I have to stand up to some of the implications posted above.
There have been a few pretty serious, and well publicised events recorded by FLIDRAS over the last few years (hardly surprising given the hundreds of thousands of sectors flown each year) and as far as I know none have resulted in the ditching of the crew involved for that event alone - tho I am not privy to the inside info.
I have to say that even as a non-orange EZ pilot I don't believe they'd waste someone for just one error, unless it was so heinous that it simply had to be done, in which case good riddance.
We hear a lot about "blame culture" in EJ, and sometimes they do seem to go OTT on relatively minor matters, (ie cabin crew sickness) but of those pilot "errors" I've heard of there has always been another side to the story. I have faith that on smaller issues they may sometines overreact , but on the bigger matters they seem scrupulously fair.
This may well be down to the bizarre horizontal "management structure" (fnarr!) where there is little ability to pass matters up the food-chain, simply because there isn't one, which might - I say again, might, result in relatively serious matters being dealt with at an inappropriately local (implying personal and erratic ) level due to no vertical structure, whereas the more serious ones do burst through to the top and get dealt with properly. Thus you sometimes seem to attract criticism/censure unreasonably early, but to attract the Company's ire seems a lot harder. Isn't that better than than the opposite way?
Either way, FLIDRAS is surely the biggest advance in Flight Safety, as well as to FO's nerves, than anything that has gone before. I suggest that if you object to the take on safe Ops "according to EJ's books" (the safest I have flown with - by far - in nearly 25yrs Professional Ops) then you are perhaps looking at a standard incompatible with the Company?
There have been a few pretty serious, and well publicised events recorded by FLIDRAS over the last few years (hardly surprising given the hundreds of thousands of sectors flown each year) and as far as I know none have resulted in the ditching of the crew involved for that event alone - tho I am not privy to the inside info.
I have to say that even as a non-orange EZ pilot I don't believe they'd waste someone for just one error, unless it was so heinous that it simply had to be done, in which case good riddance.
We hear a lot about "blame culture" in EJ, and sometimes they do seem to go OTT on relatively minor matters, (ie cabin crew sickness) but of those pilot "errors" I've heard of there has always been another side to the story. I have faith that on smaller issues they may sometines overreact , but on the bigger matters they seem scrupulously fair.
This may well be down to the bizarre horizontal "management structure" (fnarr!) where there is little ability to pass matters up the food-chain, simply because there isn't one, which might - I say again, might, result in relatively serious matters being dealt with at an inappropriately local (implying personal and erratic ) level due to no vertical structure, whereas the more serious ones do burst through to the top and get dealt with properly. Thus you sometimes seem to attract criticism/censure unreasonably early, but to attract the Company's ire seems a lot harder. Isn't that better than than the opposite way?
Either way, FLIDRAS is surely the biggest advance in Flight Safety, as well as to FO's nerves, than anything that has gone before. I suggest that if you object to the take on safe Ops "according to EJ's books" (the safest I have flown with - by far - in nearly 25yrs Professional Ops) then you are perhaps looking at a standard incompatible with the Company?
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 10th Jul 2008 at 17:54.
So, for others, following us on final approach, we are always (at least me) looking for the safe (according the EZY books) approach.
Helps to keep the job for longer time!
Helps to keep the job for longer time!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can one assume that Flydras is the same as FOQA or Flight Data Analysis?
If it is and this data was used to sack a pilot, then there are serious safety implications.
This is a fantastic safety tool but should only be used to monitor overall exceedences to improve general operating standards. If used in a punitive manner it will be opposed by pilot unions and that will be the end of a great safety system.
If this is not what I think it is, then ignore this post.
If it is and this data was used to sack a pilot, then there are serious safety implications.
This is a fantastic safety tool but should only be used to monitor overall exceedences to improve general operating standards. If used in a punitive manner it will be opposed by pilot unions and that will be the end of a great safety system.
If this is not what I think it is, then ignore this post.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bollox to the unions!
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections is straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and fly in a professional manner, then what's the problem?
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections is straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and fly in a professional manner, then what's the problem?
Last edited by AltFlaps; 20th Jul 2008 at 11:38.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the way in which EZY operate the Flight Data Monitoring system (FLIDRAS), can amount to catch 22 where confidentiality is concerned.
If you have exceeded a parameter/limitation (or landed off an unstable approach) and do not file an Air Safety Report (ASR) you will receive a 'counselling' phone call from a member of the FLIDRAS team, this is in confidence and provided you are suitably contrite will not go any further unless it is deemed serious. If serious, the union will be consulted and agreement gained before the data is released to management.
The problem lies where an ASR is filed. In EZY that action of filing an ASR explicitly authorises release of the flight data related to the event. It is the duty of the base captain (the pilot's line manager) to investigate all ASR's.
In a nutshell if you file an ASR, management get to see FLIDRAS data, if you don't file management may also get to see it.
ASR's should not be investigated by base captains but by the safety department. IMV the current policy hardly encourages pilots to file ASR's, however don't forget that according to easyjet, safety is their first priority.
If you have exceeded a parameter/limitation (or landed off an unstable approach) and do not file an Air Safety Report (ASR) you will receive a 'counselling' phone call from a member of the FLIDRAS team, this is in confidence and provided you are suitably contrite will not go any further unless it is deemed serious. If serious, the union will be consulted and agreement gained before the data is released to management.
The problem lies where an ASR is filed. In EZY that action of filing an ASR explicitly authorises release of the flight data related to the event. It is the duty of the base captain (the pilot's line manager) to investigate all ASR's.
In a nutshell if you file an ASR, management get to see FLIDRAS data, if you don't file management may also get to see it.
ASR's should not be investigated by base captains but by the safety department. IMV the current policy hardly encourages pilots to file ASR's, however don't forget that according to easyjet, safety is their first priority.
....what about (not EZ!) flight data that shows 200kts to 4DME or clean until 800ft?...Is that done, or is that a sacking?
If it is and this data was used to sack a pilot, then there are serious safety implications.
Dont jump to conclusions that someone was sacked because of one incident recorded on FLIDRAS - if you do, you are most certainly wrong.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except... I was told only a few weeks ago that management wanted to sack someone for an unstable approach, to get the measure across to crew. This may not have been an isolated incident, but he may still be a sacrificial lamb...
It is very odd that eJ are still allowed to have Base Captains adressing FLIDRAS/FOQA issues as well as being your direct manager in disciplinary issues. Competely contrary to JAR rules as I understand. Why dont the authorities do anything?
It is very odd that eJ are still allowed to have Base Captains adressing FLIDRAS/FOQA issues as well as being your direct manager in disciplinary issues. Competely contrary to JAR rules as I understand. Why dont the authorities do anything?
Last edited by outofsynch; 10th Jul 2008 at 20:22. Reason: **** spelling
manners to the manor born
Alt Flaps, if any professional crew flew in anyones manor, professional or not, it would probably be considered bad manners; as would breaking any agreement with any professional body, union or association.
I suppose its all about attention to detail.
I suppose its all about attention to detail.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've heard on this side of the pond that the feds are going to start going after folks on FOQA data, which is supposedly private and legally protected, especially if the carrier has an ASAP program.
The claim is that a non-stabilized approach constitutes a willful disregard of the rules which takes away the protection of an anonymous safety reporting program.
The claim is that a non-stabilized approach constitutes a willful disregard of the rules which takes away the protection of an anonymous safety reporting program.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an ezy behind me at AGP today he was being asked to keep the speed up leaving mar on the ILS Y,captain very politely declined blaming SOP and "had to be at 180knts" once on the localiser.
Being that 1/2 scale occurs at around 25 miles out and that he had to be back at 180 knts at that point would it be unreasonable to expect ezy to accept vectors to allow faster traffic to get by?
Once the guy came back to 180, there was a marked increase in vectoring and speed control behind.
How long has this SOP been in place is it new? Havn't noticed the orange chicane before.....
Being that 1/2 scale occurs at around 25 miles out and that he had to be back at 180 knts at that point would it be unreasonable to expect ezy to accept vectors to allow faster traffic to get by?
Once the guy came back to 180, there was a marked increase in vectoring and speed control behind.
How long has this SOP been in place is it new? Havn't noticed the orange chicane before.....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the vectoring at AGP is a complete joke, not helped by the combination of a 3.2 degree glideslope, tailwind over the mountains that becomes a headwind (because of sea breezes once the land warms up) at around 500-1000 above, and that when the radar man is paying attention, what happens when the footy is on is anybody's guess!!
And whilst were on EDI on 06 BHX/EMA on any runway will keep you well high, advice= just ask for extra track miles until they get the message
And whilst were on EDI on 06 BHX/EMA on any runway will keep you well high, advice= just ask for extra track miles until they get the message
Last edited by INKJET; 11th Jul 2008 at 07:34.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats not an SOP, that capt was probably just a bit of an old woman! Though saying that it's not particularly easy to slow down from much faster than that on a 3.2 degree glide - especially if theres a tailwind as there often is in AGP.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Old woman is not the term I would use. Anyway its not up to ATC, we tell them what we can do and that should be fine. Particular set of circumstances might have made the decisions far more plausible as alluded to above.
I think FLIDRAS/FOQA/SESMA should be used to monitor the operation and I am sure the data can not be used for an isolated incident unless one can prove gross misconduct and reckless behaviour.
It can be used to identify certain areas for training purposes and awareness of crew.
Something BA does brilliantly with their Flight Ops Newsletter SESMA articles.
One can question why a base captain should have access to the information. I would have thought only the 'gatekeeper' should have full access to names unless an incident is serious enough to warrant a more detailed discussion.
I'm sure that EZY has not sacked someone on an isolated incident without precedence.
They are very much a professional company and have a training department to be proud of.
I think FLIDRAS/FOQA/SESMA should be used to monitor the operation and I am sure the data can not be used for an isolated incident unless one can prove gross misconduct and reckless behaviour.
It can be used to identify certain areas for training purposes and awareness of crew.
Something BA does brilliantly with their Flight Ops Newsletter SESMA articles.
One can question why a base captain should have access to the information. I would have thought only the 'gatekeeper' should have full access to names unless an incident is serious enough to warrant a more detailed discussion.
I'm sure that EZY has not sacked someone on an isolated incident without precedence.
They are very much a professional company and have a training department to be proud of.