Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EZY Captain gets the boot

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EZY Captain gets the boot

Old 10th Jul 2008, 17:31
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
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
stationcalling is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 17:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 536
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.
kriskross is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 18:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 301
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!
Kraut is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 19:03
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 514
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!
Understood but if you will not follow the assigned speeds (eg 160 to 4dme) can you state that to ATC prior to base leg?
Del Prado is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 19:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 301
160kias to 4dme on request by ATC (LGW i.e) is an " EZY approved" speed, which will normally assure to be stable at our "gates".
And this is quite commom at LGW, right?
Kraut is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 19:45
  #6 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,417
"160kts to 4DME"? Is that EZ SOP?

....what about (not EZ!) flight data that shows 200kts to 4DME or clean until 800ft?...Is that done, or is that a sacking?
PJ2 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 19:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,263
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.
4Greens is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 19:56
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
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?

Last edited by AltFlaps; 20th Jul 2008 at 12:38.
AltFlaps is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 20:33
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,269
Hope it never comes down to your word versus the word of the FDM dept, AltFlaps.

How can you have a 'senior' captain at EZY? Does that mean he was old?
Gary Lager is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 20:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 265
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.
nonemmet is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 20:59
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 59
Posts: 1,034
....what about (not EZ!) flight data that shows 200kts to 4DME or clean until 800ft?...Is that done, or is that a sacking?
Anyone doing that in a medium jet deserves to get sacked. BTW the EZY SOP's state that the aircraft should be in the landing configuration by 1000ft and stable by 500ft, latest.

If it is and this data was used to sack a pilot, then there are serious safety implications.
As a few posters have said, this was not an isolated incident, others dating back years.

Dont jump to conclusions that someone was sacked because of one incident recorded on FLIDRAS - if you do, you are most certainly wrong.
kick the tires is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 21:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
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?

Last edited by outofsynch; 10th Jul 2008 at 21:22. Reason: **** spelling
outofsynch is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 21:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,043
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.
beardy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 21:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,211
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.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 21:53
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 49
Posts: 1,110
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.....
G-SPOTs Lost is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 22:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
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

Last edited by INKJET; 11th Jul 2008 at 08:34.
INKJET is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 22:08
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Age: 45
Posts: 179
ALT FLAPS well said I 100% agree with you. Well said.......
ukdean is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 22:12
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
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.
Rod Eddington is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 22:50
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 385
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.
Shaka Zulu is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2008, 23:14
  #20 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,417
AltFlaps;
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 in straight from the 1970s.

If you are a professional crew and flew in a professional manor, then what's the problem?
If it were only that simple!

I understand what you're saying, have heard it from many quarters as we try to establish an FDA Program and I know why you say it.

First, I ask of you the same understanding with the opposite view, for very good reasons with which you may even possibly agree.

It's very easy to say no pilot's data should be protected if, a) if you're management, b) a regulator or a potential prosecutor, c) don't have a FOQA Program, d) don't have a union, e) aren't flight crew flying airliners.

Which is it please, or are you a regular line pilot but still believe that "bollox" is the answer?

Here are some thoughts on this. The following applies to non-Asian countries and any other states including non-ICAO states where we know that FOQA data is used purely for disciplinary measures.

In announcing "bollox to the unions", please consider this: if data loses the protections afforded under pilot/management agreements and is instead made available to those wishing to fire pilots using FOQA data, that door swings both ways. Pilots will instantly begin requesting and using data in all manner of operational, industrial and political battles and it won't stop there. The c/c's will be after the data to "prove" turbulence injury cases. Then passengers...

If the airline management gets the data to do with what they will, so will the courts, the media and the very same pilots' unions which you seem to hate will demand and ultimately achieve the same level of access "in the name of the public good", especially if there is an accident. It will be "no-holds-barred" and "bollox to the unions" may become an embarrassing utterance.

In truth the protection of safety information and flight data gathered under FOQA/FDA Programs is really a lot more complicated than that. It is an old, trite saying now but still applies: Be careful what you wish for.

Edited to add the following:

At the same time, ASRs are not "get-out-of-jail-cards", nor should FOQA agreements be a suit-of-iron which protects pilots against negligence or intentional acts of non-compliance. Perhaps this addresses the point you are making which, if I interpret correctly, I am in full agreement.

Again however, if the data shows intentional non-compliance (and this is not as hard to detect as some may believe), this is not simply a matter of "getting the guy involved and whacking him/her with a rolled newspaper or worse". Do that, and FOQA is out the door or, at best, a sham. This is where agreement with the pilots comes in. Any agreement with the pilots, union or no, that is worth signing will include ways processes and procedures for dealing with such non-compliance as will any safety reporting policy worth signing on to.

That way, if a repeat series of safety events shows up in the data belonging to the same person, the safety problem which clearly exists and which is beyond mere "human factors", is handled according to established procedures. Some advocate showing "such people" the door. Unless the event is negligent in the extreme or criminal, (both of which should be covered in any safety policy and agreement), such an outcome is expensive and produces no solution worth having.

The purpose of the agreement to which both the union and management must be signatories, is to deal rationally with serious safety matters before they turn into an accident. If it's merely used to whack pilots, FOQA as a pre-emptive safety tool is finished and exists merely as a corporate box-tick until the next accident, and, as I have iterated here before, any organization that collects safety data and doesn't do anything with it or merely uses it to punish, is placing not it's pilots, but itself (and perhaps its very existence) in jeopardy should an accident occur. Just ask QANTAS about their Bangkok accident, the antecedents of which were "in the data" years before.

Unfortunately, it is only after an accident that managers, senior executives, bean-counters and perhaps even shareholders, sit up and take notice (if they're not up on charges).

I suspect we're in agreement on fundamentals. But dismissing the union with a "bollocks" would eventually render any data-program ineffective and place the enterprise itself at risk. SMS, such as it is in some locales, is too far along now to return to the seventies, an unenlightened enforcement culture which did not prevent but contributed to the accident rate experienced at the time.

Last edited by PJ2; 11th Jul 2008 at 01:45.
PJ2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.