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

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.

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!:ok:

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?

Understood but if you will not follow the assigned speeds (eg 160 to 4dme) can you state that to ATC prior to base leg?

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?

"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?

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.

Bollox to the unions!:mad:

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'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.

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.....;)

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

ALT FLAPS well said I 100% agree with you. Well said.......

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.

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.

AltFlaps;
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.

And this is the problem...You just cannot do this in the States.You fly the speed they tell you.You are a pilot and they expect you to act like one.To non-comply with an ATC command because of SOP is a disgrace!Absolute disgrace.ATC wont ask you to fly anything dangerous but they do assume you're a professional with ability.
I know absolutely nothing about the reasons for this dismissal but I do know that data from QAR's should be confidential and not used in this manner.So many variables in flying that exceedances will occur..its only a persistent pattern of high sink rate on final that should raise alarm bells.Everything else can be dealt with by a friendly chat with the CP.

I'm sorry but it's hardly a disgrace. It is a judgement call for the crew at that particular time on the day. What I don't think you understand is that the ezy "stable criteria" simply cannot be met if we fly the speeds that are sometimes asked. The company has a very clearly defined policy on meeting the criteria by 500ft, and if it is bust and a landing completed from that approach then it is trouble for the crew concerned. So things like 180 to 4 isn't really possible anymore.

Maybe not in the States. You been into Barcelona or Madrid recently? Or Rome Ciampino? To name just a few :eek:

What kind of nonsense statement is this? Who's in command, the captain or the ATCO? Is the ATCO type-rated and command checked? Does he have some kind of greater appreciation of what's required to put the aeroplane safely on terra firma than the crew do?
Remember the S in ATS, it stands of Service. ATS/ATC is a service that stops you hitting the other tins in the sky. The pilots control the aircraft, ATC control you not hitting other aircraft. If the captain wants to fly at 180kts into AGP (which seems reasonable to me given the nature of the place) that's his perogative and shall remain so long as ATCOs are not the legally responsible commander of the aircraft.

Had you ever been to AGP and witnessed the shambles that passes for ATC there, you'd retract this statement!

Well, you're between a rock and a hard place nowadays. Many U.S. carriers have raised the stabilized altitude to 1000 feet from 500 and they are cracking down on non-compliance.

I'll try to give the 180 to the marker with a tailwind at JFK and late configuration for noise to the Europeans but if it doesn't work out, I'm going to burn some carbon credits and go around. Big Brother is definitely watching the QAR tape these days.

Camelhair,
You share the sky with thousands of others.ATC coordinate it all by issuing commands.Speed control(both fast/slow) is one of their best tools.To deny them this is unprofessional.180 knots at 25nm is woefully slow and a disgrace,unless you're on your own on the approach(which is never the case in the States).

I have flown into all the Spanish airports.Their ATC is not the best but it is not deficient.There are no special problems at AGP(cat b?)..simple step down procedure,some terrain.Why would anyone have flaps out at 25 miles unless instructed to do so.This isnt Nepal.Thats where all the turb is anyway,25 miles out for rwy 14.Burns more fuel as well.Might be SOP,but its poor airmanship.

Perhaps the focus on the QAR/SOP is compromising airmanship.Discuss.:cool:

On the 340-500 and 600 we are quite often at close to max landing weight, even after a fourteen hour flight, what I do( and many of my colleagues) is select flap 3 early announce "flap 3 non standard", then gear down. The 340 does not like to go down and slow down at the same time, this way we dont get invited for "tea and biscuits" with the fleet manager.

Rananmin
 

AGP is often a problem, i have been cleared for the approach on R13 only for us to point out that the ILS is identing for R33, for them to reply " yes we have landing traffic on the R33 ILS at 7 miles" !!

There is no need normally for 180 at 25 miles, but again i have been kept high FL120 at 25 miles inbound MAR cleared for the approach maintain high speed contact TWR who then want min approach speed, they simply don't talk to each other.

East Midlands circuit height? abeam down wind 09 FL060 descend 3000ft?

Time after time you will be in the same ground position no matter that the QNH is way above standard or hoofing Easterly tail wind BHX no better, the best are LGW follow their speeds to the knt and they'll drop you in on profile on the LOC.

Of course recent fuel prices have caused airline to change their FMC cost index, but no one told ATC? so you have Easy going down at 255 baby at 265Ryanair at warp 8 Flybe 145 at 300knts and so on.

It would be far better if ATC just instruct on speed, they have the big picture (unless you are a Spanish ATC in which case its not the big picture its the flat screen (TV that is!!))

Lol

ehh ryanair does nt at warp 8 anymore on descents....

It is when you get invited in for 'tea without biscuits' that you know you are in trouble!

Quite right Bearcat, it's 280Kts/.78 and our Chief Pilot has pointedly told us that "we are a 250Kts below FL100 airline"

Kraut, I've yet to see an EZY 319 keep 160 to 4 at Gatwick.

Rananim
Agree with that... and here lies probably one of the problems at Ez, way too regulated, well let's call it too SOPed. Don't use your head girls & boys, just follow the SOPs.
The upside: apparent safety, management protection as regards to the law
The downside: pilots use part of their concentration on keepin'within SOPs instead of using their heads, specially in situations...

On the other hand, again in eZ, speeds and configs on the approach are recommendations only. The stabilized 1000/500 criterias are the ones that are mandatory. Finally the game for us is to reach these as quickly and elegantly as possible.

CamelhAir
Fully supportive :D
Frankly I think the big ATC/PILOTS war has already started. ATC would at best like to remote control us (look for instance at the American terrorist take-over control project), on our side we could do without them using TCAS/free flight concepts.


In conclusion:
I'm paid to follow SOPs and as long as deemed safe will abide to them


live 2 fly 2 live

inkjet:
When was the last time you flew into BHX?

Rwy 33 FL80 at HON passing HON 210kts descent to 4000ft QNH you have about 28 miles to touch down plenty of room for anyone to get the aircraft down. If you want to route HON EBONY GROVE then just let me know and we'll bang you into the hold at GROVE and you can descend with all the miles you think you need whilst we let all the guys and girls that can get their aircraft down 4000ft in 20 miles land ahead of you.

Have you ever been to visit ATC at BHX you would be made welcome and we could explain some of the airspace limitations that we have.

All traffic vectored into BHX now is given a CDA (continuous descent approach) all ATCOs are trained to provide them. If for any reason you are high, it is generally because London have kept you high inbound because the departures to the south conflict with the inbound routes!

In my past life when I flew 737NGs into AGP I was always slowed to 180 knots by 20 miles...if not there can be big problems trying to stop the olg girl at the bottom!!! A few people that I was training wanted to show me that I was an"old women" and how you could "keep it up till close in"....was always good for a goaround practise!!:ok:

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.

The aim is to be stable and in landing config by 1000ft above TDZ. What works in still air is 180kts to 6dme, 170kts to 5dme and 160kts to 4dme. Observing those rules of thumb should have the aircraft stable and on approach speed at 1100ft.

That's all well and good Wingswinger and I take your points on board. However, 160 to 4 is a standard ATC assigned speed on final approach. Everybody gets it unless requested otherwise...BA 737 fleet have cottoned onto this and routinely ask for 170 to 5 when they are on the downwind leg. This is not a problem for us as long as we are told well in advance.
The reason it is a standard speed is to ensure we achieve the correct spacing requested by the tower in order for them to get a deaparture away. More importantly, it is sometimes an issue of maintaining the correct space between a pair of a/c for vortex reasons.
If the assigned speed is a problem then we need to know sooner rather than later.It is not acceptable to just read back "160 to 4DME" and then batter on regardless flying your own speed. There are moves afoot to make 170 to 5 the standard final approach speed for everybody, which will hopefully improve things. :ok:

Hmm, Interesting discussion. I don't have AGP plates to hand but I'm sure that somewhere on 10-4 or 10-9 (it used to be on the airfield plate????) it states that aircraft should maintain 180knots when established on the LOC and then 160 to the marker. All the comments regarding the ILS at 3.2° are correct. If you hit the glide in Flap 1 (Airbus) around 200 knots you will not be able to slow it down with out taking the gear first to get Flap 2 (not good practice to take F2 at VFE next -1 knot anyway.) So F2/180 actually works very nicely.

I cannot understand why people get so uptight about people decelerating. I'll admit 180 at 25 is a bit conservative - but that's the Commanders choice. Who knows it may have been his first sector after Command check. I always constrain my speed and profile at MAR - because often you get cleared direct to the 17D point (straight over the high ground....) and I don't want a high ROD trying to make up for a lost couple of miles - I'd rather they just let us fly the procedure - you probably only save <1 minute with the direct. So for me it's 220/FL65 at MAR - I'm then in a position to start configuring/decelerating and I can V/S the steps without any drama. It's worked for the last 10 years - and I don't plan on changing.

I like a simple(safe) life. :O

A4

Just found it:

250 <FL100
Reduce to 210 final turn to intercept LOC course when within 20 nm
180 when crossing 12D
160 when crossing GM Lctr

So, 180 from 12 is "standard" - not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

A4

Its just like on the roads.... having some consideration for those behind you, if you chose to travel slower than 'average'. 180 at 25 miles may not be dangerous, or illegal, but it is inconsiderate, if you have been put at the front of a queue.

Too may people are not familiar enough with how fast you can slow the aircraft with gear. eJ over-SOP's philosophy denies most new recruits the concept of using gear gear before flaps if it helps in the optimum descent. I get really frustrated when FO's fart round with speedbrake at 180/190 (A319) when dropping the gear is an instant cure.

Ezy are keen to get the 'stable approach' (as measured by Flight data analysis) because there will be a reduction in Insurance Premiums if they can prove compliance in 9x.x% of approaches. Quite difficult to do sometimes as the average Airbus autothrottle has real trouble keeping the speed within the mandated parameters. Nothing directly to do with flight safety. There are all sorts of ridiculous things that go on in Ezy, but it's when something costs money that the full weight of their effort comes to the fore.
Having said that, I don't condone silly or dangerous flying - if that's what the sacked pilot did.