hours / no-incident verification: mandatory?
 

Someone recently uttered in my presence, that by EASA/EU rules the AOC holder is lawfully obliged to provide a "job verification". True or false?

Any reference to actual chapter and verse much appreciated.

In your subject title you mentioned "hours / no-incident verification" and in the text above just "job verification". The two are not seen as the same in may places. I have recent first-hand experience trying to get a reference letter from a major UK airline confirming not only my dates of employment and job title but also my hours flown as per their records along with a "no-incident" verification. HR produced a very basic letter with the dates but refused to provide additional information. They also blocked the Pilot Manager from writing such a thing. Despite my plea that without this my employment chances abroad will be limited, they continued to refuse (The Arabs and Chinese demand this sort of thing all the time).

I highly doubt there's such a rule at the EASA level (EU forget it). In the UK, we have the following: https://www.gov.uk/work-reference . It tells us employers don't have to provide one if they don't want to but must if they are in a "regulated" industry. And even then there's no rule specifying level of detail. Can "regulated" apply to aviation? Who knows...

If they won't provide, provide one for them.

RTzero: correct!

While there'd be local rules, non-aviation based, that a job/assignment reference is a duty of the employer (assuming you had an employee status in the first place), it does not cover the no-accident/incident statement or hours flown.

What I heard and came to verify, that somewhere under the AOC holder approval is an obligation to give their departing crew an experience certificate.

Just like you said, a job reference could be provided (a very reasonable one) by the agency, but the airline themselves refuse to issue the flight hours certificate. Are there tools to go via CAA and push them? That's what I am after.

I just got a reply from the CAA about this, they will not provide this as they say you may not have reported an incident or accident. Just covering themselves I suppose, you can pay them £46 to verify you actually have a license!

That's sad, really? Even the justification is ... sad. And small.

Some other CAA's would issue the no-incident/accident clean bill of health with the licence verification, for me both of them for one revenue stamp worth 2 pounds. Of course, the statement itself reads "no record of INC/ACC", but to refuse so altogether ...

Thought as RTzero points out, some workplaces need a similar statement from the last operator(s) HQ, as the CAA note is not deemed enough.

What counts as an incident? Minor flap speed exceedance? Go around due unstable approach? Windshear?

Any of the above would rule out almost every pilot with more than a handful of hours.

All this verification started because airlines found they were being duped by people claiming hours and command time they didn't have.

One airline I know simply writes to your present employer, without your permission, and asks them outright if you are who you say you are, with the experience you claim and incident accident free.

Sadly, once again, the pilot community have brought this upon themselves by being dishonest.

I have been wondering about this topic..
Airlines often include a question in their application process, asking wether you were ever involved in an accident/incident.
I would imagine that given the chance between 2 equal applicants, with 1 of them having been involved in an incident, the other one would be preferred ?

As said above, what if the incident/accident was a result of a technical/external/ factor that in no way could have been avoided by the applicant's actions?

What If tomorrow I am involved in a serious incident, related to a technical failure, how could that bar me from joining certain airlines in the future?

Two applicants. Both same amount of hours on same type.
Applicant A: flew for reputable carrier, never had anything go wrong, flew in nice weather, had his planning handled by someone else.
Applicant B: Had to fight management pushing him to operate unsafely. Had two engines fail, but landed safely,

100% A will get hired before B.