| : |
|
Posted By Wally Hawn on 10 Apr 2010 09:14 AM
"in the mean time we can selectively get rid of bad pilots."? By "bad pilots", I assume you imply something other than unpopular with management. Unfortunately, the two more often than not end up meaning the same thing. If you're a problem for managers, you're a "bad pilot". It doesn't seem to matter how sound the issue is, if your boss doesn't want to address it, you're the problem for raising it.
If the safety forces want CVRs, cockpit data recoding, etc., the flight crew has to be absolutely supportive of the effort. If not, none of the data acquired will mean anything useful, it won't reflect the real world occurrences desired. I can dance and sing any tune you wish long enough for the job at hand, almost any professional can. Most also know quiet work-arounds that can disable equipment or result in false indications. Garbage in, garbage out, do-dah, do-dah, day... That's me, and I absolutely support the underlying idea- we need to know what's happening on the flight line.
To get my support as flight crew, the data will have to absolutely anonymous, except in event of fatal catastrophe. In the event of fatal catastrophe, the data has to absolutely protected- no leaks to the media, period, ever- and no possible use to assign blame, which is a tool to free management of ultimate responsibility. Like it's not a management issue if they call flight crew in at the last second for a night shift? Yes, that happens, and I can be fired for refusing...
So, if "X" did this or that, and that eventually resulted in the mishap, what's the root cause? How prevalent is that root cause and why does our system encourage it? I'd be behind those efforts 100% |
| Username: |
|
|
|
| Security Code: |
|
|
|
| Subject: |
|
RE: Cockpit Monitoring |
|
| Message: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topic Review |  | |
Wally Hawn
New Member
Posts:8
 |
| 10 Apr 2010 09:14 AM |
|
"in the mean time we can selectively get rid of bad pilots."? By "bad pilots", I assume you imply something other than unpopular with management. Unfortunately, the two more often than not end up meaning the same thing. If you're a problem for managers, you're a "bad pilot". It doesn't seem to matter how sound the issue is, if your boss doesn't want to address it, you're the problem for raising it.
If the safety forces want CVRs, cockpit data recoding, etc., the flight crew has to be absolutely supportive of the effort. If not, none of the data acquired will mean anything useful, it won't reflect the real world occurrences desired. I can dance and sing any tune you wish long enough for the job at hand, almost any professional can. Most also know quiet work-arounds that can disable equipment or result in false indications. Garbage in, garbage out, do-dah, do-dah, day... That's me, and I absolutely support the underlying idea- we need to know what's happening on the flight line.
To get my support as flight crew, the data will have to absolutely anonymous, except in event of fatal catastrophe. In the event of fatal catastrophe, the data has to absolutely protected- no leaks to the media, period, ever- and no possible use to assign blame, which is a tool to free management of ultimate responsibility. Like it's not a management issue if they call flight crew in at the last second for a night shift? Yes, that happens, and I can be fired for refusing...
So, if "X" did this or that, and that eventually resulted in the mishap, what's the root cause? How prevalent is that root cause and why does our system encourage it? I'd be behind those efforts 100% |
|
|
|
|
Darkensee
Posts:83
|
| 07 Apr 2010 07:15 AM |
|
| Perhaps, but bad management will find an excuse if they want to get rid of you, in the mean time we can selectively get rid of bad pilots. |
|
|
|
|
EMS Pilot
Posts:83
|
| 06 Apr 2010 12:52 PM |
|
| Totally agree with tjs3. |
|
|
|
|
jeff smith
Posts:83
|
| 06 Apr 2010 11:15 AM |
|
At first read, many may think the Senate bill reasonable. After all, who doesn’t want pilots paying attention to the demanding task at hand, and if data is available that show a particular pilot making mistakes, why would anyone support leaving him or her in the cockpit?
There are only five sentences in S. 3048 pertaining to recorded information. They authorize airlines the right to use this information for the following purposes:
(1) to discipline or discharge a pilot or flight engineer for actions that endanger the safety or well being of passengers;
(2) to defend itself in any discipline or discharge grievance proceeding;
(3) to evaluate or monitor the judgment or performance of an individual pilot or crew member;
(4) to justify or require a pilot’s submission to a proficiency check or line check; or
(5) for any other purpose relating to improving the safety or well being of passengers.
Taken together, these five sentences place all pilots completely at the mercy of airline management, and that is the true purpose of this bill. Consider number three and five carefully. They give airline managers cart blanch to use the information for literally anything they want.
There are many other factors affecting the safety of flying than pilot actions. Indeed, pilots are often the most vocal critics of unsafe practices initiated by or ignored by management, from poor maintenance to overworked crews. How vocal will pilots be if management can use anything said or done in the cockpit as a weapon against “trouble makers?”
Most people don’t realize that pilots were among the first to support the recording of cockpit conversations and flight parameters. No group has a more vested interest in learning exactly why accidents occur, particularly if it was an action by the crew. But the collection of this information has always been for the purpose of improving safety, not punishing pilots for being human. This bill completely changes the rules of the game.
To believe that this bill does not threaten honest, safe pilots is to believe that every manager with access to this information can be trusted to never misuse it. While most managers are as dedicated to safety as most pilots, how can any pilot who believes that there are bad pilots think there are no bad managers? |
|
|
|
|
GetReal
Posts:83
|
| 06 Apr 2010 09:00 AM |
|
| How can anyone possibly object to employers monitoring the performance of their employees? Given that a preponderance of aviation accidents are caused by unprofessional or incomptent piloting it seems a natural to Monitor and Evaluate, and then Educate or Terminate. The fact that any union would object to that just confirms that their goal is to collect dues from as many pilots as possible without any concern for the effect on the aviation industry or for the safety of passengers and other crewmembers. The proper use of FOQA is the pro-active approach. Like the previous reply, I don't mind if my name is stamped on the CVR/FDR download at the end of the day, and I would welcome any input that might highlight any bad habits I might have picked up in 41 years of single-pilot flying. Keeping it anonymous would be a sorry compromise, but it would be better than nothing. Management and owners need to know what's happening in the cockpit. |
|
|
|
|
Darkensee
Posts:83
|
| 06 Apr 2010 07:56 AM |
|
| What is everyone doing whilst flying that they are so concerned about people knowing? If it your aircraft, fly it like you stole it, if it isn't, bossman can tell you exactly how to fly it. If they paint the helicopter pink and make us wear chaps, you either do it, or go work somewhere else. Most accidents are caused by pilots messing up. If a bit of monitoring and feedback helps prevent that, and gets the cowboys fired, I'm all for it. I WISH my data was known, so I could have some data to back up my resume when applying for a job. I simply don't understand this hostility unless your flying is so bad you fear for your job if the data is known, in which case, I don't want you at my company dragging down my safety bonus when you do something stupid. |
|
|
|
|
tjs3
Posts:83
|
| 05 Apr 2010 12:49 PM |
|
| I think that members of congress, before they go to work, should be required to strap a camera and microphone to their head so that we the people can ensure that our elected representatives are appropriately conducting the nation's business and are representing the people without corruption and in the spirit of transparency. We'll call it the Congressional Quality Assurance Act. |
|
|
|
|
showline
Posts:83
|
| 05 Apr 2010 10:47 AM |
|
| I agree, any review of CVRs or FDRs, must remain anonymous. |
|
|
|
|
ali5106
Posts:83
|
| 05 Apr 2010 06:20 AM |
|
| yes i agree. |
|
|
|
|
EMS'er
Posts:83
|
| 05 Apr 2010 01:29 AM |
|
What tjs3 said sounds appropriate.
This will not be used in the interest of safety. Anonymity is the only way it could work. Sen DeMint does not have a clue to what he is asking for. Might as well save time and push forward the robotic flight deck concept and perform all flight duties from the safety of an arm chair. It won't be long before a bill such as this would eleminate all pilots from attrition. |
|
|
|
|
Butch
Posts:83
|
| 05 Apr 2010 10:19 AM |
|
Dear ALPA Member, I have some alarming news from Capitol Hill that I want to share with you immediately. I know you'll be as outraged as I am! Legislation was just introduced in the United States Senate that will put our managements right in the cockpit with us on every flight we make. That's right. The bill will allow airlines free access to the information on CVRs and FDRs and to use that information ". . .to improve pilot performance. . ." and make sure we, as pilots, are "performing at the highest levels. . . ."
In other words, the legislation will provide legal cover to management to review CVRs and FDRs for the purpose of prosecuting pilots.
Congress has put forth some pretty despicable proposals in the past, but this one may well take the cake! Here are the shocking details: Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), the Ranking Member of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, is the ring leader. His bill, S. 3048, the Pilot Professionalism Assurance Act, would permit airlines to freely audit CVRs and FDRs to: discipline or discharge pilots or flight engineers, evaluate and monitor the judgment and performance of pilots, and justify or require pilots to submit to proficiency checks. He's already sent out a request, asking other Senators to sponsor his bill. . .and there may well be other anti-union sympathizers in Congress who will support this vindictive proposition!
His message stated, "Unfortunately, all information from Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders is specifically blocked from airlines by provisions within the pilot union contracts with the airlines. This must change. The stakes are just too high." If that wasn't bad enough, it continued, "We must give airlines every tool available so they can ensure that their pilots are performing at the highest levels. . . ." To make matters worse, DeMint's staff is boasting that the NTSB endorses this approach to improve cockpit safety. In fact, that's a bit of a stretch.
The NTSB is calling for airlines to review and analyze all recorded information to identify safety trends as a way to watchdog the workplace, but notes that the reviews should be done anonymously and could not be used to punish individual pilots. Despite the NTSB's reassurances, this is a slippery slope that none of us wants to get near! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|