Captain guards the yoke...

Status
Not open for further replies.
av8or91 said:
Anyone had their captain hand over the controls to land the plane because they were not "comfortable" with the conditions?
Click to expand...

Yes. Had a CA with 48 hours in type hand the plane (CRJ) to me, with 1000+ hours in type to land. It was a zero flap landing on a 20 kts 90* crosswind runway covered in ice and snow. Her reasoning? I had more experience in type.
 
Cptnchia said:
Yes. Had a CA with 48 hours in type hand the plane (CRJ) to me, with 1000+ hours in type to land. It was a zero flap landing on a 20 kts 90* crosswind runway covered in ice and snow. Her reasoning? I had more experience in type.
Click to expand...
That's refreshing and rare. My favorite at my shop is that as the FO, I'm not allowed to land on runways <8,000' (ridiculous carryover from the 747). Being that the bulk of the experience in type is in the right seat, those landings default to the guy/gal with the least time in type. Sure, whatever.
 
av8or91 said:
Anyone had their captain hand over the controls to land the plane because they were not "comfortable" with the conditions?
Click to expand...
I plan on handing this thing over to my low time, but much higher time in type FOs quite a bit when I get done with training. St. Lucia in particular is scurry in a new plane. :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
He worked for EK for at least a decade, smartass. I have no idea what he's doing now, nor do I care. Based on his attitude, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an airplane he's operating.
Click to expand...


So what attitude is that exactly ATN?

I made an observation based on experience and cited factual examples. I neither claimed to be, nor do I think, I am better than anyone here. I stated who I think are better airline pilots than Americans, on average. I included Zimbabweans in that statement. Would anyone here have thought to include them prior to my making that statement. Does anyone here have an experience flying with Zimbabweans to refute what are my opinions?

I stated that I think it is the right thing to do to either demote, not upgrade, or terminate a pilot who has a history of problems. That is, after giving them plenty of training and opportunity to improve. Is it always done fairly? Probably not, but fairness is quite subjective. Would you not agree that it is a risk to the flying public, the company, and the other employees to retain the services of a pilot who has repeated issues? Emirates did it with quite a lengthy process where the pilot had plenty of extra training and counseling to try to help. No union true, but there was certainly no summary firings (outside of two examples which I previously said I disagreed with). Shoot, they even have HIMS program which has saved a lot of guys.

For all this you tried character assassination against me. Not debate, not conversation, not a lengthy line of reasoning. Just cheap shots.

Did I retaliate?

So who really has the attitude?



Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
I stated that I think it is the right thing to do to either demote, not upgrade, or terminate a pilot who has a history of problems. That is, after giving them plenty of training and opportunity to improve.

Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

I think most people will agree with this statement. The problem is that a few pages back you provided an anecdotal list of American pilots at your carrier who were demoted, suspended, or fired for what appeared to be honest mistakes and isolated incidents that happened to otherwise good pilots. If all of those incidents you cited were "last straw" type incidents for guys with a lengthy history of problems, then fine, most people aren't going to disagree with the pilot being terminated. But the evidence you've provided, including the fact that you could be suspended for six months for a hard landing by a guy on IOE, suggests that middle eastern carriers are somewhat draconian.
 
It doesn't matter how "lengthy" a process is when someone doesn't have their own representation to protect their interests. Kangaroo courts have been around since the beginning of time.
 
adk said:
I think most people will agree with this statement. The problem is that a few pages back you provided an anecdotal list of American pilots at your carrier who were demoted, suspended, or fired for what appeared to be honest mistakes and isolated incidents that happened to otherwise good pilots. If all of those incidents you cited were "last straw" type incidents for guys with a lengthy history of problems, then fine, most people aren't going to disagree with the pilot being terminated. But the evidence you've provided, including the fact that you could be suspended for six months for a hard landing by a guy on IOE, suggests that middle eastern carriers are somewhat draconian.
Click to expand...


You're right, it was a hastily written post. In all of those cases there was a history, some history's going back to the time they were at their U.S. legacy carrier. For instance the NWA A330 captain who was demoted to F.O. failed his upgrade on the DC-10 at NWA. He had significant difficulty getting through the DEC program at EK. After his incident, a decision was made that having him as a captain was a threat to the business. He was afforded the chance to upgrade two years later, but was unable to satisfactorily do so. Nice guy, but nice doesn't keep the airplane safe.

It doesn't matter how "lengthy" a process is when someone doesn't have their own representation to protect their interests. Kangaroo courts have been around since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you're getting at. Is it acceptable to keep an unsafe pilot in the left seat or in any seat?

Cite for me an example, other than the Melbourne incident, where you know an EK pilot was not afforded a fair shake?


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
Not sure what you're getting at. Is it acceptable to keep an unsafe pilot in the left seat or in any seat?
Click to expand...

It's impossible for an accurate determination to be made of whether a pilot is truly "unsafe" if he doesn't have representation to protect his interests and make his case. A country with no labor laws and no unions is an atrocious environment for a safety-sensitive industry.

Cite for me an example, other than the Melbourne incident, where you know an EK pilot was not afforded a fair shake?
Click to expand...

No pilot at EK has ever gotten a fair shake, because none of them have representation of their own. UAE laws make it impossible for an employee to receive a "fair shake."
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's impossible for an accurate determination to be made of whether a pilot is truly "unsafe" if he doesn't have representation to protect his interests and make his case. A country with no labor laws and no unions is an atrocious environment for a safety-sensitive industry.



No pilot at EK has ever gotten a fair shake, because none of them have representation of their own. UAE laws make it impossible for an employee to receive a "fair shake."
Click to expand...


It is very clear from that response you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Emirates and their disciplinary or training processes. They are both well defined and in writing.



TP
 
ChasenSFO said:
@Cherokee_Cruiser. Now that I remember you blocked him, it makes sense that you ask, but you can probably gather most of the post I replied to from what you quoted. :)
Click to expand...

How childish is that? One disagrees with another and then proceeds to block, only to later keep asking who people are responding to. It's like a world of butterflies and pretty flowers is suddenly disturbed when reality hits. Personally, if ALPA represented me I'd be more concerned that a national officer can't handle the pressure online without having to block and ignore what he sees is a problem. What does that say about his character? I'm glad he doesn't represent me.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Which means absolutely nothing. No representation = no fair process. Period.
Click to expand...

If you had gone to college at 18 and then a regular new college grad job at 22, you would see a predominantly non-union America in which you are still given a fair shake when it comes to discipline and firing. Perhaps your line of work has made you jaded. To say you need to be unionized (representation) in order to get a fair process is ridiculous. The rest of corporate America doesn't work that way.
 
tick1.jpg
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
If you had gone to college at 18 and then a regular new college grad job at 22, you would see a predominantly non-union America in which you are still given a fair shake when it comes to discipline and firing. Perhaps your line of work has made you jaded. To say you need to be unionized (representation) in order to get a fair process is ridiculous. The rest of corporate America doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I don't exactly disagree with you, but I'm not sure I would use the current climate in corporate America as a model of all that if fair and right towards anybody who isn't at the top of the food chain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top