Originally Posted by
Captain Bligh
I'd like to see this argument distilled into it's two mutually exclusive parts.
Let's separate the "safety" concerns from any union activity or pilot discontent with contract negotiations. Then, those of us who are fence sitters on the safety side or the coin, can take a more objective look at the phase two training and give some thought to the question at hand, "does this constitute an erosion of safety margins?"
That way too, if we want to try to kick them in the gonads for their miserable attitude and the lack of progress at the negotiation table, the proverbial waters wont be muddied. There will be no doubt in the board room what the pilot's discontent is really all about.
Having spent a career working through and learning/implementing procedural evolutions...this is what we do. Adapt to new procedures (most often more safe) as suggested by industry experts, determined by the airline and it's insurance underwriters and ultimately approved by the FAA.
The issue isn't that we can't adapt to change the issue is that the training to do so is inadequate..No, non existent. One day you show up and everything that you've been doing and trained to use has changed and you are supposed to get everything you need from a poorly written one hour computer "training" session.
When CAL changed from whatever your old system was to the QRH did you get any training on how and where to use it? For instance did you know that the Eng Severe damage check list is NOT listed under the engine section but under fire protection? Of course you didn't unless somebody told you.
I like a QRH and have flown at two airlines that used them. But JEZZUZ you need at least a minute or two of training just to know where everything is.
BTW UAL used a QRC that had most of your major stuff with immediate action items on a card that referred you to page in the flight manual that had the expanded check list.
Of course the 777 and the Bus has ECL or EICAM that takes care of all or most of that paper check list garbage.