Originally Posted by forgot to bid
”... fly the airplane. That's the focus now- flying. Not useless maintenance for pilots. I've grown to accept it.
We’ve been getting farther and farther away from requiring a pilot to be able to disassemble and reassemble their airplane in the manner required of an Army infantryman to disassemble and reassemble his/her M-4/M-16, and simply saying I agree with you falls way short of how much I agree with your statement of what today’s focus should be ... “fly the airplane.”
I continually try to keep a balanced understanding of what role the Feds, the airlines, the pilots, the mechanics, and the unions play in today’s aviation environments. My suspicion is that if each of those organizations were to be completely honest (in my view, a key word in this discussion) with all of the issues that each brings to the table – there would be little disagreement among those folks. What’s more, I’m not at all sure that the resulting aviation environment would be something we would want, and certainly we wouldn’t feel good about subjecting our lives in it, if any of these organizations were no longer invited to “the table,” or if any one at that table tried to gain “the upper hand” or the “default” leadership role. I don’t want to get into who has the most knowledge or the best view or any of that. Either these folks belong at the table or they don’t. If they belong – whatever they bring – one thing or a hundred things – is something that is necessary. If it is necessary – it’s necessary. We also have to recognize that each of those organizations has a constituency to whom they are each responsible – to some degree. Personally, I believe that if everyone’s actions while at the table, and while doing what was agreed at the table, maintains the honest approach I described above, the constituency issues should not be a problem.
The challenge is what to do – and I think it’s a challenge because I know there are training programs out there now that run the gamut of content and standards. We think that the ones we know and are familiar with actually work – at least until something happens. You know what they say about hind-sight. What would we have said about Colgan’s training programs or about the training at Air France if we were to have had such a discussion in June of 2008? We know that as long as humans are involved, there is the likelihood of human error. That is a given and will likely be “a given” as long as there are humans. That is why your statement of the focus on which pilots should be riveted – i.e., fly the airplane – being as “on-point” as it is, should be the end-point goal of whatever is decided to do. We must determine how we can best provide those folks with the knowledge and skills they need to have to do that job the way ALL would have it done. That certainly implies “training” of some sort, and would have to include the content and the frequency of such training. Then we need to determine if there should be one set of standards that should apply to the various companies who decide to participate in this industry – or if we should find some way to allow each one to create and use their own standards. As this is a profit oriented business, and because whatever “standards” are agreed to will result in some level of cost – if those standards are altered, the costs are very likely to be altered as well. With that, I’ll revisit the goal ... determine first, if there should be one set of standards, and second, determine what standards should exist. IF it is determined that one standard should exist, I would submit two things – first, it would have to be a “neutral” body at that “table” that maintains (i.e., evaluates, approves, etc.) this single standard, AND second, an AQP approach simply won’t do.
Well, my fresh Mai Tai has arrived (sans umbrella, thank you very much). Vacations on Key Biscayne DO have their valuable moments!
Last edited by BTDTB4; 02-10-2012 at 09:15 AM.