View Single Post
Old 06-17-2014, 06:02 AM
  #19  
TonyC
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Tuck View Post

Let's see how Tony handles his TAA observer (or whatever the program is called) tonight.

Hmmm. What would Tony do?

I was originally scheduled for Trip 602 MEM 11 17JUN14 - MEM-ROC, 15:17 Turn, ROC-MEM. I've got a whole week of 'em scheduled. A B-777 First Officer was placed on my pairing as "JS1", and a Hotel Reservation confirmation number was added to Trip Notes. A few days ago, another note was added "TAA/QA Obsv". This B-777 First Officer has a week of such trips where he is listed as JS1 and a note shows him as "TAA/QA Obsv", but none of them are on airplanes on which he is qualified. Trip 525 MEM 11 18JUN14, Trip 344 MEM 30 19JUN14, Trip 354 MEM 30 20JUN14, and Trip 665 MEM 11 21JUN14 round out his week, and those 5 trips in 6 days constitute the entire June Calendar for this First Officer.


Is it paranoia if they're really out to get you? I wasn't quite sure what to think when my FO alerted me to this attempted QA ride a couple of weeks ago. I had the luxury of time to contemplate my options, reread pertinent sections of the CFR and FOM, and to plan a course of action. When I was removed from the trip because of a guage change (been happening a lot, by the way -- they seem to be having trouble finding enough MD-11 FOs to fill all of the MD-11 trips), I wondered if this FO Manager Wannabe would follow me to my new destination, or follow the new crew to the original destination. He wound up with an Airbus crew doing a ROC Out & Back, Trip 512 MEM 30 17JUN14 Rv 02 (XTRA). Obviously, that Captain did not have the luxury of time to study his options.

The way I read Title 14 CFR §121.547 Admission to flight deck., no person may admit any person to the flight deck unless that person is a (1) crewmember, (2) an FAA air carrier inspector, a DOD commercial air carrier evaluator, or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, who is performing official duties, or (3) has my permission. Our FOM requires me to provide cockpit access to FAA Air Carrier Inspectors, Line Check Airmen conducting evaluations, and (the one ALPA is grieving) Fleet Check Airmen conducting QA observations. A First Officer not qualified in my airplane is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I also had time to contact an ALPA attorney to inquire if they were aware of any experiences with QA Observers, and what responses from The Company were, if any. The counselor I spoke to was not aware of any conflicts or consequences.


They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that actions speak louder than words, so feel free to believe or doubt as you see fit. Since the pairing was changed, I cannot report what I did; I can only relate what I intended to do. I intended to listen to this QA Observer's introduction and explanation of his role on the flight, and then to politely inform him that I would be invoking my authority under 14 CFR §121.547 and not granting him permission to access the cockpit. I would give him the option, and a few minutes to decide, to ride in a cabin jumpseat to ROC and back if he really wanted to go to ROC, but I would be calling Jumpseats and the Dispatcher to inform them of his new status -- cabin jumpseater, or cancelled jumpseater - - his choice.

I would expect him to balk at first, in which case I was prepared to inform him that while I'm not obligated to provide him a reason for denying flight deck access, I will go so far to say that his presence in the cockpit would present a distraction that would not be in the best interest of safety. In light of the letter I received a couple of weeks ago from our System Chief Pilot imploring Captains to remove distractions from the cockpit, I am sure that the Duty Officer and the System Chief Pilot will support my decision to ensure the safety of the flight.


Originally Posted by 3pointlanding View Post

The QA is a part of SMS and an IOSA requirement. Part 5 will soon be issued. Observations should be just that. . If we are to be on the IOSA registry and in compliance with SMS we have to do it.

IOSA -- IATA Operational Safety Audit

IATA -- International Air Transport Association

Last I checked, our airline is registered in the U.S. of A., and governed by the FAA. The FAA's Safety Management System (SMS) consists of four voluntary programs:

1) Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP)

2) Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA)

3) Line Operations Safety Assessments (LOSA)

4) Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS)

Three parties voluntarily participate in each of the four programs: The FAA, The Air Carrier (FedEx Express), and the pilot's representative (ALPA). All three parties share in the conduct of the programs, and share in the information collected. Any party can withdraw from any program, and the program will stop.

None of those characteristics apply to The Company's QA program. There is only one participant -- The Company. Only one party is privy to the results - - The Company (sound like the Enders report?). The Company's QA program is NOT part of SMS, it betrays the spirit of the voluntary safety programs, and it is therefore being grieved. There has been plenty of information communicated by the ALPA FDX MEC, and most people should have heard about this via the Recurrent Ground School briefing that cut into your lunch break. Anybody who hasn't heard of this just isn't paying very close attention.


As an aside ... ALPA (and FPA) and FedEx fought for years over the terms for ASAP and FOQA programs. FedEx refused to let go of provisions that would allow discipline of pilots participating in these voluntary programs. Congress required the FAA by public law to report which airlines were participating in AQP, ASAP, FOQA, and LOSA. In January 2011, The FAA reported (Federal Aviation Administration Voluntary Safety Programs Response to P.L. 111-216, Sec. 213) that FedEx had AQP and LOSA programs, but not ASAP and FOQA. The next month, we had a "bridge" CBA with ASAP and FOQA. Still, instead of having the MEC Chairman sign an ASAP MOU and FOQA LOA and implementing the programs immediately, we were told we needed to ratify the CBA to get the programs, and we had to wait for the membership ratification process to conclude.






.
TonyC is offline