|
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1667939)
The Safety Management System Manual will tell you all about it and yes QA is mentioned as a requirement to support SMS.
Some refer to LOSA as a QA program. Our QA program is not as good LOSA. Not even close. Get it? |
Safety Assurance
Safety Assurance is achieved through external audits, self-audits and the Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Programs. QA audit programs cover formal audits of Air Operations (AO), Global Operations Control (GOC), and Ramp Operations locations. Safety Assurance is also achieved via ASAP, FOQA, AQP and employee reporting systems. The primary purpose of FedEx Internal Evaluation Program (IEP) is the continual improvement of safety through independent evaluation and assessment of the design and performance of operational processes and the SMS to determine if they are conforming to objectives and desired outcomes. Evaluations of operating departments’ operational and SMS processes are conducted in accordance with Safety & Airworthiness Departmental Manual, Internal Evaluation Program. SOS Manual 2-00 |
And they will still be welcome to a seat in the back under 121.547, FOM, and SCP safety distraction prevention email guidance...
|
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668417)
Safety Assurance Safety Assurance is achieved through external audits, self-audits and the Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Programs. QA audit programs cover formal audits of Air Operations (AO), Global Operations Control (GOC), and Ramp Operations locations. Safety Assurance is also achieved via ASAP, FOQA, AQP and employee reporting systems. The primary purpose of FedEx Internal Evaluation Program (IEP) is the continual improvement of safety through independent evaluation and assessment of the design and performance of operational processes and the SMS to determine if they are conforming to objectives and desired outcomes. Evaluations of operating departments’ operational and SMS processes are conducted in accordance with Safety & Airworthiness Departmental Manual, Internal Evaluation Program. SOS Manual 2-00 https://corp.pilot.fedex.com/m/departments/safety/files/smsm_24jun13.pdf You could dress it up and make it look like this, [url=https://corp.pilot.fedex.com/m/departments/safety/files/smsm_24jun13.pdf]FedEx AO Safety Management System Manual[/url], and it would display like this: FedEx AO Safety Management System Manual That's what I was talking about when I said, "A link, please?" Copying and Pasting a paragraph from a document produced by FedEx does NOT show that the FAA requires the program -- your assertion. All this document does is prove that FedEx says so. We may as well engage in a round of Why? Because! Why? Because? Why? Because I said so! Why? So, again. You said,
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1665103)
The QA is a part of SMS ... If we are to be ... in compliance with SMS we have to do it.
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1666808)
... the FAA require[s] QA programs ... Thanks. . |
Tony is one smart MoFo.
|
He's a mocapt
|
If you are interested,
Refer to AC 120.92, the soon to be published FAR part 5 (it is available) and order 8900.1 volume 10 (SAS), and the IOSA Standards Manual Flt. 1.10 Quality Assurance Program and ORG 3.4.1 Guidance which the company must adhere to remain on the IOSA registry). That should give you an idea the program. It is not a big deal |
Not a "big deal"?
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
If you are interested,
Refer to AC 120.92, the soon to be published FAR part 5 (it is available) and order 8900.1 volume 10 (SAS), and the IOSA Standards Manual Flt. 1.10 Quality Assurance Program and ORG 3.4.1 Guidance which the company must adhere to remain on the IOSA registry). That should give you an idea the program. It is not a big deal Not a big deal? Required by the FAA, so I would disagree. Do you know there is an iPad App for the observers? Why doesn't the line pilot have access to this app? I'd like to know what is being "observed"? It is more than you think...pilots discussing being tired, include that in the report. Pilots yawning, include that in the report too (or so I've been told). It appears to be much more than objective observations (eg, time w&b received, time DG paperwork received). Can this be a good program if run properly? Sure. The company they are allegedly following (Qantas) had the FOs on the trip answer these objective questions vs an outside observer. Also, how should the "observer" be listed on the FP/R? Jumpseater? ACM? What status? The FOM Rev 54 doesn't have the current iteration of the program (unless I missed the modification by FCIF). |
I suggest you take that up with the CP.
|
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668645)
I suggest you take that up with the CP.
|
You really are a slow learner, aren't you?
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
If you are interested, Refer to AC 120.92, Before it was cancelled, it said, "This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Development and implementation of an SMS is voluntary." Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers replaced it on August 12, 2010. Guess what it says. "This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Development and implementation of an SMS is voluntary." Still, if an aviation service provider elects to voluntarily implement an SMS, the FAA lists Performance Objectives and General Design Expectations for a host of Components (Safety Policies and Objectives, Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion), Elements (such as Safety Policy, Hazard Identification and Analysis, Safety Performance Monitoring and Measurement, and Communication and Awareness), and Processes (such as System Description and Task Analysis, Analysis of Data, and Training). Paragraph 5.2 of Appendix 1 explains that FAA FRAMEWORK EXPECTATIONS are functional expectations, that is, they describe the what of each process, not the how. "For example, the what of a deicing process is to prevent any aircraft from taking off with ice adhering to any critical control surface. The how of the de-icing process would include deicing equipment procedures, flight crew deicing procedures, hold over table activities, etc., and may be different between individual organizations. You know what's missing from this Advisory Circular? QA. Well, that's not entirely true, the letters are in FOQA, which is mentioned along with ASAP in a list of "Related Reading Material" that may help users of this AC to develop their SMS programs. Funny, no mention of a Quality Assurance program. But there is a nice passage about Just Culture. Permit me to quote: "A safety effort cannot succeed by mandate only or strict implementation of policy. Where individual attitudes are concerned, organizational cultures set by top management establishes the tone that enhances the performance and efficiency of the entire SMS. Cultures consist of psychological (how people think and feel), behavioral (how people and groups act and perform) and organizational (the programs, procedures, and organization of the enterprise) elements. An organization’s culture consists of the values, beliefs, mission, goals, and sense of responsibility held by the organization’s members. The culture fills in the blank spaces in the organization’s policies, procedures, and processes and provides a sense of purpose to safety efforts. Dr. James Reason, and other organizational system safety theorists, stresses the need for a reporting culture as an important aspect of safety culture. The organization must do what it can to cultivate the willingness of its members to contribute to the organization’s safety efforts. Dr. Reason further stresses the need for a just culture, where employees have the confidence that, while they will be held accountable for their actions, the organization will treat them fairly." So, Strike 1 and 2 on your attempt to prove The Company's QA program is required by the FAA.(italics in original, bold mine)
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
... the soon to be published FAR part 5 (it is available) ... You're a real hoot. Strike 3. Well, OK, let's make this more fun. Let's call this one a foul ball. Here's the text of the proposed rule: Proposed 14 CFR Part 5 Regulatory Text It says that a Part 119 Certificate Holder must have an SMS program that meets the requirements of this section by 3 YEARS after the date of implementation of the proposed rule. That SMS program may contain programs, policies, or procedures the certificate holder already had in place, including components of an existing SMS, and it must include at least the following four components: (1) Safety Policy (2) Safety management (3) Safety assurance (4) Safety promotion Guess what's not required. Uh, huh. "QA" ain't in there. "Quality Assurance" is not mentioned.
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
... order 8900.1 volume 10 (SAS), ... Paragraph 10-1-1-5 BACKGROUND A. Statutory Authority. ... SAS is not a separate safety standard and does not impose additional requirements on certificate holders. Section 2 Safety Assurance System: Introduction to SAS Business Process and Tools Paragraph 10-1-2-5 BACKGROUND D. Safety Management Systems (SMS). ... SMSs consist of four main components: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), Safety Assurance (SA), and Safety Promotion. Sound familiar? Yepp, same stuff we found in the Advisory Circulars and the Proposed 14 CFR Part 5. And, strangely enough, again we cannot find QA or Quality Assurance programs mentioned, much less mandated by the FAA. Another foul ball hit to the same place, well wide of the baseline, and dribbling to a pathetic stop before making it even half-way to the first base coach.
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
IOSA Standards Manual Flt. 1.10 Quality Assurance Program and ORG 3.4.1 Guidance which the company must adhere to remain on the IOSA registry). That should give you an idea the program. It is not a big deal IATA can develop standards and recommended practices, but it cannot mandate adherence. Even so, while it uses quality assurance (lower-case, generic) quite extensively, it does not mandate a particular way to achieve the objective. From the IOSA Standards Manual, 1 September 2013, 7th Edition, we read: FLT 1.10.1 The Operator shall have a quality assurance program that provides for the auditing and evaluation of the flight operations management system and operational functions at planned intervals to ensure the organization is: i) Complying with applicable regulations and standards of the Operator; ii) Satisfying stated operational needs; iii) Identifying areas requiring improvement; iv) Identifying hazards to operations.The formal and systematic process of auditing and evaluation of management system and operational functions to ensure:
Equivalent Terms: Internal Evaluation, Safety Assurance So. Looks like a fast ball down the middle, caught you looking. Strike 3. You're out.
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1668595)
It is not a big deal Listen, I'm tired of doing all your work. No more links from me. Find one single reference in a regulatory document that requires FedEx to implement the program they're calling QA, and we can talk some more. Until then, enjoy your climate controlled cubicle. . |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1668696)
You really are a slow learner, aren't you?
It's a huge deal when my job is in jeopardy. Listen, I'm tired of doing all your work. No more links from me. Find one single reference in a regulatory document that requires FedEx to implement the program they're calling QA, and we can talk some more. Until then, enjoy your climate controlled cubicle. . |
Airlines on the IOSA Registry will incorporate ongoing internal assessments using IOSA provisions in their Quality Assurance (QA) program. Before each renewal IOSA audit, the airlines will provide a Conformance Report (CR) to the Audit Organization. The information in the Conformance Report will be reviewed, verified and then form part of the overall IOSA assessment.
The E-IOSA process takes advantage of a significantly broader information base, thus providing increased value and continuity to the audit result. This comes from the IOSA Enhanced IOSA Manual and true it is NOT regulatory. However, several of the countries we fly into and many we just fly over requires the company to be on the IOSA registry if we are operate in there airspace. It is not only flight operations that must conform in order to be on the registry. Dispatch, maintenance, ground handling, cargo loading, and ramp engineering are included in the IOSA program and are inspected every two years. FOQUA stands for Flight Operations Quality Assurance and I do believe the company has a MOU with the FAA that established our program. |
Some airlines we won't let carry FedEx crew members are on the IOSA Registry. Not a particularly high hurdle.
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/.../registry.aspx When a trade organization (lobbying group) tries to police itself interesting things happen in regard to "passing the test". I'm sorry you fail to understand. |
3pointlanding -
It's interesting to follow this discussion You seem to be very knowledgable and vested in the Fedex QA program In the interest of full disclosure, and so one can understand each source, do you mind answering the following: Are you a Fedex line pilot? Do you work in the office that administers this QA program? If so, what percent of your work days are allocated to the QA program? Many thx for adding clarity to the discussion |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 1673218)
3pointlanding -
Are you a Fedex line pilot? Do you work in the office that administers this QA program? Very interesting questions ... or as Tony C might phrase the same question, What cubicle do you work in? |
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
(Post 1673283)
Very interesting questions ... or as Tony C might phrase the same question,
What cubicle do you work in? |
We must not really be all that short on MD 11 FOs, there's one doing a QA check on the 757 down to BOG...and a 777 and Bus FO as well.
Don't quite understand what there is to learn since it was mostly LCAs and Standards flying there in June |
Originally Posted by kronan
(Post 1673871)
We must not really be all that short on MD 11 FOs, there's one doing a QA check on the 757 down to BOG...and a 777 and Bus FO as well.
Don't quite understand what there is to learn since it was mostly LCAs and Standards flying there in June ....they don't want true inputs, only pre-staged and pre-approved answers from KoolAid Aid drinkers..... |
Well,
they must not like the LCAs pointing out a 45 min + wait for customs in BOG after flying all night just isn't fun |
Originally Posted by kronan
(Post 1674195)
Well,
they must not like the LCAs pointing out a 45 min + wait for customs in BOG after flying all night just isn't fun |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1668696)
You really are a slow learner, aren't you?
AC-120-92 (Cancelled) - Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air Operators Cancelled August 12, 2010. Before it was cancelled, it said, "This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Development and implementation of an SMS is voluntary." Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers replaced it on August 12, 2010. Guess what it says. "This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Development and implementation of an SMS is voluntary." Still, if an aviation service provider elects to voluntarily implement an SMS, the FAA lists Performance Objectives and General Design Expectations for a host of Components (Safety Policies and Objectives, Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion), Elements (such as Safety Policy, Hazard Identification and Analysis, Safety Performance Monitoring and Measurement, and Communication and Awareness), and Processes (such as System Description and Task Analysis, Analysis of Data, and Training). Paragraph 5.2 of Appendix 1 explains that FAA FRAMEWORK EXPECTATIONS are functional expectations, that is, they describe the what of each process, not the how. "For example, the what of a deicing process is to prevent any aircraft from taking off with ice adhering to any critical control surface. The how of the de-icing process would include deicing equipment procedures, flight crew deicing procedures, hold over table activities, etc., and may be different between individual organizations. You know what's missing from this Advisory Circular? QA. Well, that's not entirely true, the letters are in FOQA, which is mentioned along with ASAP in a list of "Related Reading Material" that may help users of this AC to develop their SMS programs. Funny, no mention of a Quality Assurance program. But there is a nice passage about Just Culture. Permit me to quote: "A safety effort cannot succeed by mandate only or strict implementation of policy. Where individual attitudes are concerned, organizational cultures set by top management establishes the tone that enhances the performance and efficiency of the entire SMS. Cultures consist of psychological (how people think and feel), behavioral (how people and groups act and perform) and organizational (the programs, procedures, and organization of the enterprise) elements. An organization’s culture consists of the values, beliefs, mission, goals, and sense of responsibility held by the organization’s members. The culture fills in the blank spaces in the organization’s policies, procedures, and processes and provides a sense of purpose to safety efforts. Dr. James Reason, and other organizational system safety theorists, stresses the need for a reporting culture as an important aspect of safety culture. The organization must do what it can to cultivate the willingness of its members to contribute to the organization’s safety efforts. Dr. Reason further stresses the need for a just culture, where employees have the confidence that, while they will be held accountable for their actions, the organization will treat them fairly." So, Strike 1 and 2 on your attempt to prove The Company's QA program is required by the FAA.(italics in original, bold mine) Seriously? We're regulated by a "soon to be published" regulation? You're a real hoot. Strike 3. Well, OK, let's make this more fun. Let's call this one a foul ball. Here's the text of the proposed rule: Proposed 14 CFR Part 5 Regulatory Text It says that a Part 119 Certificate Holder must have an SMS program that meets the requirements of this section by 3 YEARS after the date of implementation of the proposed rule. That SMS program may contain programs, policies, or procedures the certificate holder already had in place, including components of an existing SMS, and it must include at least the following four components: (1) Safety Policy (2) Safety management (3) Safety assurance (4) Safety promotion Guess what's not required. Uh, huh. "QA" ain't in there. "Quality Assurance" is not mentioned. FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 10 SAFETY ASSURANCE SYSTEM PLOICY AND PROCEDURES - CHAPTER 1 GENERAL - Section 1 Safety Assurance System Paragraph 10-1-1-5 BACKGROUND A. Statutory Authority. ... SAS is not a separate safety standard and does not impose additional requirements on certificate holders. Section 2 Safety Assurance System: Introduction to SAS Business Process and Tools Paragraph 10-1-2-5 BACKGROUND D. Safety Management Systems (SMS). ... SMSs consist of four main components: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), Safety Assurance (SA), and Safety Promotion. Sound familiar? Yepp, same stuff we found in the Advisory Circulars and the Proposed 14 CFR Part 5. And, strangely enough, again we cannot find QA or Quality Assurance programs mentioned, much less mandated by the FAA. Another foul ball hit to the same place, well wide of the baseline, and dribbling to a pathetic stop before making it even half-way to the first base coach. Third time. The I in IOSA stands for IATA - International Air Transport Association. It is a TRADE ASSOCIATION! It's not the FAA, which has regulatory authority in the U.S. It's not ICAO, a convention of rules and regulations recognized around the world. It can MAKE NO RULES! It cannot possibly require FedEx to do anything! IATA can develop standards and recommended practices, but it cannot mandate adherence. Even so, while it uses quality assurance (lower-case, generic) quite extensively, it does not mandate a particular way to achieve the objective. From the IOSA Standards Manual, 1 September 2013, 7th Edition, we read: FLT 1.10.1 The Operator shall have a quality assurance program that provides for the auditing and evaluation of the flight operations management system and operational functions at planned intervals to ensure the organization is: i) Complying with applicable regulations and standards of the Operator; ii) Satisfying stated operational needs; iii) Identifying areas requiring improvement; iv) Identifying hazards to operations.The formal and systematic process of auditing and evaluation of management system and operational functions to ensure:
Equivalent Terms: Internal Evaluation, Safety Assurance So. Looks like a fast ball down the middle, caught you looking. Strike 3. You're out. It's a huge deal when my job is in jeopardy. Listen, I'm tired of doing all your work. No more links from me. Find one single reference in a regulatory document that requires FedEx to implement the program they're calling QA, and we can talk some more. Until then, enjoy your climate controlled cubicle. . As to the SAS you so eloquently quoted. SAS and for that matter SMS is published and the company is in the midst of setting up the SMS. It takes a long time with a timeline toward that three years you alluded to. Each stage has its own time for completion with reports going to the Feds. As to SAS, the SAS has been published and only the JTIs are not released. The CMO is heading to OK City for training in about a month. In the meantime if you go to fslims.gov check the SAI And EPI's you will see it will not concern you. If I were you I would be more worried about the ASI who is there to "help you". |
By the way, I sort of object to your snide comment of my "climate controlled cubical". For 35 plus years my cubical came with a seat on the right and a seat behine me and I worked all three seats. I don't know how many hours you have but I bet I beat it.
Beware is ASIs with greetings of good tidings. And forgive the spelling errors, it was done on an IPad MIni while flying from Pensacola to Memphis in a 182 (even puddle jumpers have autopilots) not the best forum to be using an IPad Mini no less. |
I forgot AC120-92A, here is the excerpt for you pleasure:
This advisory circular (AC) provides a Framework for Safety Management System (SMS) development by aviation service providers. It contains a uniform set of expectations that align with the structure and format of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Framework; and Aviation Safety (AVS) policy in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order VS 8000.367, AVS Safety Management System Requirements, Appendix B. •AC 120-92A (PDF, 305 KB) Take note of the second sentence, line 4. Maybe I did hit a home run off a hanging curve ball. |
3ptlnding,
The management job is a good thing and you undoubtedly deserve it. Sorry you're insulted by someone pointing it, and you're inadequate argument, out. Sounds like you don't have an open door policy. You don't think anyone reading this board is buying your trolling "information", do you? |
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1681720)
By the way, I sort of object to your snide comment of my "climate controlled cubical". For 35 plus years my cubical came with a seat on the right and a seat behine me and I worked all three seats. I don't know how many hours you have but I bet I beat it.
Beware is ASIs with greetings of good tidings. And forgive the spelling errors, it was done on an IPad MIni while flying from Pensacola to Memphis in a 182 (even puddle jumpers have autopilots) not the best forum to be using an IPad Mini no less. |
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1681726)
I forgot AC120-92A, here is the excerpt for you pleasure:
This advisory circular (AC) provides a Framework for Safety Management System (SMS) development by aviation service providers. It contains a uniform set of expectations that align with the structure and format of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Framework; and Aviation Safety (AVS) policy in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order VS 8000.367, AVS Safety Management System Requirements, Appendix B. •AC 120-92A (PDF, 305 KB) Take note of the second sentence, line 4. Maybe I did hit a home run off a hanging curve ball. For your cubicle reading. That home run went outside the foul line… Next pitch? swing and a …. ex·pec·ta·tion ˌekspekˈtāSHən/ noun plural noun: expectations a strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future. "reality had not lived up to expectations" synonyms: supposition, assumption, presumption, conjecture, surmise, calculation, prediction, hope More anticipation, expectancy, eagerness, excitement, suspense a belief that someone will or should achieve something. Are Advisory Circular's regulatory? Nope Advisory circular (AC) refers to a type of publication offered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide guidance for compliance with airworthiness regulations. They define acceptable means, but not the only means, of accomplishing or showing compliance with airworthiness regulations.Generally informative in nature, Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations. Advisory circulars typically refer to industry standards from SAE and RTCA. Some Advisory circulars are only a few pages long and do little more than reference a recommended standard; Advisory Circulars ‐ The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (ACs) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public. Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) (Title 14, Chapter 1, FAA). |
I know that but you are the one citing AC120-92. I am just clearing up the error
|
Have you ever considered my wife was flying back.
|
Gunter
It is what it is. The powers to be have hitched the wagon to IOSA, Mr. Bronzek was the IOC President. The bottom line QA has nothing to do with crew performance just operating processes. At the beginning of this thread I got the impression some felt threatend by QA when in acutality it is just another process hoisted on us and a component of SMS. My original thought was to assuage the fear It looks like I failed. But so be it. I do have one question though. If during the next Enhanced IOSA audit the auditor is assigned to your flight or your sim session, would you refuse to allow him access to the cockpit? |
If it has nothing to do with crew performance, they don't need to be in the cockpit.
|
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1681777)
Gunter
It is what it is. The powers to be have hitched the wagon to IOSA, Mr. Bronzek was the IOC President. The bottom line QA has nothing to do with crew performance just operating processes. At the beginning of this thread I got the impression some felt threatend by QA when in acutality it is just another process hoisted on us and a component of SMS. My original thought was to assuage the fear It looks like I failed. But so be it. I do have one question though. If during the next Enhanced IOSA audit the auditor is assigned to your flight or your sim session, would you refuse to allow him access to the cockpit? ASAP MOU and Letter (2011) FOQA LOA (2011) LOSA MOU (2010) |
Originally Posted by Gunter
(Post 1681733)
3ptlnding,
The management job is a good thing and you undoubtedly deserve it. Sorry you're insulted by someone pointing it, and you're inadequate argument, out. Sounds like you don't have an open door policy. You don't think anyone reading this board is buying your trolling "information", do you? Sorry, I don't care enough to spend 6 hours finding links, but if you want google it. |
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
(Post 1681899)
As soon as the checks and balances i.e. data collection being de identified etc are memorialized by a LOA to the contract like the below items you are welcome to go. It is simply not too much to ask that Management to do the right thing if they want to do something like this and approach the Union for a LOA after all we do have a Union Now. The days of changing the Flight Crew Member Handbook at will are far in the past. Nothing personal but this is the way things are done when we a Contract.
ASAP MOU and Letter (2011) FOQA LOA (2011) LOSA MOU (2010) |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 1673218)
3pointlanding -
It's interesting to follow this discussion You seem to be very knowledgable and vested in the Fedex QA program In the interest of full disclosure, and so one can understand each source, do you mind answering the following: Are you a Fedex line pilot? Do you work in the office that administers this QA program? If so, what percent of your work days are allocated to the QA program? Many thx for adding clarity to the discussion I missed your direct response, but it appears from your recent posts the answers are: No (...were you ever? Or is your line flying experience with another airline??) Yes Extremely high -- shall we assume it approaches 100% ?? We merely need to understand the source --- it speaks directly to the perceived value one puts on the program And in fairness, my profile: Yes --- current Fedex line pilot (29 years of experience with airlines & military) No - not in QA here, but 16 years experience directly working in & managing both Flight Standards & Flight Safety programs None - Back to being a line pilot Thx, DLax |
Originally Posted by skywatch
(Post 1681902)
3pt doesn't talk as much as Tony, and he doesn't say what you want to hear - but he is right. You have to do some kind of QA on the flights, wether it is LOSA or some other program you develop in house is up to you. But if you aren't doing LOSA, you do have to do something...
Sorry, I don't care enough to spend 6 hours finding links, but if you want google it. I started out saying LOSA was superior. 3pt said our continuously morphing QA program was required (instead of just sanctioned) and superior. He also implied LOSA did not meet requirements. LOSA is defined and crew member performance oriented. Depending on who you talk to, FDX QA is or is not interested in that metric. It has changed it's spots a few times now. There is no telling what it will be like next week, next month or next year. Funny how he's claiming it's been "approved". Every iteration? |
So, I take it you would refuse to allow him to observe. Interesting
Man would I like to see how that finding would be received. But it is your airplane. |
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
(Post 1682204)
So, I take it you would refuse to allow him to observe. Interesting
Man would I like to see how that finding would be received. But it is your airplane. |
In the QA brief a few weeks ago during recurrent training that question was asked and the QA guys affirmed that some had already been denied!
|
3point,
Are the F/O QA Observers designated as Fleet Check Airman? If not, under what classification do they fall under for cockpit access? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands