Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)
-   -   FDX QA Observations (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/82123-fdx-qa-observations.html)

trigg41 06-15-2014 06:22 AM

FDX QA Observations
 
I have one on my next flight, first one. Have they been doing a lot of them recently. Haven't heard much lately on them.

golfandfly 06-15-2014 08:00 AM

I had one a few months back.. They will ask you several questions about your rest and such.. After reading the union's stance on these flights, I would have chosen not to participate and make them feel unwelcome.

At the time, I had no idea what it was about. The captain didn't either. At my last recurrent, one of the observers explained the program.. I still have no idea why this program exists, but I won't participate next time.

busdriver12 06-15-2014 08:22 AM


Originally Posted by golfandfly (Post 1665077)
I had one a few months back.. They will ask you several questions about your rest and such.. After reading the union's stance on these flights, I would have chosen not to participate and make them feel unwelcome.

At the time, I had no idea what it was about. The captain didn't either. At my last recurrent, one of the observers explained the program.. I still have no idea why this program exists, but I won't participate next time.

But how do you choose not to participate? If someone is on your flight, you really don't have any option. I'm not going to kick someone off the jumpseat.

3pointlanding 06-15-2014 08:40 AM

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.

4A2B 06-15-2014 08:54 AM


Originally Posted by 3pointlanding (Post 1665103)
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.

correct, and we should be doing an ongoing LOSA per the negotiated MOU to meet those requirements.

No one has to answer any questions from a QA observer, about sleep rest or anything else. The QA observers should be listed as JS and request permission to ride instead of being listed as ACM as that implies "member of the crew" just one of many concerns ALPA raises.

One of the most poorly run programs I have ever seen, without any input from ALPA to boot.

HKFlyr 06-15-2014 09:07 AM

Thanks, have a seat in the back...JUST SAY NO
 

Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 1665115)
correct, and we should be doing an ongoing LOSA per the negotiated MOU to meet those requirements.

No one has to answer any questions from a QA observer, about sleep rest or anything else. The QA observers should be listed as JS and request permission to ride instead of being listed as ACM as that implies "member of the crew" just one of many concerns ALPA raises.

One of the most poorly run programs I have ever seen, without any input from ALPA to boot.

And I won't allow them in the cockpit. And I won't answer any of their questions. And they will be instructed to be at the aircraft 20 minutes prior to pushback.

They are not a required crewmember. They are in an entry level management wanna be program, and they could still make comments that put you in front of a training review board.

Fedex continues to do their own thing, unlike all other airlines that seem to crash a lot less jets...makes you wonder. LOSA yes, QA no.

Tuck 06-15-2014 09:08 AM

Where's the info on the program? On PFC somewhere? If it's part of SMS then where is that in writing? What's to stop the Company from disciplining a crew that declines to answer? Are there any protections? I'm asking because I honestly don't know and have no idea where to find out. Who is in charge of the program? Are all the observers non-members?

Tuck 06-15-2014 09:10 AM

SMS so it's a safety program or part of flight ops?

4A2B 06-15-2014 10:26 AM


Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 1665124)
Where's the info on the program? On PFC somewhere? If it's part of SMS then where is that in writing? What's to stop the Company from disciplining a crew that declines to answer? Are there any protections? I'm asking because I honestly don't know and have no idea where to find out. Who is in charge of the program? Are all the observers non-members?

All good questions and from what I know it changes daily, first based primarily on the ALPA Grievance and FAA not happy with Check Airman doing these QA rides and now with the new FO squadron who knows what they do. I suggest asking your Fleet Captain where to find out the program details and SOP.

As for giving them a ride, I think the part of where they sit or maybe not go at all is up to the Captain just like any PIC Authority decision when it comes to seats in the Cockpit (all 121.583 seats, like all in 767/777).

moondoggie11 06-15-2014 10:34 AM

Interesting idea. Wonder what denying QA Observers the J/S across the fleet might yield...to facilitate their enjoyment of the summer, of course.:D

Albief15 06-15-2014 01:47 PM

I am concerned they would be an additional distraction. In his environment we all need to be 100% focused on the job at hand. Do these observers help or hinder your focus?

golfandfly 06-15-2014 02:11 PM

When we had our QA observation, we really had no idea about the program. After the flight, we still didn't.

The QA guy was an LCA from a different fleet. He said the program wasn't about the pilots, then promptly asked us several questions about our rest prior to the flight and then went into some "stump the dummy" questions about flying cost index and maintaining Mach on overseas routes. The captain stepped up and said since it wasn't a check ride we wouldn't play that game.

He was recording events like, when did we get the weight and balance, dg, etc. I found it slightly distracting. When I mentioned that I wouldn't participate, I mean I wouldn't participate in the interview. After all, it's none of his business how much I slept and if I commuted, etc.

The way I see it, there is nothing good that can come from these flights.

HKFlyr 06-15-2014 07:03 PM

PIC authority 121.547 vs 121.583
 

Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 1665168)
All good questions and from what I know it changes daily, first based primarily on the ALPA Grievance and FAA not happy with Check Airman doing these QA rides and now with the new FO squadron who knows what they do. I suggest asking your Fleet Captain where to find out the program details and SOP.

As for giving them a ride, I think the part of where they sit or maybe not go at all is up to the Captain just like any PIC Authority decision when it comes to seats in the Cockpit (all 121.583 seats, like all in 767/777).

Just some discussion, YMMV, and each PIC must make his or her own decision. The following offered and to the best of my knowledge is pretty accurate on the lay of the land with jumpseats. I will ask the Jumpeat guy at the MEC to render an opinion also if required.

547 deals with PIC authority and admission to the flight deck. 583 deals with carriage of persons aboard all cargo aircraft without meeting the same safety equipment requirements as passenger carriers.

If you have a cockpit door, forward of the door governed by 547, those behind the door authorized to ride under 583.

If no door, flight deck and jumpseat area is all 547.

547, unquestioned, UNFETTERED authority to deny access. Read the reg, as if you deny an LCA, Secret Service or FAA, you can - HOWEVER you better have a very very serious reason to deny them. But everyone else, PIC authority. Don't need to give a reason for not allowing them access to flight deck.

583, those in the back on the other side of a cockpit door, you can deny them access to aircraft but must have a valid safety or security reason. Reason to deny, safety of flight or governed by guidance for securty under the FOM and All Cargo Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program - All Cargo AOSSP.

Under the FOM, if you deny a 583, you must submit the reason in writing in a certain time frame to management.

Lengthy legal decision on this whole issue is available if you write the jumpseat guy Rich at the MEC. It goes into even further detail.

Use good judgment. My judgement says no need for an FO QA guy to ride in my cockpit. I've had no training on the QA program. No MOU signed on it. Not an FAA LOSA program...an according to a management memo, they are in a management entry level program...yeah, I want the guy looking over my shoulder...Really?

Easy decision for me.

Links on the regs and some discussion.

FAR Part § 121.547: Admission to flight deck -- FAA FARS, 14 CFR

14 CFR 121.583 - Carriage of persons without compliance with the passenger-carrying requirements of this part. | LII / Legal Information Institute

CloudSailor 06-15-2014 09:48 PM


Originally Posted by golfandfly (Post 1665251)
...He said the program wasn't about the pilots, then promptly asked us several questions about our rest prior to the flight and then went into some "stump the dummy" questions about flying cost index and maintaining Mach on overseas routes. The captain stepped up and said since it wasn't a check ride we wouldn't play that game...

It is great to be flying with a captain like that.

Why not go with the tried and proven, very successful LOSA? Instead, our union is having to grieve the way in which these quasi-check rides are being implemented.

I agree with Albief15, QA events, or whatever they're called, are NOT an additional distraction we should have to deal with in the cockpit (talking about vacations and summer events are distraction enough :rolleyes:).

Tuck 06-16-2014 08:00 PM

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

MD11Fr8Dog 06-16-2014 09:03 PM


Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 1666076)
Let's see how Tony handles his TAA observer (or whatever the program is called) tonight.

Tony C? He's going to HRL on 255/17 now. Looks like what ever he was on went away and he got 255 in SUB. Where did you see the TAA observer?

HKFlyr 06-16-2014 10:10 PM

Your welcome to a seat in the back!
 

Originally Posted by MD11Fr8Dog (Post 1666101)
Tony C? He's going to HRL on 255/17 now. Looks like what ever he was on went away and he got 255 in SUB. Where did you see the TAA observer?

No doubt how he will handle it.

Tuck 06-16-2014 10:13 PM

Huh - whichever one he was on before had it listed.

TonyC 06-17-2014 06:02 AM


Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 1666076)

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 (Post 1665103)

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.






.

HKFlyr 06-17-2014 08:42 AM

WWTD - What Would Tony Do?
 

Originally Posted by TonyC (Post 1666198)
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.




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.






.

Like I said, no doubt in my mind how Tony was to have dealt with this ill thought out, poorly implemented, and FEDEXED attempt at a LOSA wanna be program, with our new entry level management FOs...

In HK LEC meeting yesterday, subject was broached...and like Tony, I know what I'm going to do. For all the same reasons. Safety first, remove distractions. (However, our newly minted QA in attendance at the meeting stated that the FAA is considering changing LOSA to mirror our TA program because they like it so much...uh huh, yep, sure, Really?)

But, let's get back to negotiations...FDX stock sevens to be doing better than expected...

Enjoy your days off gents...

MaydayMark 06-17-2014 10:06 AM


Originally Posted by TonyC (Post 1666198)
Hmmm. What would Tony do?


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,


I spent all day yesterday at an ALPA Symposium, "Just Culture, A Proactive Use of Data" at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC.

My amateur summary of the subject matter was ... now that the industry is in the "big data collection" business, how should that data be handled and who should have access to it? How should the data received from our many safety programs be handled?

I had the opportunity to relay to Peggy Gilligan, the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety, my feeling that the proposed "Just Culture" concept might not work well at FedEx because the line pilots can't trust management not to use the SAFETY DATA for disciplinary purposes (her boss, Michael Huerta was in the audience). Her immediate reply was that the program will never work if we can't trust each other and that she would discuss my feelings with FedEx Management the next time she meets with them.

It seems that almost the entire industry has evolved into a practice that if your questionably unsafe event wasn't intentionally reckless or negligent then no enforcement action will follow. I was able to relay two different ASAP type reports that were as evidence in discipline hearings. Hmmm ... I wonder if other airlines have that problem?

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the FAA Senior Management seems to understand the pilots' professional vulnerability and seemed to be inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt if there was one. :D

Gunter 06-17-2014 02:09 PM


Originally Posted by MaydayMark (Post 1666363)
Her immediate reply was that the program will never work if we can't trust each other and that she would discuss my feelings with FedEx Management the next time she meets with them.

:D

I'm sure you said, "I thought this was off the record, please don't use my name. I fear retribution."

Kinda odd that she wants to rat you out like that. I don't think she gets it.

Jetjok 06-17-2014 04:16 PM

Getting a little paranoid aren't we?

HIFLYR 06-17-2014 04:43 PM


Originally Posted by golfandfly (Post 1665251)
When we had our QA observation, we really had no idea about the program. After the flight, we still didn't.

The QA guy was an LCA from a different fleet. He said the program wasn't about the pilots, then promptly asked us several questions about our rest prior to the flight and then went into some "stump the dummy" questions about flying cost index and maintaining Mach on overseas routes. The captain stepped up and said since it wasn't a check ride we wouldn't play that game.

He was recording events like, when did we get the weight and balance, dg, etc. I found it slightly distracting. When I mentioned that I wouldn't participate, I mean I wouldn't participate in the interview. After all, it's none of his business how much I slept and if I commuted, etc.

The way I see it, there is nothing good that can come from these flights.

Once those type of questions start he or she will be told to go to the back and stay there.

Gunter 06-17-2014 05:08 PM


Originally Posted by Jetjok (Post 1666592)
Getting a little paranoid aren't we?

If you were still on the property you would be aware of active monitoring of our phone conversations with scheduling. Apparently management wants to prove there is a coordinated labor action going on.

But that is nonsense. The fact is more and more of us, individually, are sick of managements failures.

I think they're wondering why it took so long for us to start drowning in the sewage that is continually heaped upon us.

Jetjok 06-17-2014 07:34 PM


Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 1666620)
If you were still on the property you would be aware of active monitoring of our phone conversations with scheduling. Apparently management wants to prove there is a coordinated labor action going on.

But that is nonsense. The fact is more and more of us, individually, are sick of managements failures.

I think they're wondering why it took so long for us to start drowning in the sewage that is continually heaped upon us.

Gunter, you say "the company has been monitoring phone conversations with scheduling." If you haven't realized it, the company has been recording all phone conversations with CRS since about 1990, and probably even before that."

As for my "paranoid aren't we" comment, Mark never said that they knew his name, just that Ms. Gilligan promised to mention how Mark felt about the lack of trust between the pilots and FedEx management. So when you commented that: "I'm sure you said, "I thought this was off the record, please don't use my name. I fear retribution." and "Kinda odd that she wants to rat you out like that.", it just seemed a little paranoid to me.

Gunter 06-18-2014 04:23 AM


Originally Posted by Jetjok (Post 1666702)
Gunter, you say "the company has been monitoring phone conversations with scheduling." If you haven't realized it, the company has been recording all phone conversations with CRS since about 1990, and probably even before that."

They're doing more than just recording in case someone gets an irregularity report. They're listening in real time to get a picture of how we are reacting to them. Which is why I said "active" monitoring.

Please do try to keep up.

3pointlanding 06-18-2014 04:42 AM

Whether an observer is allowed to jumpseat or not jumpseat can be settled by reading FOM 2.93 page 2-41. The bottom line is this is a new world. IOSA and the FAA require QA programs and data gathering. I was reading data in the WBAT and some of the questions asked that were objected to are in the ERC reports and are nothing more than data gathering that in actuality may help crews by adjusting flight schedules and manning issues that have been brought up in other threads.

HKFlyr 06-18-2014 05:26 AM

Read Tonys post...
 

Originally Posted by 3pointlanding (Post 1666808)
Whether an observer is allowed to jumpseat or not jumpseat can be settled by reading FOM 2.93 page 2-41. The bottom line is this is a new world. IOSA and the FAA require QA programs and data gathering. I was reading data in the WBAT and some of the questions asked that were objected to are in the ERC reports and are nothing more than data gathering that in actuality may help crews by adjusting flight schedules and manning issues that have been brought up in other threads.

There isn't an MOU. Read Tonys post...

Gunter 06-18-2014 06:20 AM


Originally Posted by HKFlyr (Post 1666831)
There isn't an MOU. Read Tonys post...

You're right. Its just a line in the FOM that says they are mandatory

HKFlyr 06-18-2014 06:34 AM

FCA versus TAA
 

Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 1666853)
You're right. Its just a line in the FOM that says they are mandatory

FOM states to provide access as scheduled to FAA, LCAs, and FCAs(for QA observations)

TAAs aren't any of the above.

Tuck 06-18-2014 11:12 AM

So what exactly is a Fleet Check Airman? Is that defined anywhere? What is the document describing the program?

MaydayMark 06-18-2014 12:41 PM


Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 1667160)
So what exactly is a Fleet Check Airman? Is that defined anywhere? What is the document describing the program?


FCA ... Fake Check Airman?


:eek:

TonyC 06-18-2014 08:32 PM

Well, let's try this again, one point at a time.


Originally Posted by 3pointlanding (Post 1666808)

Whether an observer is allowed to jumpseat or not jumpseat can be settled by reading FOM 2.93 page 2-41.


Yepp. As I mentioned in Post #19 above, "Our FOM requires me to provide cockpit access to FAA Air Carrier Inspectors, Line Check Airmen conducting evaluations, and Fleet Check Airmen conducting QA observations." A First Officer TAA is not an FAA Air Carrier Inspectors, not a Line Check Airman and not a Fleet Check Airman.

He doesn't have to go -- that's settled.





Originally Posted by 3pointlanding (Post 1666808)

IOSA ... require[s] QA programs and data gathering.


Again, IOSA is an IATA program, and IATA is a Trade Association.

It has NO regulatory authority -- it cannot require boo.






Originally Posted by 3pointlanding (Post 1666808)

... the FAA require[s] QA programs and data gathering.


The FAA's SMS program includes ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and FRMS. It does NOT include this QA program The Company is trying to cram down our throats.

Now, the FAA website is vast, and I have yet to explore it all. If you can find a reference that contradicts my assertion, one that shows us where the FAA is mandating this program, please share it with us.






.

Gunter 06-19-2014 03:47 AM

I wonder how many people totally bought the recurrent slide show on QA?

QA does not equal LOSA. It doesn't matter how many times BM says it does.

He uses the term QA to describe other airlines LOSA programs. Then he slides in with HIS QA idea as a program equal to other airlines LOSA programs. I really don't think the FAA agrees.

Lately I've been hearing the rhetoric change, again. I think they're finally admitting it's not equal. This was especially true when QA inspectors only checked charters and sweet trips. Of course, managers didn't go to evil manager school to do DPs and tough night trips.

LOSA is so easy to do. The attitude regarding it shows us all how they feel about safety.

HKFlyr 06-19-2014 04:49 AM

You hit the nail on the head. The company gets every one in a captive form during RCT...so they get to put their "spin" on the program.

Union was slow to address it, and was told it was coming...like many of our issues they are slow to address. HOWEVER, it is a big issue and glad to see it being addressed in the message lines...but it needs to be addressed more to ensure the company "gets the message", we don't like it, don't buy your story...and "have a seat in the back".

DLax85 06-19-2014 07:40 AM


Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 1667617)
...QA does not equal LOSA. It doesn't matter how many times BM says it does...

Big +1

....and to TonyC's well researched & well written posts on this topic

3pointlanding 06-19-2014 11:18 AM

The Safety Management System Manual will tell you all about it and yes QA is mentioned as a requirement to support SMS.

TonyC 06-19-2014 11:31 AM


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.


Tssk, tssk.


Just to amuse you, I googled Safety Management System Manual, clicked on the first link, and searched for "QA". It said that QA and SMS are distinctly different programs.


Care to try again?

A link, please?


Ask a cubicle neighbor if you need help.






.

Adlerdriver 06-19-2014 12:10 PM


Originally Posted by TonyC (Post 1667948)
Ask a cubicle neighbor if you need help..

:D priceless.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 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