|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzzz.airport|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
I have been concerned with check airmen not being put on flts into sequ; sllp; mhtg; etc. I have written 2 times about what I saw in sequ once about sllp and once about MMMX. The most recent response went something like 'if the captain wanted a check airman all he had to do was ask.' let me relay to you the basic content of a converion I had with one of those capts on one of those flts I wrote a report on. He basically said; I know I could have asked for a check airman; but I rehearsed in my mind what our chief would say; namely: 'you are qualified; you are the last guy we have got; you've been on the airplane for yrs and yrs; you can handle it! You aren't telling me that you can't complete the mission; are you?' the feeling I picked up from his comments were that he was avoiding a feeling of shame. I will say that I've heard similar comments from others. I will also say that the event in which we found ourselves in was possibly the worst situation I've seen in over 16 yrs. Maybe it is just perception; maybe the 'chiefs' are not intending to 'pilot push.' it is; however; the perception that counts and it is that captain's perception that contributed to our 'event.' who can fix that perception? In december I had an FAA guy in the cockpit for a flight. His words regarding a different issue but still a safety one were 'this is a union/company deal.' so I also hasten to say; my intent is not any union/company deal. I also will say that I hope that attitude; which I believe to be a mistaken one; is not the predominant one at the FAA. What I have seen in sequ; sllp and elsewhere is unsafe and the direction that our company is taking is; in my opinion; is the wrong one. Maybe I'm just the unlucky guy. Maybe I'm the 'common denominator' (all these events would not have happened had I not clowned something up). I am simply communicating what I have seen and my belief that putting a check airman back on the terrain cities for both capts and first officer's is needed to maintain a safe operation. On 3 different recent occasions I have needed to 'direct or instruct' a captain on how to prevent an unsafe situation or how to get out of one. I'm no better a pilot than the next guy; but I have had the good fortune of both getting a check ride into each of those cities and 8 yrs experience flying into latin america. What happens when you pair a new captain with a first officer who has never been to sequ or some other terrain city? I am all for saving money; just not at the expense of safety.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR FIRST OFFICER LAMENTS THE LACK OF TRAINING OFFERED TO CAPTAINS OPERATING INTO HIGH ALTITUDE AND TERRAIN RESTRICTED ARPTS.
Narrative: I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH CHK AIRMEN NOT BEING PUT ON FLTS INTO SEQU; SLLP; MHTG; ETC. I HAVE WRITTEN 2 TIMES ABOUT WHAT I SAW IN SEQU ONCE ABOUT SLLP AND ONCE ABOUT MMMX. THE MOST RECENT RESPONSE WENT SOMETHING LIKE 'IF THE CAPT WANTED A CHK AIRMAN ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS ASK.' LET ME RELAY TO YOU THE BASIC CONTENT OF A CONVERION I HAD WITH ONE OF THOSE CAPTS ON ONE OF THOSE FLTS I WROTE A RPT ON. HE BASICALLY SAID; I KNOW I COULD HAVE ASKED FOR A CHK AIRMAN; BUT I REHEARSED IN MY MIND WHAT OUR CHIEF WOULD SAY; NAMELY: 'YOU ARE QUALIFIED; YOU ARE THE LAST GUY WE HAVE GOT; YOU'VE BEEN ON THE AIRPLANE FOR YRS AND YRS; YOU CAN HANDLE IT! YOU AREN'T TELLING ME THAT YOU CAN'T COMPLETE THE MISSION; ARE YOU?' THE FEELING I PICKED UP FROM HIS COMMENTS WERE THAT HE WAS AVOIDING A FEELING OF SHAME. I WILL SAY THAT I'VE HEARD SIMILAR COMMENTS FROM OTHERS. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE EVENT IN WHICH WE FOUND OURSELVES IN WAS POSSIBLY THE WORST SIT I'VE SEEN IN OVER 16 YRS. MAYBE IT IS JUST PERCEPTION; MAYBE THE 'CHIEFS' ARE NOT INTENDING TO 'PLT PUSH.' IT IS; HOWEVER; THE PERCEPTION THAT COUNTS AND IT IS THAT CAPT'S PERCEPTION THAT CONTRIBUTED TO OUR 'EVENT.' WHO CAN FIX THAT PERCEPTION? IN DECEMBER I HAD AN FAA GUY IN THE COCKPIT FOR A FLT. HIS WORDS REGARDING A DIFFERENT ISSUE BUT STILL A SAFETY ONE WERE 'THIS IS A UNION/COMPANY DEAL.' SO I ALSO HASTEN TO SAY; MY INTENT IS NOT ANY UNION/COMPANY DEAL. I ALSO WILL SAY THAT I HOPE THAT ATTITUDE; WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE A MISTAKEN ONE; IS NOT THE PREDOMINANT ONE AT THE FAA. WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN SEQU; SLLP AND ELSEWHERE IS UNSAFE AND THE DIRECTION THAT OUR COMPANY IS TAKING IS; IN MY OPINION; IS THE WRONG ONE. MAYBE I'M JUST THE UNLUCKY GUY. MAYBE I'M THE 'COMMON DENOMINATOR' (ALL THESE EVENTS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED HAD I NOT CLOWNED SOMETHING UP). I AM SIMPLY COMMUNICATING WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND MY BELIEF THAT PUTTING A CHK AIRMAN BACK ON THE TERRAIN CITIES FOR BOTH CAPTS AND FO'S IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE OP. ON 3 DIFFERENT RECENT OCCASIONS I HAVE NEEDED TO 'DIRECT OR INSTRUCT' A CAPT ON HOW TO PREVENT AN UNSAFE SIT OR HOW TO GET OUT OF ONE. I'M NO BETTER A PLT THAN THE NEXT GUY; BUT I HAVE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE OF BOTH GETTING A CHK RIDE INTO EACH OF THOSE CITIES AND 8 YRS EXPERIENCE FLYING INTO LATIN AMERICA. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PAIR A NEW CAPT WITH A FO WHO HAS NEVER BEEN TO SEQU OR SOME OTHER TERRAIN CITY? I AM ALL FOR SAVING MONEY; JUST NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.