37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 135413 |
Time | |
Date | 199001 |
Day | Tue |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz |
State Reference | US |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other |
Aircraft 2 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 4 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : second officer |
Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 8500 |
ASRS Report | 135413 |
Events | |
Anomaly | other anomaly other |
Supplementary | |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
I am writing this report not to describe a specific event but rather a policy that exists that I feel could lead to a dangerous situation. The policy I refer to is the requirement of dual and in my case (and perhaps others) triple qualification. I am currently flying as a widebody transport X second officer and was recently forced to requalify as a widebody transport Y second officer, which is allowed by the union contractual agreement. I flew the widebody transport Y for the months of november and december and then was allowed to bid back to my permanent position of widebody transport X second officer for january. In the month of february, I am being forced to requalify as an large transport first officer, a position I have not flown in 14 months. This requalification will make me current in 3 different pieces of equipment at one time and will allow the company to use me from one month to the next on different aircraft and different positions. In addition, if their scheduling needs require, they could require me to fly up to 2 different positions in any one calendar month. Air carrier's policy is obviously a dangerous practice. I feel it could lead to considerable confusion, especially during a critical emergency situation. In light of some recent incidents at other airlines and ours, I find this practice absurd and dangerous to the flying public. I would appreciate the FAA looking into the policy of dual and triple qualification.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AIRLINE REQUIRES THEIR PLTS TO BE QUALIFIED IN TWO AND SOMETIMES THREE ACFT AT THE SAME TIME.
Narrative: I AM WRITING THIS REPORT NOT TO DESCRIBE A SPECIFIC EVENT BUT RATHER A POLICY THAT EXISTS THAT I FEEL COULD LEAD TO A DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE POLICY I REFER TO IS THE REQUIREMENT OF DUAL AND IN MY CASE (AND PERHAPS OTHERS) TRIPLE QUALIFICATION. I AM CURRENTLY FLYING AS A WDB X S/O AND WAS RECENTLY FORCED TO REQUALIFY AS A WDB Y S/O, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY THE UNION CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. I FLEW THE WDB Y FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER AND THEN WAS ALLOWED TO BID BACK TO MY PERMANENT POSITION OF WDB X S/O FOR JANUARY. IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, I AM BEING FORCED TO REQUALIFY AS AN LGT F/O, A POSITION I HAVE NOT FLOWN IN 14 MONTHS. THIS REQUALIFICATION WILL MAKE ME CURRENT IN 3 DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AT ONE TIME AND WILL ALLOW THE COMPANY TO USE ME FROM ONE MONTH TO THE NEXT ON DIFFERENT ACFT AND DIFFERENT POSITIONS. IN ADDITION, IF THEIR SCHEDULING NEEDS REQUIRE, THEY COULD REQUIRE ME TO FLY UP TO 2 DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN ANY ONE CALENDAR MONTH. ACR'S POLICY IS OBVIOUSLY A DANGEROUS PRACTICE. I FEEL IT COULD LEAD TO CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION, ESPECIALLY DURING A CRITICAL EMER SITUATION. IN LIGHT OF SOME RECENT INCIDENTS AT OTHER AIRLINES AND OURS, I FIND THIS PRACTICE ABSURD AND DANGEROUS TO THE FLYING PUBLIC. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE FAA LOOKING INTO THE POLICY OF DUAL AND TRIPLE QUALIFICATION.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.