>
>Thank you Stephen,
>I was also very surprise by many answers. It look like if you are not on
>line you are ready to be ejected. Soon some one will find the perfect pilot
>and make as many copy as necessary. Then no more CRM, Psy...,LOFT will be
>required and of course no more progress, only monotony.
>In this case like others I will suggest to look into the management system
>and may be into the training system and personality. It may be also
>interesting to see if there is any backlog or accumulation of frustation. I
>will be very interested to have his opinion on the value of the CRM
provided
>to him.I always teach that one of the most important value in CRM is to
have
>the opinion of the other concerned people. Sorry Chris but I can not
>believe that a pilot as bad as you describe him could have been so long in
>his position without a real management problems.
>Jean-Claude
>
>stephen phillips wrote:
>
>> Given the nature of the information given by Chris all I can say is
>> thank god I do not work for most who have replied so far. There is no
>> clear indication that any of the "incidents" are clearly documented or
>> provable. If the "incidents" came so close to hull loss or serious
>> damage presumably they were subject of investigation by NZ air safety or
>> equivalent; if they were not then the fisrt question is - Why not?
>> Secondly, were the "incidents" investigated by the company? What was
>> the outcome of either or both of these investigations - if they occured?
>>
>> However, regardless of the outcome of any ivestigation if the company
>> has clear evidence of "... a history if denial of his own problem,
>> inability to work well with his peers, but sufficiently smart to say and
>> do the right things when training hurdles are created for him..." then
>> they are in a postion to do something about the situation. NZ law is
>> not dramatically different from Oz where dismissal for dangerous
>> behaviour is clearly supported by the legislation. However, if as is
>> likely there is little or no paperwork then the situation is more
>> difficult. Duty of care and reasonable standards etc are all very well
>> but they must be clearly evident and PROVEN. Thus whilst this captain
>> does not sound like everyone's idea of the preferred driver he can only
>> be removed of there is PROOF not supposition, conjecture, anecdotal
>> evidence or just a 'bad feeling.
>> Talk of 'wilful misconduct' etc is out of place with more information
>> and supporting evidence.
>>
>> Stephen Phillips
>> Edith Cowan University
>> Perth
>> Western Australia
>
>
>
>