Favourable references standard in aviation industry

[CD]

Favourable references standard in aviation industry

Les MacPherson
The StarPhoenix

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

An investigation by federal aviation authorities into the deadly crash two years ago of a Saskatchewan air ambulance reveals federal privacy legislation, of all things, to be among the contributing factors.

It was a pitch dark night when the Beech King Air aircraft, flying out of La Ronge for Transwest Air, landed at Sandy Bay too far down the runway to stop the aircraft. At the critical moment, just as the plane was accelerating and lifting off for a go-around and another landing attempt, there was confusion over who was flying the plane.

The co-pilot, who had been in control during the approach, released the controls when the captain took over after the long landing. Established protocol is for the pilot assuming control to declare, "I have control." The other pilot is then to confirm, "You have control." In this case, there was no such exchange, perhaps because the captain felt there was no time. In the ensuing confusion over who was doing what, the pilots lost track of their altitude and climb rate and the aircraft crashed into trees beyond the end of the runway. The captain was killed, and the co-pilot and two passengers were injured.

There had been problems before between these two pilots. Among other things, the captain on a number of previous flights had assumed control without following the proper protocol. They preferred not to fly with each other.

The captain's flying credentials were all in order but, unbeknownst to Transwest, he had a history of problems with previous employers. Before joining Transwest, he had previously flown business jets out of Toronto for three different companies. The first of these reprimanded him four times in three years for non-compliance with regulations and would only use him as a first officer. Even so, the company gave him a favourable letter of reference.

The second of his previous employers promoted him to captain, but later demoted him back down to first officer for non-compliance with standard operating procedures.

He was again promoted to captain by the third and most recent of his previous employers and again demoted to first officer, this time for a number of deficiencies. Among them were poor decision-making, pre-flight planning shortcuts, weak systems knowledge, fixation on minor problems and a narrow attention span. He was later reprimanded for substandard performance and denied renewal of his captain rating due to unsatisfactory crew co-ordination and various compliance failures. None of this was revealed, however, in the letter of reference given to him when he left the company soon thereafter.

This is disturbing enough. What's alarming is that favourable references, deserved or not, apparently are standard operating procedures in the aviation industry. According to the investigation report, all three of the captain's previous employers were dissuaded by the threat of legal sanctions from disclosing his deficiencies: "Based on concerns regarding privacy legislation and the potential for legal action, the previous employers all indicated that they would not have disclosed the negative information about the captain's performance to prospective employers calling for a reference check."

I think I speak for air travellers across Canada when I say, "Yikes."

We are being told that a pilot's professional references are all but worthless. Privacy legislation and the threat of lawsuits is forcing flying companies to leave out the bad stuff. Other employers thus are left in ignorance of serious blemishes on a prospective pilot's record. It's an arrangement that invites catastrophe.

Aviation authorities are well aware of these legal impediments to flight safety but powerless to do more than call attention to a problem that is outside their jurisdiction. According to the report: "These constraints are societal; consequently, they affect the entire aviation industry. Therefore, it is likely that many air operators experience difficulty obtaining standardized information on the quality of pilot performance because of systemic constraints on the free passage of objective factual information about employment candidates."

In other words, pilots with a hidden past are flying commercial aircraft while aviation companies offer candy-coated letters of reference. That's one more reason for passengers to keep their seatbelts fastened.

Full article here...

[just curious]

With all due respect to the author, this is not, nor should it be, a surprise. What startles me is that the journalist in question can openly express such naivete.

Business ethics in North America have declined rapidly over the last 2 decades. Since the introduction of resumes for virtually every job available, people have sought references from favorable sources. This is not news. Management of most companies have started functioning based on their limited understanding of employment legislation. And as a result, managers will not say:"We fired this employee for gross unsuitability and lack of competence." Aviation is a segment of business where little formal management training occurs. Consequently we as an industry are the last to adopt management trends. During the early 80's, while working at a very small New Brunswick company I remember getting phone calls from well-known operators out west. The essence of the message was: You may get an application from "Fred". We fired his ass. Here's why... We don't get, or send those messages any more. It would appear that most industries don't. The accident in Sandy Bay appears to be the result of this new delicacy.

I don't know the crew of this accident. But I have encountered the occasional pilots who didn't operate well in a two crew environment, or possess the ability to adopt new SOPs. CRM training for such individuals never really takes. CRM instructors refer to them as "Boomerangs". Dismissing employees has been a problem for companies. A previous Ops Manager for a company I know was never slow to fire people who failed to meet his expectations. Some lawsuits emerged as a result, but not as many as one might expect.

A more recent boomerang was removed from command, and monitored by a training captain for a month. Re-training, failure to adapt, and inevitably, the dismissal process (Documentation, Verbal and Written admonishment, Suspension) followed. The wrongful dismissal lawsuit was filed an hour after dismissal.

While the suit was dismissed, if it had happened to a two Cessna family run company, I don't know if they would have been willing to press a strong legal response for fear of losing their life's investment.

I have no idea how to address employees who are simply not a good or safe fit. Cryogenics perhaps. But we appear to be killing them with kindness.

[planett]

We truly live in a Bizarro World. A campaign of danger will ensure good references, while operating in accordance with the AFM and entering defects in the logbook will bring plenty of unsolicited bad "references". The "weeding out" process often works in reverse, ensuring that the scum rises to the top at the expense of the cream.

[Rubberbiscuit]

I always found "no comment" to be all I needed to hear when calling or emailing someone for a reference.

[Cat Driver]

I always found "no comment" to be all I needed to hear when calling or emailing someone for a reference.

That is the only safe way to send a message that there is a problem.

Conversely if the ex employee is a desirable employee to have you will be quite safe in giving out that information.

[Dust Devil]

I always ask "would you rehire him". The tone of the response is usually good enough to make a decision.

[snoopy]

Well, it didn't take long for this post to get lost...

"We truly live in a Bizarro World. A campaign of danger will ensure good references, while operating in accordance with the AFM and entering defects in the logbook will bring plenty of unsolicited bad "references". The "weeding out" process often works in reverse, ensuring that the scum rises to the top at the expense of the cream."

So true, particularly in the rumor-mongering industry we work in...

Thankfully we don't have a system like they do in the US: they have something called the PPRI - Pilot Records Improvement Act http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/pria/. It requires employee records to be disclosed to prospective employers, requires prospective employers to check employee records and will not allow for anything to ever be removed - including malicious or wrong information. So, if a person is a victim of discrimination, doesn't play by the "old boys club" rules or is otherwise disliked - permanent and irrevocable damage can and does result.

So now that you are aware of this, go back and reconsider Planett's post. Imagine what a system like the PPRI would be like, in an industry like ours, where companies and employees that play by the rules are penalized, and Transport Canada condones bad operators - in the worst economy in decades.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Mach1]

The rules built around not giving out bad references are there to protect you and everyone else from being blacklisted because someone has a personal axe to grind. While not one person will ever admit to giving out a bad reference or smearing someone’s reputation based on personal opinion and not fact, I am certain that almost everyone has done it at some point or another in their career.

So, as stated, the answer “I’m sorry I can’t give you a recommendation” works just fine. There is no need to phone every other company to explain what an asshole the person is, or to say things that could and should land you in court.

[HavaJava]

One of the biggest issues I find with the Canadian aviation industry are the crappy low and mid-level jobs where pilots are afraid of bringing safety issues to light for fear of a bad recommend.

I find it's one of two things:
1. First Officers are afraid to speak up because they don't want to miss out on an upgrade.

2. Both F/Os and Captains are afraid to speak up about safety issues because they are trying to move on to better companies and don't want to get a bad recommend from their current company.

I truly believe that this happens on a regular basis in many smaller companies (especially ones with no union protection)...and I've seen it first hand (with ugly consequences) at a certain east coast mid-level company.

There are too many horrible managers out there that have personal axes to grind with former employees. There need to be protections for employees in my opinion.

[mattedfred]

i have been employed as a pilot with 5 companies in canada since 95'. i always asked for a letter of reference from my CP before resigning. i also included all of them as references. to my knowledge not one of them was ever contacted by a prospective employer.

isn't pilots walking in resumes of their buddies the best way to weed out the butt heads? who wants to be known as the guy that got the butt head hired? not me.

[5x5]

There are too many horrible managers out there that have personal axes to grind with former employees. There need to be protections for employees in my opinion.

Alternately, there are too many horrible employees out there with chips on their shoulders who figure the world owes them a living. There needs to be protections for employers in my opinion.

And here it is ...

isn't pilots walking in resumes of their buddies the best way to weed out the butt heads? who wants to be known as the guy that got the butt head hired? not me.

[Mach1]

Unless, of course, you are just starting out and don't have any buddies/relatives to walk your resume in for you. Alternatively, I have seen some people walk their buddies/relatives resume in and the person gets hired and still turns out to be a total tool. Not the best way to hire. Lots of complaining in this forum that we are not treated like professionals... here's a thought. Try hiring like professionals.

[mattedfred]

sure the odd tool would get hired but if you use up your recommend on a tool then you shouldn't expect to get a second chance when you recommend the next guy.

what would hiring like a professional look like to you?

HR involvement, panel interviews, exams, medicals, SIM evals, COG tests?

wouldn't throwing the guy into any SIM weed out the butt heads?

forget the rest of the crap

[Vickers vanguard]

Well, it didn't take long for this post to get lost...

"We truly live in a Bizarro World. A campaign of danger will ensure good references, while operating in accordance with the AFM and entering defects in the logbook will bring plenty of unsolicited bad "references". The "weeding out" process often works in reverse, ensuring that the scum rises to the top at the expense of the cream."

So true, particularly in the rumor-mongering industry we work in...

Thankfully we don't have a system like they do in the US: they have something called the PPRI - Pilot Records Improvement Act http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/pria/. It requires employee records to be disclosed to prospective employers, requires prospective employers to check employee records and will not allow for anything to ever be removed - including malicious or wrong information. So, if a person is a victim of discrimination, doesn't play by the "old boys club" rules or is otherwise disliked - permanent and irrevocable damage can and does result.

So now that you are aware of this, go back and reconsider Planett's post. Imagine what a system like the PPRI would be like, in an industry like ours, where companies and employees that play by the rules are penalized, and Transport Canada condones bad operators - in the worst economy in decades.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

well said Snoopy......

[Driving Rain]

Back in the good ol' days pilots and engineers were black-balled out of the industry. There were 3 or 4 powerful and colourful individuals in charge at 3 or 4 (large for the day) midlevel carriers in Canada. They were all well known throughout the country. If they didn't like you, you could pretty well kiss your career goodbye in Canada. Those 3 or 4 have passed on and so have the carriers they operated.
Back in the early 70's I was threatened with the dreaded black-balling if I took a labour dispute about money (what else)further than the office door. He really could ruin a career with just a few well placed phone calls. You just licked your wounds and got on with it.

Have things changed for the better? I don't think so. New employers get glowing reports on individuals the other company wants desperately to get rid of. You can't tell the good from the bad until it's too late.

[Sidebar]

New employers get glowing reports on individuals the other company wants desperately to get rid of. You can't tell the good from the bad until it's too late.

Conversely, a bad reference can prevent someone you want to keep from leaving.

[Mach1]

sure the odd tool would get hired but if you use up your recommend on a tool then you shouldn't expect to get a second chance when you recommend the next guy.

what would hiring like a professional look like to you?

HR involvement, panel interviews, exams, medicals, SIM evals, COG tests?

wouldn't throwing the guy into any SIM weed out the butt heads?

forget the rest of the crap

That all depends on the level of the operator, the type of equipment and resources available to screen candidates. But the basics are the same. Hire the most qualified applicant based on hours, types, experience and overall skills. So, you wind up hiring the guy that you don’t know with time on type and 2000 hours instead of Bob’s son with no experience and 500 hours because Bob is your friend. You actually vet the candidates first on their level of experience for the job you want them to do, then you interview them, then you call their former employers and do reference checks. If a former employer refuses to give a reference… then you dig deeper. Is it just one company, or is it more. What kind of reputation does the company that is giving the bad reference have? We all know who the bad operators are by now, or how to find out if they are someone whose opinion should be discarded. Stop treating the job like a cell phone plan for friends and family.

As for the occasional tool making it through because of his friends/family, I have seen it all too many times and the person doing the recommend is never challenged about it… and they listen to that same person time and time again.

Who knows, maybe a lot of the backstabbing bullshit might come to an end if you actually have to be good at your job instead of just buying the chief pilot drinks for several months to get that next job/airplane/upgrade. It would weed out the bad and the good would thrive.

Personally, I am glad I am at the level where none of this applies to me anymore. But it was often frustrating watching people getting ahead on the friends and family plan, or the hang out at the right bar plan. It’s a profession, not a social club. Until we can overcome that hiring mentality, we will never be treated like professionals and we don’t deserve to be either.

[Driving Rain]

Conversely, a bad reference can prevent someone you want to keep from leaving

.

A certain airline owner running out of the Island with Dash 7s much like Porter does now, used to give pilots leaving a bad recommondation to prevent them leaving until the pilots stopped giving notice. Planes with passengers ready to load and no pilots. That airline didn't last too long after that.

[Shiny Side Up]

I always found "no comment" to be all I needed to hear when calling or emailing someone for a reference.

If someone isn't willing to say something good about an ex-employee, it certainly is damning enough. On the other side of the coin sometimes one would wish to warn potential other employers, but one just has to hope they do their homework and aren't too desperate for workers.

It is tough to fire employees these days though, anything short of them a) killing someone on the job, or b) caught stealing from the company red-handed an employer can expect a wrongful dismissal claim from an ex-employee.

[mcrit]

It's the same everywhere else. I remember working with a pair of teachers that were incompetent and difficult to get along with. At the time of their hiring our principal was quite pleased with himself for being able to steal these two gems because, "...their former principals spoke very highly of them." Twit #1 lasted about 2 years before she hated all of us, all of the parents and all of the students (we held her in equal regard). She changed schools. Imagine my surprise when her new principal (who I ran across a few weeks after he hired her) told me how happy he was to get her because, "Stewie Griffen (my principal....name changed) really gave her a good reference."
Gem # 2 proceeded to pick fights with everyone. Well, there was one guy she didn't fight with. She was to busy.....shall we say...making protein shakes.....with him in the storage room between classes. Turns out she had a habit of doing that at her old job, but got great references from her old principal (one could speculate as to why....).