Inconceivable said:
I guess its easy to respond "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care" but it sure seems kind of spooky.
It begs the question what has been going on (or suspected of going on) to make this happen.....
Do the PCL CRJs have QARs installed? I can't believe they are going to pull the main FDR to download after every ferry flight. Or is this just a threat?
Sounds to me like the company wants to be able to point to something it's implemented in response to the flame-out accident before the final NTSB report comes out. Indications are the report won't look good. If the cause points to recklessness and/or purposeful disregard for procedures
by both cremembers rather than a familiar cause-effect accident chain, then not only the company but also the FAA and NTSB will be supremely concerned that it points to a culture/attitude within the pilot group...it doesn't matter to them it was a ferry flight, these are the same people driving paying pax around. Nobody buys it that you turn professionalism On and Off depending on whether it's a 121 or 91 leg...you're still flying company equipment on company time.
This concern will be heightened if a second crewmember didn't intervene in the face of an obvious disregard for safety by a captain, or displayed a "go along with it" attitude. After all, part of what a company pays even new-hire F/Os for is to use their judgement with regards to dealing with Captains who disregard procedures/safety..it's part of almost any interview questioning.
They already know the crew didn't fly the repo trip as it was planned/dispatched not for valid operational reasons, but just because they felt like doing so. Word is, though, it goes even further than that. Displaying such an attitude will ALWAYS generate unwanted attention from the official oversee-ers if you're employed at a company involving common carriage. Their goal is to prevent similar events from occuring, and intervening if they suspect a culture of selective professionalism/safety does exist.
It's really not the point go have someone fired for doing something wrong....that's too late. The point is to prevent a similar situation from developing, and if that means putting into the pilots' minds that someone's watching now where nobody was before, they're going to do it.
You might also consider something else...the company will want to provide proof to the authorities that the accident crew was an anomaly if the event was pilot-induced, especially if it's a Safety Culture question. The authorities will be asking your company "What else are your guys/girls doing out there?", and they'll want to be able to say "Nothing unsafe", and in fact, vouch for the rest of you. If the threat to babysit/nanny-monitor empty legs forces the few that do disregard into compliance and no other incidents are found, then the threat alone has done it's job.
As professionals, you should recognize that in any large group bad apples do exist, that you can't monitor all of your peers. You should also objectively recognize that it's EXTREMELY rare for a perfectly-good, air-carrier aircraft experiencing no adverse conditions to wind up in a smoking hole from altitude. A subjective, emotional Circling-the-wagons won't get you far when objective professionalism is called for. Wait for the NTSB report, and then decide if cries of "unfair" are justified. It just might be that you won't mind having a mountain of evidence to back up what the rest are saying...that most pilots don't screw around on ferry legs...the pilots' word alone was only good enough up until the accident.
It really won't matter if you're flying the aircraft how they're paying you to fly them. That's just keeping up your end of the bargain, and doing what you promised to do when you agreed to go work there.
