# 2022-257 Careers, Pilot, Training Failure

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-08

The grievor contested the decision precluding him from flying the CF18 platform following the failure of his Combat Readiness Upgrade (CRUG). The grievor raised several issues with how the Air Ops File Review (AOFR) process was handled, including the delays involved and the fact that he was suspended from flying while the AOFR proceeded, which caused a prejudice to his career as a pilot since his credentials became expired. The grievor argued that he has been denied procedural fairness during the AOFR process due to a lack of timely disclosure, the inability to make comments at every stage of the process, and the lack of transparency, and stated that the sole representation he made had not been considered in a meaningful way. As redress, the grievor requested to be interviewed by the AOFR decision maker to explain his version of the events and/or be given an opportunity to reply to the Chain of Command in writing. He further requested that the AOFR be reviewed and released as soon as practicable, to be enabled to continue flying as a fighter pilot, that his training/personnel files be annotated to indicate the reason behind the 15-month gap in flying and that he not face any career prejudice for it and that he be considered for an ex gratia compensation.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor redress. The IA acknowledged that the grievor AOFR process took longer then desired but stated that it was in line with other reviews and was particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The IA determined that the AOFR board correctly and appropriately considered the grievor's previous course reports and flying evaluations in noting weaknesses in performance and establishing trend patterns throughout his training. The IA also determined that the grievor's allegations about the AOFR being dishonest or biased were unfounded. The IA also determined that the grievor was given sufficient opportunities to make representations during the AOFR process.

The Committee noted that any potential procedural fairness issues with respect to disclosure or representations had been cured by the grievance process. The Committee also noted that the grievor was a qualified pilot assigned to fly the CF18. As the grievor was undergoing training at an operational unit to complete his CRUG, the Committee found that the AOFR was the appropriate process for the grievor's Chain of Command to follow in order to address his performance shortcomings. The AOFR highlighted areas where the grievor consistently struggled during his training as well as the considerable remedial training provided to him by his unit to assist him in being successful on his CRUG. Unfortunately, the grievor was unable to meet the applicable training standard. The Committee found that the decision to cease the grievor's training on the CF18 and reassign him to a different airframe was reasonable and done in accordance with the provisions.

The Committee recommended to the Final Authority to deny the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford the grievor redress.