Date: 201509
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Incomplete training for [a] trip.International ground school was assigned at the flight academy. The training did not cover the Airbus since its curriculum had not been developed at this stage. The ETOPS operation was still in the approval stage. Hence there was not a Pacific reference guide to study during this training nor was there any ETOPS reference. The instructors advised the class that we would be getting this on our IOEs. My IOE was the next week. This was supposed to cover my training for Hawaii; however the materials mentioned above were still in the development stages so I did not receive the promised training for ETOPS operation or a review of the pacific reference guide. Therefore my training was not complete at this point. Flying scheduled did not require any of the operational or ETOPS requirements of flying to ZZZ. I called flight standards or about four days before and advised them on their voice mail that I would be requesting a Check Airman for my trip to ZZZ. However I was displaced from my sequence and it was used for another Captains IOE to ZZZ. Again I was in the process of calling flight standards to request a Check Airman for my sequence on the [XX] when I was advised it to would be used for training and I was displaced once again. My next trip; which is the subject of this report; was scheduled on [the following month]. I called flight standards two days before my trip once again. I told him I would be requiring a Check Airman for my first trip. The response was 'OK' captain we will let you know. I told him I would be waiting to hear from them. I continued to check to see if they had placed a Check Airman on my trip by reviewing the crew during the following days and did not see a Check Airman. The lack of response from the company left me concerned about finding a timely replacement should a Check Airman not be available. I called my union representative on the day of the trip for advice on how to best proceed and he contacted the base chief pilot on my behalf. The response from the chief pilot was I did not need a Check Airman.Frustrated; but wanting to find a successful solution; I determined that if my first officer had previous experience flying to Hawaii that he could fill in the gaps in my training. I felt this would increase the level of safety to an acceptable level. I called flight standards once again that day and inquired of the first officers experience to ZZZ. The only information they had is he had flown the trip on the five days earler and could see no further back on his schedule.I arrived at operations on the day of the trip a little early and proceeded to search for the first officer. After asking all the FOs in operations he was not located. In the mean time a first officer that has been flying the ZZZ trips on [a Boeing aircraft] volunteered to step me through the process; ie SELCAL procedures; track entry procedures; weather deviations etc. We reviewed the flight plan I noticed that the alternate listed was ZZZ1 which is a special airport. This alone would allow a request for a Check Airman according to Flight Maunal. I called dispatch and proactively had my ALT changed to ZZZ2 in the event the First Officer (FO) did turn out to be experienced; again; trying to protect the integrity of the schedule. When we located the aircraft specific Pacific Reference Guide that's when we both noticed how different it was from what I had from my ground school; ie ETOPS and aircraft system procedure checks. I had not seen this version of the Reference Guide before nor been trained on its use. This is when I proceeded to the aircraft to locate the first officer. He was on board when I arrived and I asked if he had been doing the Hawaii flying. His response was I had done it once with a Temporary Duty (TDY) Captain who had previous international experience. At this point I determined that we were not properly prepared to operate this trip safely. Flight manual Part One states that safetyis our number one priority. I may have been legal to do this trip but we were certainly not safe to do so.Subsequently the chief pilot on duty called and asked what the safety concern was. I explained my training was incomplete do the lack of ETOPS and the aircraft specific reference material. He confirmed that at the time of my training the ETOPS and aircraft specific material had not been finalized. I responded that is why my training was incomplete and he had another issue with [another aircraft] that needed his attention and the called was ended. I made multiple attempts to acquire the additional training to cover the gaps in my own training experience. There were a number of possible solutions I attempted to pursue. A check Airman; or riding on the jump seat to observe another Captain or even an experienced First Officer would have been successful outcomes. My concerns were consistently dismissed as I was trying to preserve the integrity and safety of our operation.The international ground school should have taken place after all operational materials where approved by the FAA and available for the students. Operation experience totally unrelated to the primary flying you would be doing is useless. While FM Pt 1 sates the policy for when a Check Airman is authorized; surely there must be someone in the organization who can authorize a Check Airman above and beyond these requirements. Filling the request for a Check Airman for a new operation with incomplete training; new captains and equipment would seem to be a situation that warrants such consideration.




Synopsis: A Captain new to ETOPS operations did not have formal ground school training or a Check Airman for his first Hawaiian trip. After weeks of unsuccessful training requests he refused to fly the day of the trip.