INSTRUCTOR FOR A TRAINING CTR PASSES EVALUATOR CHK BY AN FAA POI AND THEN IS FIRED FOR INSISTING THAT HE NEEDED 2 HRS IN THE LR60 ACFT PRIOR TO GIVING EVALUATION SIMULATOR CHKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAR PART 142.

Narrative

I WAS FORCED BY MY IMMEDIATE SUPVR TO TAKE A TRAINING CTR EVALUATION CHK RIDE FOR LR60; BECAUSE FAA-POI WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR 30 DAYS DUE TO HIS TRAINING IN OKC. SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OCCURRED UNDER PART 142 AND AFTER SUCCESSFUL RIDE; I WAS TERMINATED. I TOLD MY SUPVRS I NEEDED 2 HRS IN THE LR60 BEFORE RIDE. THEY SAID I WOULD GET 2 HRS BEFORE DOING ANY TRAINING. I WAS PRESSURED (FORCED) INTO TAKING THE RIDE; AS WELL AS GIVING INSTRUCTION UNDER PART 142 TO IN-HOUSE NEW INSTRUCTOR AND OUT OF TOWN CUSTOMER UNDER PART 142. CUSTOMER WAS SEEKING A TYPE RATING. I WAS ALSO FORCED TO GIVE INSTRUCTION TO X AND Y (IN-HOUSE INSTRUCTORS) BEFORE TAKING PART 142 RIDE AND BOTH WERE SEEKING TYPE RATINGS UNDER PART 142. RECORDS OF MY INSTRUCTION MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AFTER EARLY NOVEMBER SIMULATOR SESSIONS. THESE ARE VIOLATIONS OF PART 142.53(B)3(I); BUT OTHERS MAY HAVE OCCURRED WITHOUT MY CTL OR KNOWLEDGE BASED UPON SUPVR INTIMIDATION AND CTL OF RECORDS. I WAS ALSO NEVER GIVEN ANY INSTRUCTION COMPETENT TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF PART 142.47(C)1(I)(II) -- NO METHODS AND TECHNIQUES NOR POLICIES AND PROCS -- SUPVR EXPECTED ME TO KNOW THESE FROM PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND FIRED ME FOR NOT TEACHING THEIR WAY. DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THEIR WAY WAS. NOTHING IN WRITING. AFTER COMPLETING THE CHK RIDE; I MISTAKENLY ASSUMED I WOULD NOT PERFORM DUTIES UNDER PART 142 BEFORE I COMPLETED ALL REQUIREMENTS (IE; 2 HRS IN ACFT). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT HE WAS FIRED DUE TO HIS ATTITUDE IN REMINDING HIS SUPVR THAT HE NEEDED THE REQUIRED TRAINING BEFORE BEING ASSIGNED TO A TRAINING EVALUATOR. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR DID NOT TAKE; OR HAVE; THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHK HIS TRAINING RECORD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF HE HAD MET THE TRAINING EVALUATOR PREREQUISITES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS DEFINITELY UNDER EMPLOYMENT PRESSURE FROM THE COMPANY TO GIVE INSTRUCTION AND EVALUATIONS DUE TO THE COMPANY'S CUSTOMER WORKLOAD.