Calling Elroy re: training

[Five Green]

To give this topic it's own thread : You said :

Training. What sort of training would you suggest? 40 sectors? Enough? Not enough? 10 sims? 20 sims? 50? Take the example of screening your friends at a bbq to drive your new ferrari I gave earlier. Even something that simple, they all had different requirements, different levels of training required. Even for letting your friends drive your car, there isnt a one size fits all response. Now try coming up with a one size fits all command training package for 1000+ pilots. What would you put in yours? One thing you wont find in any course is spoon feeding. I am not suggesting that that is what you are asking for either. If you know your stuff, and you have 10 years to learn it, you are showing a genuine effort to pass, but you are having a problem with a particular area, or something you just need to clarify, do you honestly think they would rather fail you than work on that area? :confused:

OK, so now you have developed this amazing training system that gaurantees 100% Ben Konobis, 100% of the time, on all fleets, right across the board, how are you going to make sure the guys you choose to train and check under your new system, all do so in exactly the same way to all candidates they pass through the system? Its easy to whinge and complain about the system, what are you going to replace it with?

You and I could sit down and read the same paragraph from a book and come up with two completely different interpretations of what we read. Now lets sit down and read 4 FCOMs. At the end of reading all that, do you think we would have identical interpretations on the entire manual suite? Doubt it. Differences are inevitable, especially where the written word is inolved.

No one disagrees with the unfairness of marking someone down for personal preference over SOP, it is unfair and unprofessional. The problem is when a check and training guy offers a suggestion on how to do something that he has used to his benefit for over a decade as a wide body captain, and some j&rk off SO or FO says, "Well where is that written?" If a checky is telling you something contrary to an SOP, or limitation, then that is a different issue. You have every right to quote the book, and show them where it is written, and that they are wrong. Doesnt matter what their personal preference is, no one will fail you for doing it completely by the book.

As for trainers withholding information from a candidates that are coming up for check, so that they will be gauranteed to fail, you dont believe that do you? Sounds like the rantings of a failed candidate... "It was my training Captains fault, he set me up to fail! If only he told me about the visual approach into Osaka! He knew I would get it, it is his fault!" Yeah, they all sat around the table, and worked out how to fail you. Do you honestly believe that if you picked the brains of a training captain prior to your final check that they would withhold anything?

Completely agree that longhaul doesnt prepare you for regional. So, if you are not well prepared, you get 12 months in the right hand seat to learn it after you miss out on your first attempt. If you take the egos out of it, it is a good result. If you still cant do it after 12 months, should you have a command? The system that has you jumping from one fleet to another is not ideal for training, but that is a result of the employment agreement, seniority, and your personal preference. Nothing to do with training, a completely seperate issue.

[Five Green]

Elroy:

If I had eight years to train my BBQ friends to drive my ferrari then you can bet, without a doubt, I would let them all take it on their own.

Of course you can have a training system that works. Look at the number of Captains larger airlines must train per year. Somehow they manage to get enough safe pilots into the left seat. So while you might not get 100% pass rate you can certainly do better.

At the moment the problem is as much in the regular checking, as in the actual command courses. Depending on who you get for your checks you can arrive at the PCA stage with a good or not so good record. All dependant on who you had along the way. As I have said before you can also be held back for a given reason that does not hold back another candidate. That has to change. How ? Well the candidates should be given a written explanation of the reasons along with a time line for re-assessment. Then there would bee no guessing and more transperency.

You contradict yourself when you ask :

but you are having a problem with a particular area, or something you just need to clarify, do you honestly think they would rather fail you than work on that area? :confused:

and then state later

So, if you are not well prepared, you get 12 months in the right hand seat to learn it after you miss out on your first attempt.

So that answers your own question. Yes the training department is more than happy to fail you. The preparedness assessment is once again, completely subjective.

You also contradict yourself when you say that using convention and opinion as SOPS is unproffesional and then you gone to say how some FO or SO is a jerk to question something. Ask yourself this, if as a trainer you have a candidate asking you "where is this written", "why is he asking me?". Chances are he is asking because you have not properly explained that what you are saying is not in the books, is not going to be in the report as a fack up but is something that has helped you over the years. It is sad that you must tread carefully but when every little thing is written down (and some of it in error) you can understand why candidates might react this way. Also it specifically says in the manuals that a trainer is required to inform the candidate of exactly this to prevent coonfusion.

My next suggestion is that there be some informal way to recieve feed back from the candidates. It would be a good way for the candidate to learn and for the training department to zero in on problem areas. However as you pointed out we have too many egos involved.

As far as the written word goes. You need to be more specific in order to limit the grey areas that lead to confusion. I could show you several SOP manuals that contain a lot more guidance than ours do. More detail solves the very problem you speak of. As the number of pilots and trainers grows we need this detail. That is not to say we need to up the pedantry, rather have it in black and white and then apply common sense. The current idea here, is to leave it grey, and then apply pendantry.

Finally the training department knows who the difficult trainers are. They insist on keeping them on when they do not need to. There are now plenty of younger Captains filling the roles. Move the ones on who create 90% of the problems. These same trainers also have abseolute disdain for the very managers who keep them in the job. Amazing !!

So there are my suggestions. Please let me know how it goes when yo present them.

Cheers

FG

[jtr]

Scenario;

Line Training of any form
STD -10, only one door pax door open.
Trainee:"Read back the PDC please"
TC:"No, we don't read that back until 5 minutes before our scheduled off blocks time"
Trainee:"Uhhh, OK"


STD -10, only one door open.
TC #2:"Shall I read back the PDC for you?"
Trainee:"Ahhhhh, no I'd prefer to wait until STD - 5"
TC#2:"Where's that written?"


Does it happen? You bet your f@cking left one it does.

"Where is that written" is not asked as a challenge, <or maybe it is>, but in my mind most guys are just covering their a$$ so when they fly with the next TC/STC/BTC and he has a differing "opinion", they can justify their reasoning based on the sound evidence provided by the previous TC.

Sadly the reason folk have resorted to this is as a result of fuzzy ERAS reports that don't specify exactly what happened. e.g.

"Seemed a little unfamiliar with HKG ATC PDC procedures"

is used instead of

"Requested PDC to be read back 10 min before STD/Didn't request PDC early with only one pax door open"

Go balls out Elroy, just because the last 5 or so posters (previous thread) disagree with you, doesn't mean you are wrong.

[wannagetout]

I think this post says it all really. I have never come across a company that makes such a simple job so complicated and painful. Cathay's anal methods are completely outdated. If you so much as breath in the wrong direction you will be shot at dawn. "taxi on the left, taxi on the right, taxi on the centreline, slow down, speed up, too high, too low, more fuel, less fuel, that was great but I would've done it this way, don't use speedbrake, use speedbrake, say flaps, say flap, your rotation was too fast, your rotation was too slow, you touched down at 1520 feet, use brakes not reverse, use reverse not brakes, use the crab method, don't use the crab method, tick each waypoint as you enter them into the FMC, don't mark the flightplan as you enter the waypoints into the FMC", my God it's a wonder an aircraft actually gets airborne at all with all the absolute BS that is lathered on to what really is a very simple job. Grow up Cathay, move with the times. We are all professional pilots I find this sort of stuff an absolute insult. Do you care- Not a stuff. I don't know why I bother.:ugh:

[FlexibleResponse]

wannagetout,
Excellent attention to detail! You will do exceedingly well if you don't let the bastards get you down.
Cheers,
Senior Bastard

[Elroy Jettson]

Ok Five Green, I am prepared to have a sensible discussion about this but your opening statement shows that you might not be. If you are prepared to play the ball not the man, then lets discuss it.

Firstly, sorry the reply is so long, but you asked! :}

I mentioned 8+ years to command a 777, you mentioned taking 8 years to train your mates to drive.

Firstly, dont confuse quality with quantity. Because China Airlines has a requirement for 500 commands next year, does that mean they must have a better training system than Cathay or KLM or Lufthansa or United? And the product is obviously going to be better right? Becuase they have had so much practice doing it. Do you think any of them have standardisation waxed? Really? Larger airlines do train more captains. Ask your mates at Qantas, BA, Canadian how they handle the problem of standardisation amongst check and trainers. I think you will find that the more people involved, the more difficult it is to standardise. I am not saying it is impossible, there are standardisation systems out there, ask your ex AN mates about the PATS system. It was an attempt to not only standardise training, but it also rated checkies on how far off the norm they were, was a great system with a lot of potential... Think the Captain that designed it went to Emirates. Not sure if they have adopted it yet. At Qantas any suggestions offered that are not in the book, they have to mention, "This is only personal preference but..."

I completely agree with you any training department can do better, and it is not just a matter of lack of resources.

Looking at JTRs response, standardisation is the biggest gripe, and understandably so.

I cant see the contradiction you highlighted, but maybe I didnt make it clear enough. There is a big difference between having a problem with a particular area, and not being prepared. Maybe an example will help. Two candidates. Applicant 1, well prepared asks, "I am unclear what margin I have above VMC with a VMC limited derated takeoff, when TOGA is selected in a windshear go situation at V1. What margin do we have? The candidate knows the work, has tried to apply it practically, and has come up with a question. Versus candidate 2 asking how does the selection of TOGA effect VMC? One has a question that requires clarification, the other candidate has just flagged his/her lack of preparation. Big difference.

"Yes the training department is more than happy to fail you. The preparedness assessment is once again, completely subjective." I take issue with this statement, the training department dont fail you, you fail. Period. They had to fail you because of substandard performance in key indicators they require you to display before they can pass you. Period. They didnt fail you, you failed you. The training department have a legal obligation to make sure that applicants display these key indicators before they pass you to fly their shinny new jets. Ask your training captain what these key indicators are, he will be happy to tell you. They arent going to spoon feed you at this stage of your career.

"Wheres that written?" Another of my contradictions... Let me give you the example I had in mind when I wrote that. 2 second officers, both have difficulty stabilising by 1500 feet. In the debrief it is suggested in the case of no tail wind, if you select geardown just prior to 2500aal, and flaps 3 at RadAlt alive, you will be comfortably spooled up at 1500'. One SO trys it in the next sim, the other one fires back, " Where is that written?" and stuffs it up again. JTR brought up a good example of when it is used by the checky. All the checky is trying to see in that case is how well you know your sops. You quote a new sop to him that is not in the book, he should ask you where that is written. It works both ways.

I agree with you the best way to make it clear what training departments want is to have it in writing. You may be interested to know the push towards less information in the manuals is driven by the manufacturers legal department. (Both manufacturers). The legal departments have made it clear if operators add anything to manuals, and that area ever comes up in an accident or incident, you will be liable, no comeback on the manufacturer. Not saying its right, just saying thats what all companies face now, but there is nothing stopping a company writting a manual of suggested training techniques.

JTR completely agree that that sort of petty rubbish is frustrating, but do you honestly know of anyone failed for their PDC readback technique in isolation? Honestly? PM me the names if you dont want to post them here.

Wannagetout, you pointed out some frustrating pedantic BS, you are right, there really is no place for it in a modern training department, the only one I would say is a genuine issue is the flare technique. Use the one reccomended in the Flight crew training manual for your type, and quote it if they pin you for it. No one is going to fail you for using the technique in the book. In saying this, some airlines teach the technique of the most geometrically limited type in the company, so that everyone is singing from the same song sheet once they get to that type. But I digress. Wannagetout, in short, yes it is pedantic rubbish, but you wont fail for that stuff. Part of being the proffessional you are is to not let it fluster you and wind you up as much as it obviously does. Dont sweat the small stuff and lose sight of the big picture.... You know how it goes.

Again, sorry about the length of the post.

[hog tied]

How can you argue any technique such as a flare is done by the book when the technique you execute is open to plenty of interpretation by the checker? Your logic starts with the basic flawed assumption that you are judged on your performance here. You are judged on an interpretation of your performance. I won't argue specific points about preparedness, attitude, you name it. The fact is that the success rate in the CX training machine is abysmal. Their safety record is not notably better than the average major airline. So what is the problem? I guess CX must hire a disproportionately high amount of incompetent pilots, but then does a bang up job of weeding them out and harrassing them to success! Great job guys! Check!!!!:ok:

[Captain TOGA]

Again, sorry about the length of the post. I'm sure you are used to writing lengthy ERAS reports.

[AAIGUY]

"I am unclear what margin I have above VMC with a VMC limited derated takeoff, when TOGA is selected in a windshear go situation at V1. What margin do we have? "
I am unclear too and have no idea. Who cares what margin you have? Other that a Cathay C&T, who actually knows the percentage or #? All I know is MR. Boeing says it works. Max EGT? Redline..Max Oil Pressure? Redline..
I don't want to build the plane (or care about it) I want to operate it safely and efficently (efficent = least amount of airtime, fuel burnt and work BY ME).
"Wheres that written?" Another of my contradictions... Let me give you the example I had in mind when I wrote that. 2 second officers, both have difficulty stabilising by 1500 feet. In the debrief it is suggested in the case of no tail wind, if you select geardown just prior to 2500aal, and flaps 3 at RadAlt alive, you will be comfortably spooled up at 1500'. One SO trys it in the next sim, the other one fires back, " Where is that written?" and stuffs it up again. "
I guess you folks aren't allowed to just actually fly the airplane and work it out? I have seen many a Jumbo Captain with 20yrs in command stuff up an approach. After we landed we all went for a beer and laughed WITH him. Next time I stuffed it up, he laughed with me.. None of this nasty reporting stuff.
We are all in this together, it's too bad people are trying to make it so hard over on the green team.

[hog tied]

elroy,

"..margin above VMC with a VMC limited derated takeoff...." ?! Now, who gives a flying frick? I can't supress a chuckle when I see your posts. Watch out for that tree, there's a forest out there somewhere.

Please continue your well thought out arguments and (anal)ogies. You are so sheltered by the mindset that permeates C&T that you don't even notice your anal logic and paradigm are doing a much better job of exposing the rediculousness of the system than the rest of us sorry whiners could possibly hope to acheive on our own! :D

[whazitdoinnow]

I am following the threads here about cx with a lot of interest. One reason is that cx didn't hire me after the second interview. At first the overall feeling of failure but then one start thinking that everything happens for a reason. The reason was that I became a checker at the company I was working for at the moment and then a few years later I got the job I really enjoy. And after reading the posts about the training at cx it is obvious there is a BIG problem in their system. It all starts with the recruitment department. I would say that cx is quit picky about whom they hire and whom not. Most of them are above average pilots with common sense. After spending about 8 years at the company this person should be ready to start command training. I assume that the FO is allowed to think along with the captain in the decision making process. If it is his leg let him make all the decisions with the captain as the one who is responsible. Let him make some mistakes within the safety margins. Let him learn from the mistakes and don't hang him for it. When his number comes up talk to captains he's been flying with for any input, can this person be a captain within 3 months? If the answer is yes, great, put him in the sim and put some pressure on him. ( I use he/him all the time but also read she/her) Some people will surprise you after you put the pressure on them, they really rise to the occasion. After that it is checkride in the sim. After he passes it is out for linetraining. That shouldn't be a problem because he should be used to making decisions and flying the pig. Then there is the final checkride and that should be it. Many safetynets but it starts initially as a FO on the line. If there is a checker in the whole process who thinks he is not capable and there are no complaints from others, the problem rests with that one checker.
It is a long story but the bottom line is when the FO comes up for his command it is only a question of polishing him but if you have to train him to become a captain at that time you are far too late.
Love your post AAIGUY, it is an airplane for crying out loud. Fly it, love it, have a good time but stop that backstabbing, pompous nitpicking BS.

[jtr]

Before I launch into a long and drawn out response, let me ask you to think about/do a couple of things.

Go and look at the PPrune forums for other regions/airlines. By comparison how frequently does CX training rate a mention? Why does it feature so much more in the Fragrant Harbour?

Why is it that a significant number from all steps of life/experience levels/regions take issue with the training in CX? Irrespective of whether the person is a doogie howser who joined as an S/O and now has 6,7,8 years in CX, a Nth American freighter F/O with previous wide body time, or a European F/O who came from the military, most will give a wry smile when speaking of CX “Training” Why is that?

Why does CX have a comparatively high failure rate when compared to other airlines?

In a simplistic sense, it is either the candidates or the system. Since most of the airlines we compare ourselves to select applicants from the same pool, it is reasonable to discount that part of the equation, so what else is left?


One area already mentioned that grates some is the “apparent” required knowledge.

CC accompanies Trainee on walk around.

“How do you know if/how many times the tyre has been retreaded?”

Perspectives to view this question from;

1)Obviously I am doing soooo well that the CC has decided to ask me questions that are not required/expected knowledge, NOR is the information to be found anywhere in the manuals. Great, I can expect a 5 for Tech Knowledge whether I know the answer to this or not

2)Ohhh excellent, we are about to start another round of “Let’s see if I know more than you do”

I know which one my money is on.

Please don’t sing the old tune of imparting knowledge. Questions such as this do nothing to help us as an operator or change the way we operate. i.e. They are of NO SIGNIFICANCE. Therefore why even bother about it. Studies suggest we only sustain somewhere around 10% of what goes in (in a long term sense) so lets give ourselves a fighting chance by only trying to put in the useful stuff.

"We are telling the time, not building the watch"

The reason I give such a specific example is that I have heard it asked, and to avoid any ambiguity such as the “Where’s that written” example you gave.


“JTR completely agree that that sort of petty rubbish is frustrating, but do you honestly know of anyone failed for their PDC readback technique in isolation? Honestly? PM me the names if you dont want to post them here.”

No I don’t know of anyone who has failed anything because of that in isolation, nor was I in any way suggesting that, HOWEVER, since you have bought it up…

Most failures don’t occur because of any individual glaring issue, but the overall picture that is painted about a candidate. How is that picture painted? Well in the command scenario that you mention it is the reports from the later stages of the command course that do the painting. So we throw in a few;

“Seemed unfamiliar with PDC procedures in Hong Kong”
-Previous Example

“WX radar techniques discussed”
-Used the FPV to select the tilt angle iso the checkers preferred 1deg/6,000’ method

“More focus on OTP needed”
-Backed off to 5kts to cross the taxiway mismatch at W and H when late off blocks

“Try to give more consideration to taxiway conditions”
-Didn’t back off to 5kts to cross the taxiway mismatch at W and H when late off blocks

etc

And all of a sudden the Monet is turning into a Picasso for the viewing audience.

Individually none of these lines seem problematic, but heap a few together at a review board…:hmm:

God forbid something gets mentioned twice in different reports and a “TREND” is seen.


“Wannagetout, you pointed out some frustrating pedantic BS, you are right, there really is no place for it in a modern training department”

-Then what the f#ck is so much of it doing in ours?

Elroy you are making some good points, but then again so did Jonnie Cochrane

[jtr]

Why is it that management had to go to print telling guys to read their ERAS.

Why is it that ERAS's were not being read?

[Elroy Jettson]

This is absolute gold guys keep it coming! Star command is working on some improvements after reading your collective works, do you mind if I run them by you?

Notice to fight crew.

After an exhaustive survey of HIAS cleaning staff by Captains Hog Tied and AAIGUY, it appears that an overwhelming majority of respondants dont give a flying frick about takeoff performance figures and how they are derived. The flight operations department take this very seriously, and after studying this overwhelming body of evidence, completely agree.

Evidence to support their study included Singapore Airlines in Auckland, noting that LMC's of plus or minus 100 tonnes are quite accecptable, as the aircraft still flew. They also argued that Garuda proved that RTOs at 20kts above V1 can be survived by some, so why even calculate it? Thanks to their ground breaking work, the performance engineering department will be closed, and replaced by a keno machine based in Macau to satisfy the HKG gambling laws. 3 random numbers will be generated, and forwarded to the aircraft at ETD - 15min. This is not policy, but it is suggested that the lowest number be V1, the middle number Vr the highest, V2. These numbers must be checked for reasonableness be at least 2 crew members, or at least twice by 1 crew member.

As of the first of April, any working knowledge of performance figures and their derivation will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Captain Tuga, head of the sexual harrasment department has raised some concerns about the use of the numbers 69, and 181, as they have potential to offend. This will require further study, please be guided accordingly.


Notice to check and training captains.


There has been an alarming increase in reports of FOD damage from airport authorities throughout the network, to both aircraft, and ground support equipment from what appears to be dummies.

Further investigation shows that these dummies accumulate prolifically around aircraft that are being used for both training and checking purposes.

Effective immediately, no Captain may ask questions or discuss any aspect of aircraft walkarounds or tarmac safety in an attempt to reduce this increase in the spitting of dummies.

Please be guided accordingly.


;)

[Elroy Jettson]

JTR,

I'm not sure that we should use rantings on pprune as the definitive study of worlds best practice on training. However, I get your point, and agree with it, the failure rate has to be addressed. It wont just be written off as unfortunate, or random probability.

There is a tendancy to blame one area, and say fix it.

Is training to blame?
Is checking to blame?
Is the review process to blame?
Is seniority to blame?
Are type differences to blame?
Is lack of funds and resources to blame?
Should the candidate carry some of the blame?
Is management to blame?
Are outdated techniques to blame?
Is 10 years too long, making the candidates stale by that time?
Is 10 years too short?
Should 12 months on type as an FO be a min requirement for command?
Are home pressures caused by COS issues to blame?
Are company expectations too high? Too low?

I say yes to all. You say it is the fault of the first 3.

All of these areas need to be addressed. Do we go the way your peers have suggested? Dont give a flich about performance, just accept the numbers spat out of acars as right, with no back ground knowledge on how they are derived? Just like reading a watch you say? Dont allow checkies to ask any questions, one guy on the previous post suggested that we shouldnt train how to fly a stabilised approach, just let them go out and fly it? Then laugh about it in the pub latter after stuffing it up? Can you see that getting approved? Theres a couple of Garuda 73 guys that will have a great stabilised approach story to tell at the bar, pitty the people they killed wont have that oppurtunity.

I used to hate the retread style question too. The 2 reasons you offer are both off the mark. They dont give a stuff if you know the answer, they want to see how you answer the question. They want to know if your ego can allow you to be taught, and you know guys who suffer from this. They want to know if you can handle being wrong, they want to want to know if you are open to learn new things without getting deffensive, or so wound up in a fit of rage that it effects the rest of the trip? It honestly happens. It reflects on how they will listen to other members of their crew in a non normal situation. They are looking for those key indicators that they want to see in a commander. The specifics of this one is obvious. If a crew member that they dont particularly like has the answer to solve a problem, will this person listen to them, or will they alienate them from the crew? If you come off cold and defensive towards a check captain when asked something so simple, and people do, then you will probably treat your FO or SO the same or worse. Do you see it? So how do you handle it? Whats wrong with, "Really? I havent been shown that before." Honestly, they dont give a "Flick" about retreads either. :)

[AAIGUY]

Elroy, I think you may be too far gone to save mate.

Dont allow checkies to ask any questions, one guy on the previous post suggested that we shouldnt train how to fly a stabilised approach, just let them go out and fly it? Then laugh about it in the pub latter after stuffing it up? Can you see that getting approved? Theres a couple of Garuda 73 guys that will have a great stabilised approach story to tell at the bar, pitty the people they killed wont have that oppurtunity.


Apples to apples please. We are not talking about third world standards are we? BA, AA JAL and all the other One World members seem to be able to get it done... If a FO can't fly a stabilised approach then perhaps it's the fault of the company he is in. Everyone at my joint can (and do..hell sometimes we even disconnect at 10,000 or 5000' and drive it in nicely... Nothing wrong with hitting Siera at 19, calling level change /speed brakes out, dialling the IAS to 320 and flying min track miles to a 13 mile final where you level off at 2500, thrust off, speed bleeding off, flap comming out , then hitting the GS calling the gear and having a perfectly stable last 9 miles. I imagine that would be put down as being "too sporty" on a CX ERAS..

[Elroy Jettson]

Dragqueen69, thanks for playing the man and not the ball. Maybe submit your bus driving analogy to the DPA to use in their next pay negotiations. ;) Im sure Tim would completely agree with you! Not sure that anyone else at KA would... Try it on some of the KA 89ers. They love being compared to bus drivers! You are right! I am not a shuttle commander! Do you read palms too? Lets just agree to disagree.



AAIGUY, wow, you got track shortening, even had to use speedbrake, and flew a stable approach. Oh yeah, very sporty... :rolleyes: ... :ok: And you even hand flew some of it? Gosh! :D Why would you be written up for that? :confused:

Point taken about the third world, but not relevant in this case, last time I checked, Garuda was an ICAO approved and compliant training organisation. No different to the one world carriers you mentioned. So how else are you going to differentiaite between the training organisations? A genuine question? Any ideas?

[whazitdoinnow]

Thank heaven I won't have to fly with Mr space shutlle commander. Asking a question about the relation between TOGA and Visual Metreological Conditions (VMC) and see how the person he flies with reacts. I'll be confused for the rest of the flight, maybe even the rest of my career. Never be able to fly any pig just because of a question like that!!!:}

[Elroy Jettson]

Thanks for your constructive contribution whazit, have another read, the trainee asked the trainer that question. :ugh:

[alohajec]

Excellent post! But you forgot a few though (that have happened to me):

1. you're the F/O so you tick the waypoints on the right side of the paper flight plan when you check them...

2. one last banana in the fruit basket sitting there for the past 5 hours ULH which i take - whereupon an hour later after the banana is sitting in my lower intestine i'm scolded for "not offering the last piece of fruit to the captain." (i kid you not)...

3. "next time pls use the green or blue cup. the red one is mine..."

Aloha.

[whazitdoinnow]

Thank you, commander. My attention span reaches its limit with a post like that, I guess. Tell me when I can stop standing in the corner.

[BusyB]

AAIGUY,
"Nothing wrong with hitting Siera at 19, calling level change /speed brakes out, dialling the IAS to 320 and flying min track miles to a 13 mile final where you level off at 2500, thrust off, speed bleeding off, flap comming out , then hitting the GS calling the gear and having a perfectly stable last 9 miles. I imagine that would be put down as being "too sporty" on a CX ERAS.."
No, nothing wrong with it if you were forced by cicumstances to be at SIERA at F190. However, if you planned it like that its pretty inefficient and wastes fuel.:D

[jack744]

I would not call myself a regular contributor to Pprune forums but on this occasion I am forced to speak up

After 30 years in the industry I am still bewildered at what I hear...

Elroy - I am amazed that you believe what you are saying - I can only hope you look in the mirror one day....

For some unknown reason - Aviation breeds so many twats like yourself
:=

[Dragon69]

Huh????? Having a minimum track miles approach with thrust at idle from FL190 to 9 miles final wastes fuel?????? Can you please explain? :\

[BusyB]

Dragon69,
Boards out??!!:confused:

If you planned min track miles you'd be at the min level, F130, with min energy.:ugh:

[Dragon69]

BusyB,

You're not making any sense, I agree crossing Siera at the minimum FL puts you closer to the profile, but for a given track miles to touchdown, irrespective of the crossing FL at Siera, your fuel burn is the same. Whether you use some speed brake, or lots of speed brake to burn excess energy, your thrust is still at IDLE, and the time spent in the air from Siera to touchdown is roughly the same..so please explain to me again where you're wasting the fuel? It doesn't make for a comfortable ride I agree, but one could argue that you save fuel by delaying the TOD point.

[BusyB]

Dragon69

"lots of speed brake to burn excess energy,"

Where do you get the energy from without burning fuel?:confused:

[Dragon69]

BusyB you are not getting the point...the excess energy is the form of the excess potential energy that you are carrying as you cross Siera...this is really not worth arguing over....just go and experiment for yourself.

[AAIGUY]

Energy is created by endevouring to get the maximum rate of decent High Speed/High Drag/Idle thrust.
If I had a choice to cross Siera at 13, it would be a non issue, however our Chinese ATC friends don't seem to like VNAV profile decents.
The original point of my illustration was only that I have a mate at CX who - IN COMPLYING with the ATC clearance to do the short track mile approach was told it was "too sporty" and he should have requested more track miles.
Others I fly with ALWAYS push to see how quickly it can be done..(all sorts of strategies..slowing to 220 just before SIERA so you have a 100 knots of potential energy and increased descent rates..it's a game)
Everyone is going to fly the plane differently. That's cool, so long at at 1500 on the GS you are within 10kts of Ref and stable..what does it matter.
If our Garuda friends (or Air France in Toronto) did a G/A at 1000 because they were unstable then perhaps those things wouldn't have happened. If at 1000' a CX Checky takes control because you are too fast / too high ect.. then that's one thing. But not letting the guy get the experience to learn is just silly.
White Flag..I am done. Last post on the subject

[Drunknsailor]

You are correct in that a given number of track miles flown boards in/boards out the fuel usage is the same. However the fuel savings is in the early portion of the descent.

To get that excess potential energy at SIERA you have to burn more kinetic energy to get to SIERA at that height.

If you cross SIERA at 190 as opposed to 130 you have 6000 extra feet to descent. If you would have started your descent so as to cross SIERA at 130 you would have had to start down 18nm earlier(give or take depending on the airplane). 18nm at a GS of approx. 450kt is about 2 and a half minutes. That means that you are spendind an additional 2:30 at CRUISE fuel flow vs. an additional 2:30 at IDLE. That is a huge difference in fuel flow and thus fuel consumed.

[jtr]

“There is a tendancy <sic> to blame one area, and say fix it.”

Let's step back one pace and divide it into “Us” and “Them”, which fundamentally means “Candidate” or “System”, then apply tags to the examples you gave;

Is training to blame? - System
Is checking to blame? - System
Is the review process to blame? - System
Is seniority to blame? - System
Are type differences to blame? - System
Is lack of funds and resources to blame? - System
Should the candidate carry some of the blame? - Candidate
Is management to blame? - System
Are outdated techniques to blame? - System
Is 10 years too long, making the candidates stale by that time? - System
Is 10 years too short? - System
Should 12 months on type as an FO be a min requirement for command? - System
Are home pressures caused by COS issues to blame? – Whole different thread
Are company expectations too high? Too low? – System

Now using the examples you gave, (and tell me if you disagree with any of my assessments) where do you think the solution lies?
Clearly the majority of the issues are systemic, but generally the training system bears the brunt.


“I used to hate the retread style question too.The 2 reasons you offer are both off the mark. They dont give a stuff if you know the answer, they want to see how you answer the question. They want to know if your ego can allow you to be taught, and you know guys who suffer from this. They want to know if you can handle being wrong, they want to want to know if you are open to learn new things without getting deffensive, or so wound up in a fit of rage that it effects the rest of the trip? It honestly happens. It reflects on how they will listen to other members of their crew in a non normal situation. They are looking for those key indicators that they want to see in a commander. The specifics of this one is obvious. If a crew member that they dont particularly like has the answer to solve a problem, will this person listen to them, or will they alienate them from the crew? If you come off cold and defensive towards a check captain when asked something so simple, and people do, then you will probably treat your FO or SO the same or worse. Do you see it? So how do you handle it? Whats wrong with, "Really? I havent been shown that before." Honestly, they dont give a "Flick" about retreads either.”

Great technique if used correctly, I see your point, and perhaps you may do it that way. To counter your point would this mean that if one particular checker asked the same candidate more than one of these inane questions during a check that he may be over-assessing the trainees ability in this aspect of communication ability? (It is overall a somewhat subjective manner to poorly assess a communication trait)
I have been witness to one checker in a space of about 10 minutes asking four of these, what I consider, time wasters. End result, candidate unnerved, negative learning, somewhat chilled environment. Mission accomplished? I think not.

And finally, a couple of questions that you left unanswered from my previous post…

“Go and look at the PPrune forums for other regions/airlines. By comparison how frequently does CX training rate a mention? Why does it feature so much more in the Fragrant Harbour?


Why is it that a significant number from all steps of life/experience levels/regions take issue with the training in CX? Irrespective of whether the person is a doogie howser who joined as an S/O and now has 6,7,8 years in CX, a Nth American freighter F/O with previous wide body time, or a European F/O who came from the military, most will give a wry smile when speaking of CX “Training” Why is that?


'Why does CX have a comparatively high failure rate when compared to other airlines?”

[Pollution IV]

At the risk of supporting elroy jetson…here goes: Having been a senior checker/trnr in the military, I do have to agree with his stance and the overall CX/KA appch to making a Capt. If done correctly, the methods of questioning, constructive criticism and thoughtful fair report writing is essential to any professional flying organization. However, as with any argument (particularly on PPRUNE), the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground.

While the intent from the trng dept is good, the execution is often poor. Standardisation between trnrs is a problem in any flying outfit and as professional, mature individuals we should accept this as a reality of human nature. Conversely, trnrs should be made aware of this through their own standardisation checks - ie no one is above the law or free from being checked themselves. To enforce very hi standards, the trng dept must be squeaky clean. Any perceived inconsistency or hypocrisy, and all credibility is lost.

Re the annoying small stuff (the PDC readback eg. mentioned earlier is a good one), when a trner chips me on something like this, I take great joy in respectfully informing them that the issue seems open to interpretation by other trnrs and that’s not how its commonly done on the line. The usual response is, “yes I know, but this is what the trng dept wants” – this does the organization no favours and rather than being an example of high standards, is completely the opposite. Whenever, I had to criticise a pilot for a minor or major indiscretion, I would firstly listen to their opinion and if necessary, completely explain why it was so important to do it another way. If I detected a negative creep, misinterpretation or perhaps a better way of doing it had been invented on the line, I would ensure this was addressed with the trng dept and the SOPs either changed/improved or misunderstandings corrected in the next standardisation notice. Frustratingly, this seems to rarely be done effectively in the airlines. It seems the small stuff is sweated adnauseam, while some major operational considerations/issues are disregarded, esp in sim checks. How about spending the time instructing pilots on how to handle sticky situations effectively?

The making of a good trng Capt (similar to the making of a good line Capt), cannot be achieved in a quick and dirty 1mth course, nor should it be offered to individuals who have simply been there for a long time. Those who can – do, but some of those who can, should never teach. More effort in raising Trng Capt standards will yield very positive results in the attitudes of the pilot body. After all, which pilot didn’t respect and want to learn from the great instructor or expert trng capt from their previous lives?

To the contributors who wish to dumb-down this profession and lower the standards to the level of bus driving, I put it to you that it is this exact attitude that is destroying the flying business and resulting in the low wages and poor working conditions we are seeing industry wide. If it was a little more challenging to become a professional pilot and high standards were seen as a noble and important thing, as it was not so many years ago, I don’t think we would all be whinging so much now.

[jtr]

If done correctly..

Yes, similarly, if done correctly, landing a 737 at an Indonesian airport doesn't result in a charred hull off the end of the field.

"What they want"

Another great one. Fantastic, the training department gets together and discusses improvements to the system.

"Right, from now on we want VNAV/Managed approaches used as much as possible, no more of this FLCH/OPEN DESCENT stuff that requires those complex 3 x tables"

"Excellent idea fearless leader, so shall I draft the NTC/amendment to SOP, or perhaps we can publish a synopsis of the important issues discussed at the C+T meeting?"

"Don't be absurd Smithers, we shall go about telling them one at a time, and generally annotating it on such thing as ERAS reports and other career threatening documents. We shall use the expression, "What THEY want is..." as much as possible"

Now some may say that this sounds cynical, however the problem is...

Checker writes up a few non-descriptive comments regarding "what they want" events, and a blemish is created. Yes maybe he bought it up with the finest of intentions, however once it is on the ERAS, it can come back to bite. And yes Elroy, I am more than happy to give you a career interrupting example of this type of thing should you not believe it happens.

[VR-HFX]

D69

Let me put you out of your misery...BB was inferring that you will burn more fuel to be at Sierra at FL19. Minimal I grant you and pedantic perhaps but technically correct.

Boards also useful to clear the bogs and get the pax seated in a hurry....

[Five Green]

Elroy: I only mentioned the Ferarri thing because you tried to use it to relate to pilots and airplanes. The fact is there is no connection. The pilots in this company have been under continuos training to fly our jets and so it should not be that much of a step to the lefet seat.

Not sure where you did you human phsycology degree but maybe see if you can get your money back. Asking an FO a series of inane questions in no way tells you how they will act in the left seat. Putting them in the left seat will.

It is not that the questions are inane but rather the write ups after said questions.

Differences in trainers IS understandable. Differences in your chances of passing are neither understandable nor proffesional. Your career track here depends on whether you were lucky with checkers or not. Simple write up differences should be washed out of the mix but are not entirely. Command course failures are also still more likely with certain checkers than others. WRONG

As for questions regarding VMCG etc. Why not have a command course curriculum printed up with all areas open for discussion (checking) spelled out ? Something along the lines of the orange binder given for JFO upgrade etc . Then any info you find lacking in candidates can be highlighted for the candidate to research and learn up on. Save all some grief.

I think that you should read some of the posts twice before you pass judgement. Learning in the airplane does not mean running it off the end. Rather it means pushing one's comfort level a little to learn where your hard limit might be. This can, and should be done within the limits of the SOPS in particular stabalised app etc.

Pollution: You are quite right. Trainers must accept their role in the training record of this company. They see themselves as standards keepers first. While very commendable that does not help the candidate at all. Would it not be better to improve said candidate in the early years by posotive training and less harsh write ups ? Then as you approach command with a more posostive outlook I am sure pilots would start to preform to the high standards.

I think the majority of posts "dumming down" are only trying to suggest that high standards can be attained and maintained without the level of intimidation and negativity that is used here. I do however agree with you that this is not an easy proffesion, that we as a pilot group should still be given some measure of respect. That respect should also reach down to the lowly FO. There are more than a few Captains who still treat their FOs as their spoiled teenager. The whole training process in fact, lacks respect. All you have to do is read some of the latest material from the mill owners to see this lack of respect.

FG

[oicur12]

“I used to hate the retread style question too. . . . . ”

The answer to the retread question should go something like this: “I don’t know sir. I think it’s an absurd question the result of which will serve no purpose and if you will excuse me I have more important things to do with my time during preflight. I will find an engineer to help you out.”

If said check airman is using such a response to gauge how the candidate would handle a relevant question such as “captain, would you like me to conduct a tactile inspection of the upper surface of the wing for ice or are you happy if I simply glance out the cabin window like everyone else does” then said check airman should stop playing amateur psychologist games that he is not trained to play.

Elroy,

You will make a great politician some day my friend.

“ . . . it appears that an overwhelming majority of respondants dont give a flying frick about takeoff performance figures. . .”

Actually, I would suggest that EVERYONE on this forum cares a great deal about performance figures. I check them twice and ensure the other pilot also checks them, standard company procedure. Having the wrong v speeds can be very nasty and like ensuring the correct stab setting, I pay close attention.

“ . . . . and how they are derived. . . ”

Now this is a very different story. I don’t know, or care, how the Vol 9 boffins have calculated the v speeds on the chart. This is my 13th year flying the FBW Airbus of various models for effectively my 4th airline and I have NEVER cared how the speeds are derived. As I said, I religiously ensure the correct speeds for the gross weight, corrected for QNH, wet, angle of the sun and off we go. Never had a problem.

Singapore Airlines did not bend the 744 because the crew lacked an understanding of v speeds or how they are calculated. They used the correct speeds for the weight THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TAKING OFF AT.

“One has a question that requires clarification, the other candidate has just flagged his/her lack of preparation. Big difference.”

One has a question that indicates he should have spent more time reading more relevant topics such as CRM/TEM (in HKG, nah, who needs it, right) while the other has shown his lack of preparation for the unimportant.

Just out of interest, is the training/checking system designed to assess a candidate’s level of interest or is the aim more towards . . . training and checking? Is it not the trainer’s job to teach the candidate the relevant v speed theory instead of passing judgment about his level of preparation?

[Five Green]

VR et al :

On the rather silly subject of crossing Siera, it all depends on what happens to you after Siera. If you are not given the slam dunk then being higher at Siera saves fuel. If you get the slam dunk and have to use speed brake then you did give away energy.

Bit of thread creep though, can we get back to the check and failing system discussion ?

My 2 cents.

Cheers

[BusyB]

Five Green,

It was resting until you woke it up. You really are becoming a self appointed trainer!!!:D

[Dragon69]

Pollution,

I agree and disagree with your post. I am all for preserving conditions of service and agree if you chip away at that, it is inevitable that standards will be degraded. A classic example of this is the level of service provided to the passengers by our cabin crew now compared to 20 years ago. However, having high standards at a workplace doesn’t equate to the level of difficulty in performing the actual job. Airline flying is mundane and not very difficult, this is a fact! I am not suggesting that we are all dumb and incapable of doing anything else, but the reality is that the majority can do it and can do it well! Accept the job for what is, and if you can’t, then I am afraid your ego is set too high. This is not a career where you are constantly challenged mentally. There is no need to be creative and no need to use your imagination. If it were not for SOPs it would be extremely easy to be complacent, just an indication of how routine and simple airline flying really is.

This thread was pointing out the absurdity of Cathay’s culture and the deficiencies in the training department. When you have a high number of experienced, intelligent, and capable pilots failing a command course, then there is something fundamentally wrong. The perverse line captain, checker, and manager who defends Cathay’s training system, secretly prefers the high failure rate only because it elevates their position by falsely believing that only the elite can become an airline captain. These are the same losers with egos that surpass their abilities. The fact is the majority are failing because of subjective criticism, and not on performance or ability. Nothing wrong with having pride in what you do, being professional, and having high standards, but even a captain for a low cost carrier can have these traits, don’t put yourself on a pedestal just because you earn more than them.