Command Failure Rates

[Airbus_Driver]

I often read about the high failure rates of initial Captain Candidates at Cathay on this forum. In order to provoke thought on this subject, I spoke with the FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) at the major airline I work for some insight.

In North America, a failure rate at a major airline is considered excessively high if it exceeds 15% of first time Captain upgrade candidates. It was not made clear to me over what time frame this 15% represents but the Director of Training indicated that it was less than a single quarter in its fiscal year. As a result, the FAA would conduct an investigation into the airline's training program. Any deficiencies or additions would then be instituted into the program to bring the failure rate below the 15%. The program would not necessarily be any easier; rather it would be more conducive to a better learning experience yet still fiscally sensitive to the airline. This type of program has been in place since the early 1990's.

With this in mind, I have a couple of comments and questions about what I am hearing about Cathay training. If you have a First Officer who has been through numerous checking events over the course of nearly a decade with Cathay, how can Cathay justify the high failure rate of initial Captain's? Have they really been unsafe over all those years as a co-pilot that would warrant them incapable of being a Captain? Is there any REAL oversight by a regulatory agency in Hong Kong to monitor abnormally high failure rates or do they even care? Is there any grievance procedure in place if a Captain candidate felt that they were being discriminated against?

60-80% of all accidents occurs as a result of poor group-decision making, ineffective communication, inadequate leadership and poor task management and has little to do with the technical aspects of operating in a multi-person cockpit or ATC operations area. In 1986 ICAO adapted a resolution that "In order to improve safety, OPERATORS must be made aware and RESPONSIVE to the importance of human factors in aviation through PROACTIVE learning and from the REACTION of others."

My point with this quoted comment from ICAO and from my personal experience as a Check Airmen is that failure rates are not entirely indicative of ill prepared candidates (as I so often read on Fragrant Harbor forum), but rather a reflection of a poorly constructed training environment. Is Cathay creating better Captains because they can recite from memory a dogmatic passage from an operations or systems manual? If simple mistakes in the training environment have consequences later in your career what kind of environment do you think that creates? Preventing candidates from communicating well for fear of retribution creates a potential accident scenario. Is Cathay really any safer than any other major airline? Why is Cathay culture like this? Why does it permeate into the training department?

My airline also has a hostile employer/management relationship but that is curiously completely absent in the training environment. Smarter people before me realized that our lives and families are worth more than petty politics. And so are yours.

[FlexibleResponse]

In Cathay Pacific a First Officer has to have exactly the same type rating and other ratings as the Captain. So the First Officer is checked against the same standards as the Captain by the Aviation Authority (CAD) check pilots in the on-going regulatory testing.

But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer.

CX might be wrong in demanding such high attributes from their Commanders, but that's how they have always done it!

As you point out, other airlines may operate to different standards.

[climbout]

THE BEST FROM THE BEST FROM THE BEST.....................................

and the whole world is smiling........

[csd]

Hehe. :p
But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character
System obviously isn't perfect then. While most commanders are great, there are some weird individuals out there!

[electricjetjock]

Airbus Driver

I spoke with the FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) at the major airline I work for some insight. :rolleyes:
We work under the HKCAD and they are privy to our training courses and all the changes that have been implemented over the last couple of years, all to try and get people through. I think there are major operation differences between a US major and Cathay Pacific one of which I believe is that we are NOT dispatched by Licensed Dispatchers and e.g. we do not check in with the company to see if we can continue a flight to our destination when crossing the N. Atlantic, as I have heard many a US flight do. Some people will unfortunately never make the grade, just like some never make it through flight school, but they are given a chance to prove themselves!
60-80% of all accidents occurs as a result of poor group-decision making, ineffective communication, inadequate leadership and poor task management and has little to do with the technical aspects of operating in a multi-person cockpit or ATC operations area.
I would change your "group" decision making to "Command" decision-making having taken into account all factors.
Is Cathay creating better Captains because they can recite from memory a dogmatic passage from an operations or systems manual?
Being able to quote the books verbatim is NOT what the company is looking for, but knowing where to find the information and how to apply it is very important.
Smarter people before me realized that our lives and families are worth more than petty politics.
Why do you think some of these decisions have been made! Would you like your family down the back when the company were not quite sure but passed them anyway?:eek:
from my personal experience as a Check Airmen is that failure rates are not entirely indicative of ill prepared candidates (as I so often read on Fragrant Harbour forum),
Well you sound a little naive if you believe everything your read on this forum!
By the way why are you shy of saying which "major" you work for, you know who we work for!!

[inciter]

FlexibleResponse,
You can be my wingman anytime!
You idiot.

[Captain TOGA]

Hey Flex,
But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character Does that apply to the managers on the 3rd floor as well, or...

[newbie1972]

I have got to butt in. There are some people on another planet here, and I suspect that would be the 3rd floor planet called ......

Some of you guys sound like a PR firm!

Airbus_driver.

I personally know 7 guys who failed their command course. With the exception of 1, they all put in an incredible amount of work for their command course. Being ill-prepared is hardly ever an issue here at CX. They all know there is alot at stake. The historical failure rate just makes them even better prepared than ever these days. Your information regarding the program to do with failure rates is interesting. However, CAD have no real teeth here. It would be seen by CX as interfering. Again, CX simply do not have the political will to look inwards at themselves.

One could say that maybe they are just not command material. Well, once again, I know each and every one of these people and know that is not the case. Apart from one of the group, I have flown with each of them and have left them to it on their sectors. Definitely no problem there.

Vermin - get a life. Your drivel doesn't even warrant reading. Your racist remarks have no place here.

electricjetjock - I believe you should add command decision making. Not change it from group decision making. You are technically correct in what you say (CAD etc), but the difference in dispatching is really not a huge issue. 99% of the time, the decision is very straightforawrd as far as route, fuel etc goes. i.e. go the route the computer says, and take the fuel the flight plan says! As has been said previously, the acid test is whether you would trust the guy with your own family on board. I can tell you (but you know already (this part of comment deleted - a bit on the nose eh what?)) that there are many command failures I would have no hesitation in trusting them with my family.

The sad thing is that whether or not you pass a command course can depend on 2 very inmportant factors:

1. Who you get for your 3 and/or 4 Bar and extension sectors (if applicable), and

2. Who is on leave when your file goes around the training department prior to the final nod.

[preset]

Electricjetjock, nicely put & accurately stated which is a nice change for this Forum :D

[newbie1972]

Just a further couple of points. While CAD may be privy to any changes in the training system, it doesn't necessarily mean they will do anything about it if it is wrong. Case in point is when the '777 ground course in your own time' was changed only after the pilot's association challenged it. Only then was CAD forced to make a decision.

I would also challenge the help that candidates get after failing the command course. IMHO, there is in fact no real, effective and most importantly non-jeopardy/threatening system in place to assist guys in any areas that they may need to improve.

CX training departments refusal to look inwards and address some of these issues is disappointing. Is it that the training system is so bogged down that they don't have the resources and time to do this? Don't know. Just a thought.

As for a trans pacific flight, it would be a brave Captain who would, under most circumstances, not receive guidance from the company before making any decision about a diversion or tech stop. It's not about our ability to make a decision. It's about using all the resources available to us.

[ACMS]

All wonderful stuff.................but
where is my ruddy pay rise:{
I'm going backwards in this place.:{

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

CX training is basically non existant. All candidates are checked from the start, no coaching. There are a lot of egos blocking the system from achieving satisfactory results. Most trainers are by title only and have had little formal training in methods of instruction. Many candidates fail because the pilot conducting the assessment is not confident enough to make an accurate judgement and so takes the easy way out. There is no review of checkers and trainers and no transparency forcing them to adhere to policy or a code of ethics. Such behaviour would never be allowed to exist in any other airline or flt dep I have worked for.

Basically, CX training and flt ops in general is very old fashioned and has largely been left behind by more enlightened airlines.

DTH. Ex USAF, CX Captain, US Major Checkairman, US LCC Checkairman, Corporate Checkairman, FAA inspector.

[CruisingSpeed]

Electricjetjock

the skygod impressions evident in your post do not reflect reality, as most in this company are focussed on keeping a low profile. Your artificial emphasis on commanders autonomy (or what command checking at CX is all about) is therefore a little irritating.

Think of the LHR-HKG 744 a few years ago that turned back over Russia with an engine vibration problem. Company Ops whistled for a return to London, end of story…

DTH: Right on the money...

[AnQrKa]

Cant speak for CX but KA has the worst training mentality of any airline I have worked for.

One pilot was given the tick verbally after a pc only to find he had lost the tick when the form arrived 2 weeks later. He queeried the check captain only to be told "From memory it was not worth a tick". One TIRE had to leave the debrief room to phone the manager flight training to ask him if the candidates performance was a pass or fail. Of course he failed but based on the input from someone who wasnt even present!!!! WTF. Its the only airline I have worked for where the check report is not sighted or signed by the candidate until its too late. The most common "hint" as to the poor quality of the training mindset is when a candidate questions the comments or the result of a pc/ct5. All too often the reason for the poor grade or failure changes from report to checker to manager. ie: they are not basing their decision on a framework of agreed criteria or performance indicators but on GUT INSTINCT.

Tragic.

[hostile23]

"But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer."

What an absolute utter load of horse sh!t.

It is however the sad, outdated criteria Cathay uses to decide who is worthy to "command" one of their pristine mobile bacterial laboratories.

[Numero Crunchero]

Hostile,
as rare as it is, I agree with you! Flex, keep peddling insurance or cars or whatever.

I think the CX system works ok most of the time. But then I hear of a guy I flew with who failed his 4 bar twice....well actually, he didn't fail it, the star chamber failed him. Now how is that possible? The 3 bar was supposed to be the hurdle...4 bar was simply the CRM test. The guy is a pleasure to fly with. He is very laid back but that is because he is guilty of having far more intelligence than this job requires! Go figure?

In Emirates I believe they have a much better system...at the end of your command ride, the checker tells you off as you are about to leave the cockpit for being out of uniform...he then hands you 4 bars and shakes your hand.

[hostile23]

I never thought I'd see the day. Welcome to the dark side................:E

[FlexibleResponse]

Flexible Response wrote

"But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer."

hostile23 wrote

What an absolute utter load of horse sh!t.

Hey! I didn't make the rules! I am just detailing the facts.

I don’t like the management and especially some of the more supercilious pricks they employ there any more than you do. But let’s keep that a separate issue here. OK?

Whether or not one personally agrees or disagrees with the standards that CX requires of it Commanders is hardly the argument here. The standards have remained the same for the last 50 or 60 years and seem to have served the airline well. As they say from time to time, "it's our train set and we'll run it any way we feel like".

From time to time the Command failure rate has always had blips both upward and downward. Natural leaders seem to sail through the process without even a blink of the eye. But for those other of us, well, we just have to learn the responsibilities and craft of Command the hard way.

If you sit around picking your nose while hoping that someone will shake some holy water on you through the belief that you have some God-given right bestowed by seniority number, then you may be sadly disappointed. You have to personally demonstrate to the company that you are worthy of the responsibility and that they can trust you to carry out the duties that they require of you.

In CX, Command is not a right. Command is earned.

CX Command standards have stood the test of time and aren't likely to change soon. However, if anyone would prefer a less demanding route to Command, then they are obviously welcome to pursue options with other airlines that have lower standards

[BusyB]

NC,

I think you'll find CX manuals are now the same as Boeing. Checklists certainly are, but that might be a step backwards.:ok:

[hostile23]

"If you sit around picking your nose while hoping that someone will shake some holy water on you through the belief that you have some God-given right bestowed by seniority number, then you may be sadly disappointed. You have to personally demonstrate to the company that you are worthy of the responsibility and that they can trust you to carry out the duties that they require of you."

And my argument is that those "responsibilities" are exactly the same as any other operator of wide bodied aircraft. You have still not demonstrated to me why a prospective Cathay Captain is in need of so much more attention than any other pilot stepping up to the plate for a command.

[Numero Crunchero]

Busy B,
who told you our manuals are like boeing?

For example... boeing procedures starts with CN/FO doing prestart duties and then PF/PM begins after start. Thats how boeing does it...thats how EK and QF do it. Thats NOT how we do it.

If we had boeing manuals we would have the boeing logo on them. Boeing will not allow their logo on any manuals that do not align with their recommended procedures....like I said, we obviously know a lot more about flying boeing than boeing does...and EK...and QF....etc etc

[BusyB]

NC,

I'll stand corrected on the CN/FO -PF/PNF bit but almost all else is a straight copy.
All our checklists were changed to align with Boeing although from my personal experience that is an error. In the past Boeing has clearly ignored problems that Airlines operating their aircraft were experiencing and in another case deliberately kept a problem secret from the operator despite it causing a number of crashes (not just incidents). Boeing builds great aircraft, they don't operate fleets of them and have to rely on feedback on operational problems. Airlines are in the front line and need to react more quickly.

Any airline worth its salt will have differences from Boeing untili in each area Boeing has resolved the problem/checklist.:ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

And my argument is that those "responsibilities" are exactly the same as any other operator of wide bodied aircraft. You have still not demonstrated to me why a prospective Cathay Captain is in need of so much more attention than any other pilot stepping up to the plate for a command.

Oi! Laddie! A CX candidate for Command needs to perform precisely to what CX management require of him in his duties, not a touch more, not a touch less.

Do ye not see the subtlety here matey?

I suspect you are a very intelligent person and have enormous Command potential. So don't blow it away by standing on your high horse and not understanding your adversary!

[newbie1972]

...your use of the word 'adversary' sums it up nicely. It is not a matter of working together (CX and command trainees) to get a guy through his command. It is a matter of who wins the battle. It is an 'us and them' thing. So much for 'same team, same dream'!

And as for this comment:

"If you sit around picking your nose while hoping that someone will shake some holy water on you through the belief that you have some God-given right bestowed by seniority number, then you may be sadly disappointed. You have to personally demonstrate to the company that you are worthy of the responsibility and that they can trust you to carry out the duties that they require of you."


I have not flown with ANYONE that believes that the mere fact that their seniority number comes up means that they are entiled to a command. You need to give 99% of F/O's way more credit than that. It verges on the insulting!

A colleague recently commented to me (not a command failure) that the problem is that the training departrment demands perfection; not just excellence. There is a very subtle, but important, difference between the two. I challenge the training department to come up with anyone without any skeletons in their closet.

Flex - while your attempts to defend the training system are commendable (someone has to), I think even you would admit that the mere fact there is a huge difference between the pass rates on the Boeing and Airbus fleets indicates there are some issues. That's just the starting point.

[400 Jockey]

The truth speaks for itself when STC's and management pilots are saying Cathays Command problem is systemic.

Yes there are some individuals who for whatever reason just do not have what it takes to be a Captain and will never pass but when many many guys are failing Commands and being Cat B'd it either shows its systemic or that Cathay are recruiting the wrong individuals. The latter I find unlikely because just too many people are failing.

Surely when a failure rate in some months is in excess of 80% this indicate it's systemic. How can it be anything else?

Rumour control has it that the 777 fleet are doing their best to make the Command course better and I think they are doing very well when you look at the recent pass rates on that fleet. So you have to hand it to Cathay in that they are at least addressing the problem. One is not saying they have fixed it but it appears that they have recognised the issue and are dealing with it.

[FlexibleResponse]

Yes, I agree some very good points made by newbie and Jockey.

The reality of Command training is that you may be paired up with someone that doesn't quite understand where you are coming from and what special needs you may require. This can cause a chain of events that can create perceptions that may be difficult to turn around in the remaining Command Training time available.

A talented trainer will be able to extract the very best from any raw material that he is given. A gifted trainer will even be able to take a previously crushed trainee and rebuild him to the extent that he regains confidence in himself so that the end result then becomes a given.

A highly talented and gifted trainee will excel with virtually any trainer the system throws at him, but of course these trainees are more in the minority.

The system is designed to give the trainee the benefit of the doubt. So don't waste the opportunity.

It's your Command course. Don't let anyone take it off you.

Somehow the corporate knowledge seems to know when someone who has unfairly missed-out, has been hard done by. This message is not lost and invariably such a candidate seems to sail through on the next go. These Commanders then seem to go on and eventually make the best trainers.

We even once had an FO who was Cat D’d due to his affiliation with the AOA. The hue and cry from the senior pilots (and one gentleman in particular taking on the management) soon had this situation reversed.

CX desperately needs Commanders. The CX Command training is expensive. So they are more interested in successful outcomes then you are (if that is even remotely possible!).

[oicur12]

“The standards have remained the same for the last 50 or 60 years and seem to have served the airline well. As they say from time to time, "it's our train set and we'll run it any way we feel like”.

And here in lies the biggest problem with HKG. No need to change, it already works well, progress isn’t important, change is to be avoided. Maybe we should stick to using gramaphones and driving model T Fords too.

Surely the aim of the training system is to pass all candidates safely and until then, there is room for improvement.

[Mr. Bloggs]

CX knows who the bad and the very bad trainers are but elect to do nothing about it.

All command reports are favorable, except one from these very bad trainers. The review board fails the trainee and has him sit on the side lines for 18 months.

I am sure the trainees is comfortable with knowing that management thinks he was hard done by but that very bad trainer is still there 18 months later and it is your second and final go at command.

These very bad trainers are costing CX and the Trainees lots of money. It would be better for all around if the company striped these trainers of their training status and get new blood in the system. Pay a bit more that you save by getting rid if these trainers and spread it amongst the trainers and you will get more TC’s and the people that you want to join.

But no, it’s the old boy’s school of doing things here. The very bad trainers will remain and some trainees will continue to get screwed and will cost CX lots of money.

Is it true that one Base Training Captain just lost his Base Training Status because he would not change a Senior Training Captains (very bad trainer) score from a 2 (which is CX’s minimum standard)? Only several weeks before another Base Training Captain had to give this same Very Bad Trainer a berating because of his training methods (believe this was in front of a First Officer which is unheard of in Cathay)? This very bad trainer is still a Senior Training Captain but was an ex manager which means, he will be untouchable.

Does not give you much faith in the system.

Flex I agree with you ( doesn't happen very often so don't get accustomed to it):} about talented and very talented trainers but we don’t seem to have many here at CX.

[newbie1972]

Flex - some fair points. There is one thing I would like to make comment on:

"The system is designed to give the trainee the benefit of the doubt. So don't waste the opportunity."

I don't believe the trainee is generally given the benefit of the doubt. Some pass their check and when their files are passed before the board, their course is terminated without recourse, without further training and often subsequently with minimal counselling and guidance (just more checks prior to their next shot).

I should add that in some ways I believe they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt(depends very much on the circumstances). If there are some issues that come up in the ERAS report(s), then they should be researched more and steps taken to address these issues - BEFORE the 3 or 4 Bar. This has already happened in some cases and trainers/checkers have been challenged (sorry - asked to clarify) on some of the comments they have made in training/check reports. The fact is that some checkers/trainers are shocking at writing reports and turn minor stuff into career busting statements.

A typical example may be that the candidate is slightly late in decelerating to 250kts below 10k and this just turns up in his ERAS report as 'lost situational awareness' without any expansion. If it happens often, it is an issue. If a once-off, then a verbal debrief and move on to more important big picture stuff.

I agree that there are some outstanding trainers and checkers in the company. It is just a pity that a very few influential and powerful checkers continue to wreak havoc on trainees and their careers.


As for this comment:

"Somehow the corporate knowledge seems to know when someone who has unfairly missed-out, has been hard done by. This message is not lost and invariably such a candidate seems to sail through on the next go. These Commanders then seem to go on and eventually make the best trainers."

Agreed. This seems to be the case. However, in many cases, it need not have been the case in the first place(in my very humble opinion).

[hostile23]

"A talented trainer will be able to extract the very best from any raw material that he is given. A gifted trainer will even be able to take a previously crushed trainee and rebuild him to the extent that he regains confidence in himself so that the end result then becomes a given."


.......................................and a REAL trainer will neither treat someone like "raw material" or "crush" them.

Thanks for demonstrating my point very nicely flex.:ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

Some folks live with a chip on their shoulder.

Some folks live with a chip on both shoulders.

And then yet again some folks just get on with the business and enjoy the **** out of life.

It's your life and you only get the one run through. So don't let anyone get under your skin. If you do, guess what? It's not their fault; it's your fault for allowing it to become so.

There is no perfection in the training system. And no matter how much we crow about it, there never will be perfection. So when you sit back and think about it, perhaps it would be more advantageous to devise strategies on how to cope with the existing challenges.

I can guarantee you that when we were younger, we whinged about all the same things that you guys have put forward and a lot more. Nothing has changed, except the names, and I suspect never will. I would like to think that we have improved the training system over the last 15 years, but then I have always been an optimist and possibly a dreamer.

Hostile23, be careful that your greatest competition is not indeed, Hostile23. Give yourself a break and don't be too hard on yourself. We can strive for perfection, and on the odd occasion, achieve excellence. In the meantime it is better to realise that we are human, and we are surrounded by humans who by definition are imperfect.

With a little understanding and consideration you can achieve a whole new level of understanding and contentment. As an experiment, try it on Mrs Hostile23 and reap the rewards!

[Cedar Tree]

After a few months here, I am understanding what everyone is talking about. It isn't perfect at CX, it'll take a lot of extra work to figure it out.

[canadair]

"crushed trainee"
says it right there,
what airline aspires to produce "crushed trainees" ???
well done CX
do you have a quota of "crushed trainees" per month?
even the term is distasteful,
why anyone would want to work for CX these days is beyond me!

[BlunderBus]

Then again there are some really great reasons given for failing such as:
"there's a vibe in your file"
or
"you show a mild lack of 'command presence' "
all very objective stuff really...something a trainee can take action to improve on...not!:8

[inciter]

What a load of crap.

There is no one out there trying to shoot us down. We have GPSs and IRSs. We are flying aircraft designed to be operated by monkeys.
If an airline can't get 90-95% of their 8000+ hour pilots through command training problems lie elsewhere.

[Glass Half Empty]

more bananas all round then!

[hostile23]

I think your "problems with the monkeys" overtone is way out of line . There is a reason why guys fail. One reason only. A system that is completely inadequate and lacking in any true training structure.

[inciter]

Hostile23,

I ve been in this game for a while now just as I am sure you have.
Its a great job and a lot of Fun but it ain't rocket science.

And then I arrived in Hong Kong.

[FlexibleResponse]

I rather doubt it...

[filejw]

Reading this thread one thought comes to mind and that's money and lots of it. All this command failure rate as its called here is expensive. So I'm surprise somebody from the CX head shed as we call it doesn't come over and ask why his (CX) training cost are so much higher than say UA BA AF NW....:=

[Five Green]

Well gone away for leave and thought you all would a solved this !

Flex, Couple of points.

As far as cost for training ( well actually cost for command courses as opposed to "training" goes it probably is not as simple as it looks. The FOs that are able to move right to left to do a command have some advantage under the current system. Those that change aircraft to do command have it a little harder. It is those FOs that may alter the appearance of cost per successful candidate. It is common sense that a command candidate will do better on a familiar airplane. So BBS in their wisdom decide to throw the FOs straight into the command course, knowing it is not the ideal situation but that if more than half pass then it is cheaper than checking them on to the airplane for 6 mos (or whatever)as an FO proir to a command course.

After someone fails the command course they then do 1 year or so in the right seat and viola pass the second time with very few exceptions. The down side of all of this is the toll it takes on the unsuccessfull candidates.

So for all we know BBS is quite happy to carry on this way as it is cheaper than giving two courses to every FO who must change aircraft for command. However the statistics show that there is still a high initial failure of candidates who attempt on the same aircraft, but that is a whole other problem and is offset by the above.

On another point, perfection is a long way from 55% ( exactly 45% away as a matter of fact). Most pilots realise that 100% pass rate is not a realistic goal, however a pass rate more in line with similar air carriers would be nice.

Not sure how you come up with a strategy for luck, as that is what makes the difference in most cases.

My 2 cents.

[Heading Select]

Lots of failing, heard it was an Aussie thing.

[inciter]

Reality check

There are plenty of pilots in Europe and the US that are getting direct entry jet commands that are non type rated and some do not even have any previous jet time.

Changing types is just getting another type rating, I don't get what the big deal is.

Those airlines' safety records are no better or worse than Cathay's. At the end of the day that is what it's all about.

And another thing that is almost for certain, there are a lot less cock-ups swept under the carpet over there than in this part of the world.

[FlexibleResponse]

I rather doubt it...

[inciter]

"I rather doubt it"

Well you better pull your head out of your arse and have a look around cause the world extends a lot further than Hong Kong and CX.

[oicur12]

"And another thing that is almost for certain, there are a lot less cock-ups swept under the carpet over there than in this part of the world."

This is an important point. The total lack of transparency in the airline industry in HKG and Asia in general means that many things can be conveniently overlooked in a way not possible in a western country. How many times would CX/KA "self report" transgressions to CAD as happens in the US, aus etc. CX have had some pretty major "events" that are barely mentioned in the world press and could create a rosier picture than that of other carriers that live under the microscope.

[ACMS]

we have had our share of incidents, no denying that.

However would you care to enlighten us as to which ones were "swept under the carpet"?

mmm..................well go on then.

[iLuvPX]

What about last year when a 744 management pilot landed a one short in manilla, taking out part of the approach lights?

[newbie1972]

...a certain CPwho xxxxxxx in TPE and really xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Bet HIS xxxxxxxxxx didn't get presented at Fleet Forums like some articles have over the last year!

And then there was ......

Carefull you don't open a can of worms ACMS.

[oicur12]

Thanks for the invitation but I will refrain from mentioning the low profile screwups as there is little to be gained from throwing mud at CX in public.

I do fing it surprising to discuss this topic with old timer CX pilots who can name many major stuffups that simply dont see the light of day.

[ACMS]

iLuvPX: What about last year when a 744 management pilot landed a one short in manilla, taking out part of the approach lights?
what the?????????
you mean to tell me one of our 400's lands short in Mnl, takes out approach lights, obviously damages the aircraft and CX covered it up?????
I don't think so buster.
If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done.

The 330 Heavy landing in TPE by the CP was not covered up, he made a full report, it was investigated and published.
Although what punishment a normal Captain would have received is another thing..........

[iLuvPX]

AMCS,

It did happen, my mate was the FO...thats why they call it "sweeping it under the rug" cause most people outside the incident dont ever hear of it...duh.

[ACMS]

It depends on what you mean by "swept under the carpet"
do you mean - reported but kept quiet
or do you mean - never reported in the first place.


I'm sorry but what utter rubbish.
Let me get this straight: A 400 hits approach lights, damages the aircraft, the lights and then no body says anything.................you must be bloody kidding.
And if your mate was the FO then he should have put in his own ASR or even a confidential report. What about the Manila authorities? don't you think they would launch an inquiry into who damaged their runway approach lights?
Not to mention the ground engineers who turned around the aircraft.
You are grasping at straws my friend.
Not only that the FDAP reports would have come through as well.
I can believe it may have happened, but for it to have been "swept under the carpet" utter BS.
Not one single rumour went round about this supposed incident.

[Shot Nancy]

Ok ACMS,
As you are the keeper of all things true and wise kindly tell us all about the CX 744 just out of the hangar the other month that flew to TPE to do some runway improvements with its gear doors?

[BuzzBox]

You know what's really sad? The number of discussions that get hijacked by a pathetic minority of employees with some kind of axe to grind. It's little wonder that the vast majority of CX pilots don't bother with Pprune these days.
:uhoh:

[iLuvPX]

You know whats really, really sad Buzzbox? Copying and pasting the same post across multiple threads due to a lack originality and intelligence.

Ref "Sacked on Purpose" #45

[FlexibleResponse]

iLuvPX said:

What about last year when a 744 management pilot landed a one short in manilla, taking out part of the approach lights?

Care to try and add any factual information to this allegation? I don't think "my mate was on the flight" lends very much credibility to this story.

Perhaps a little more detail might also assist your credibility?

[inciter]

The people we work for will do whatever possible to "save face". That is their mentality.

Despite what FR and his cousin might think this is not the place to air one's dirty laundry.

Back to the original post

"we have had our share of incidents, no denying that."

Since the end result is the same, Cx's and KA's anal approach to aviation is nothing but a waist of time, effort and resources.

[badairsucker]

What about the FO who got put out to dry regarding the 777 tail strike.

The captain was PF and the fo got all the stick for it....go figure.

[ACMS]

badairsucker: I seem to remember the tail skid scrape. The FO was the PM but did get the blame from the Training Captain I think? not too good := infact didn't the FO resign after? Not a blue chip day for the 777 crew.
Shot Nancy CX 744 just out of the hangar the other month that flew to TPE to do some runway improvements with its gear doors?
do tell us more?
If this has any truth then it will be in the Safety mag in a month or two, then we can read the report.
I maintain that we have a pretty good reporting culture here in Cx and these incidents are being reported and acted apon.

[BuzzBox]

The FO was the PM but did get the blame from the Training Captain I think? not too good

No. There were several contributing factors, but nobody 'blamed' anybody else.

[inciter]

"No. There were several contributing factors, but nobody 'blamed' anybody else"

I don't think in any of the above incidents they were coming in with an engine on fire, a couple of IRSs out and a double hydraulic failure.

how could this supreme "best of the best" highest calibre, bla bla bla command upgrade course get it so wrong?

We all cock up that is how it is!

The Manila incident though if true, most embarrassing.

[badairsucker]

Buzz,

Tail strike, scrape, hit the deck, ground contact = the same bloody thing....it's not ment to happen.....no matter how much spin you care to put on it.

[badairsucker]

ACMS,

Agreed sir. Not a good day.

[xtwapilot]

Buzzbox,
I don't know where you learned to fly, but anytime an aircraft's tail skid makes contact with the ground, it's a tail strike, no if and or buts about it.
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and it seems to me that the individuals that are defending Cathay's failure rates as maintaining of high standards have a lot to learn about flying. Cathay didn't invent flying, there are many great airlines out there that do similar type of flying, even more so, yet they do not have the failure rate Cathay has. So what gives, the only possible answer is a weak training department. Any training department that cannot keep failure rates below 5% needs to be revamped. However, just like alcohol, one has to admit there is a problem before help can be sought. As it stands, Cathay doesn't seem to think there is a problem, so end of story.

Xtwapilot

[climbout]

Xtwapilot: GREAT STATEMENT! - but changes take long in CX...

[badairsucker]

Sorry BuzzBox but what a load of bollox.


A question for you...How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.

I have countless friends in all types of airlines around the world with different experience levels and none of them I say again NONE of them have ever had a proplem upgrading.


You seem to be one of those poor suckers that think CX is the best airline in the world mate.....


Another question for you....Why does CX make their JFO do a QL?????

What a bloody waste of time.....

[inciter]

Buzzbox,

As I also said in a previous post,

Cathay is THE BEST AIRLINE IN THE WORLD at keeping most of the dickheads in this industry in one place.

Absolutely clueless!

[BuzzBox]

So, Badairsucker, let me see if I understood you correctly. You're suggesting that airlines such as United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas, etc, put a low time pilot straight into the RHS of a B777, A330 or B744 and then give him a command a few years later. Sorry, but I don't think so.

As I tried to point out, I think a lot (but not all) of the problem stems from pilots doing their command on a regional fleet with little or no experience at that type of flying, and unfortunately the training system has taken a long time to adapt to that problem. Most of the pilots that do have experience as FOs on the regional fleets generally do quite well on command course. Believe me, those on the regional fleets face more threats, problems, etc in a week than the long haul guys do in a year - that in itself is very good training for command.

As far as the QL goes, I understand there were a few problems with some of the low-time JFOs a few years back. I believe the decision was made to check all JFOs (regardless of experience) to line, but with additional limits (x-wind, visibility, etc) while they gained experience flying on the line. After six months they would then be QL'd, and if successful upgraded to FO.

[badairsucker]

BuzzBox,

Read my post again, I stated that I have friends with all types of airlines not just the majors.

I know of 3 guys who had low hours, got their first jobs straight on a 757 and were in the left hand seat within 3.5 years. These a large charter companies in the UK.

2 friends who are captains on the A320, 4 mates on the 737 as captains, all for easyjet and started with low hours. Same goes at Ryanair.

Tell me, whats the difference between a 320 and a 330, not a lot.

You seem to fall into "mines bigger than yours" way of thinking.

As far as the QL...If your going to let someone who has a type rating on the aircraft and let them lose on the line for 6 months then give them another line check, then the company MIGHT fail them, then what do they do, let them out on the line again for another 6 months. Wow, if they pass they get another 5 KTS cross wind and a little better bit of vis. Nothing more than a checking process which this company needs to get rid of. If it's to do with low hour guys, give them more training till they are up to speed.


Please don't think I am getting on your case, I am just fed up of all the hoops we have to jump through in this company, friends in Virgin and BA think I am nuts being here getting all these hoops put up in front of us.



We seem to be the only airline with it's own hoop factory, I am off to buy some more stocks in the hoop business.

[BuzzBox]

Badairsucker, I did read your post again and you said: How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.


Sorry, but Easyjet, Ryanair and UK charter companies aren't "most of the world[']s airlines". Let's compare apples with apples.

As far as "give them more training until they are up to speed", I believe that is the whole point of the JFO system. JFOs are kept in the 'system' where they can be monitored and can consolidate their initial training for 6 months before the QL. Along the way the low time guys (and anyone else who needs it) are given consolidation flights with training captains to help them achieve the required standard by the time they come up for their QL. If they don't achieve that standard then they are given more training before a further QL.

It's unfortunate that all JFOs are sent through the same process, regardless of experience. Perhaps the experienced guys could be upgraded straight away to FO once they pass the Aircraft Line Check, but where do you draw the line in the sand experience-wise: 1,000 hours, 2,000 hours? It wouldn't matter where the line was drawn, someone would feel hard done by. I guess CX has chosen to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator and start from there.

[BigPimpin]

ACMS said:
"If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done."

Think again cupcake! If there's one thing you can do freely in MNL, that is bribery. And it doesn't take much. That's how they make a living. Corruption at its best. Trust me, I lived and worked there for 15+ years. So, any other ideas coming out of your arse?

[badairsucker]

Buzz,

Let's see.

Are you comparing United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas with CX, we are small fry compared to BA, United etc. We have just over 100 aircraft and 2000 odd pilots, not massive numbers.

Just worthy of a note that Ryanair carry more passengers that BA per year so why is it you think we can't compare with them. They seem to operate massive amount of sectors per year and don't have many problems.


Are you thinking that CX is the be all and end all. Face it, we are just a humble midsize airline with some pilots who fell we are the biggest and greatest, NEWS FLASH, were not.

[ACMS]

you are one t:mad:.
The pictures would be on the net before the engines spun down.
Not to mention the Filipino cabin crew grapevine would have a field day.
You can't be serious.
Keep an incident like that quiet.........................yeah right.:D


prove it happened..................come on then, prove it.

[ACMS]

Ryanair don't have many problems??????????????????????? huh
There must be another Ryaair:eek:
Doing a 360 on final to lose speed and height and ending up at 100' AGL on base leg is one that springs to mind.
And there have been a few others.
All documented in Flight International.

That may not be "many problems" but boy that's a doosey:(

[badairsucker]

ACMS,

And CX then, 747-400 500 FT above the sea at 7 miles, then the 747-400 climbing over Lantau with nobody flying the damn thing, and a 340 scrapping it's tail.


Nobody is perfect, even us CX pilots.

[rhoshamboe]

Mate,
Wasn't that CX??

[BuzzBox]

Badairsucker,

When I said let's compare apples with apples, I was referring to long haul airlines. Last time I checked, EasyJet and Ryanair don't fit that criteria.

I would argue that airlines such as EasyJet and Ryanair have a far easier time upgrading pilots to command simply because they operate so many sectors. Long haul airlines have trouble providing enough sectors for pilots to meet the recency requirements, let alone develop those pilots for command.

PS. I don't believe I have ever said that CX is the 'be all and end all'. If there's an airline out there that fits the bill, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[badairsucker]

Well I could also argue that Virgin don't operate ANY short haul sectors and they don't have problems with their upgrades. (Best mate is there).
Nor do the many charter companies in Europe who also operate long and short haul routes. I could go on to mention the likes of EK, SIA etc.

We are operating airplanes just like every other airline, not the bloody space shuttle, why do we have so many problems???

[BuzzBox]

Well, Badairsucker, you seem to have all the answers. What's your take on the issue, and how can it be solved?

[badairsucker]

Buzz,

I don't have all the answers just a bit of sensible thinking.

I'll keep it short as it's no longer raining and I am going out for a beer.


Firstly, do away with the rank of SO, no point having a guy sat in the back seat for 3 or more years. Currency won't be a problem for the increased numbers on the Airbus or 777 fleets, maybe a bit on the 400. Cadets can go to Dragon air and fly the 320 for a few years as they already do over there. Everyone can come in as a JFO. I believe the company are looking into this and are trying to get rid of the SO rank in the future, but I bet the beancounters are fighting that one.

I feel the training system should have an external audit and then a complete overhaul. The system of ERAS or the new reporting system should be thrown in the bin. The grading system with the 1 to 5 shouldn't be used as it opens up the chances of inconsistency between different checkers etc, a simple PASS/FAIL should be used, therefore taking out the chances of Joe Bloggs not getting through because of a 2 or a 3 he got in 1965.

Also, there are more than a few Checkers that shouldn't be in the position of checking, we all know who they are.


Next, I would like to see less in the way of hoop checking as one works his/her way up through the ranks...SO to JFO to FO to SFO to CAPT, every step requires either an interview, sim or a star chamber sit down. Some I agree are required but not that many (other companies seem to manage).

Anyway I could continue but a Guinness is required.

Later.

[Al Kida]

Buzzbox said:
"As far as "give them more training until they are up to speed", I believe that is the whole point of the JFO system. JFOs are kept in the 'system' where they can be monitored and can consolidate their initial training for 6 months before the QL. Along the way the low time guys (and anyone else who needs it) are given consolidation flights with training captains to help them achieve the required standard by the time they come up for their QL. If they don't achieve that standard then they are given more training before a further QL."

This phrase would have been correct 2 years ago, they were called FC's or flight checks, however, this is no longer the case. FC's were canned when I was JFO, so from the time I checked out as a JFO, I never flew with any trainers until the QL check came along.

I would therefore have to agree that the QL check would now be a waiste of time, but dare I say it, it saves the company $15000 a month per JFO.
Also, in my humble opinion, if you cant fly any aircraft up to the limits, then you shouldnt have the rating. I am however not sure what the industry standard is for these F/O limitations are.

Back to the thread though, it certainly seems to me that the high failure rate is directly attributable to certain individual checkers and there inabilty to adequately train. Interesting when one of them was "pulled" from checking, the pass rate shot up.:cool:

No doubt too that the Relief commander (only found in CX) was at a massive dissadvantage when he was finally thrown into the left seat.:ugh:
Thankfully that is now , sort of, gone:D

Badair..."We are operating airplanes just like every other airline, not the bloody space shuttle, why do we have so many problems???"

Cos we got our hair on fire... mate!!!!:p

[BuzzBox]

Badairsucker,
I agree with many of your points, and yes CX is looking at getting rid of SOs eventually. How they're going to keep everyone's recency up, I'm not quite sure.

Al Kida,
I can assure you that low-time guys (ie ex-cadets and direct entry pilots with low experience) do still get FC flights - it's called consolidation flying. Perhaps you don't (didn't) fit in to the low-time category?

As I said in an earlier post, perhaps CX should look at getting rid of the whole JFO thing for those that have previous experience. If the ALC is passed to the required standard at the end of line training those pilots with the required experience would then automatically be upgraded to FO.

[hostile23]

Will never happen. CX are in the hurdle erection business, not removal.

We all know the system is rotten to the core. Will it change? Well we all know the answer to that question..:ugh:

[Pollution IV]

Further to Badairsucker’s entry, the RAAF transport world has been using ‘Competency based assessment’ (pass/fail) for some time now, for the routine periodic checks. While the scoring is gone, the comments are thorough and the candidate is able to address the issues in his/her own time before the next event. While it has its shortcomings, perhaps encouraging a 51% syndrome, it’s effective enough in keeping an eye on standards in the pilot body and providing that ‘top-up’ required by us all every few months. The system is offset by thorough, scored events for upgrades through the ranks of F/O and command upgrade. Thus, the trng dept gets a good look at the candidate periodically throughout his career and the candidates who put in the work and adhere to the comments made, are more likely to pass the upgrades – extremely fair in my opinion and creates a paradigm of work = reward, without the highly negative effect of having one bad day in the sim years ago, resulting in virtually no chance of passing the upgrade.

Buzzbox, regards recency, I don’t see there are any recency requirements around here, apart from landing and LWMO, which are satisfied in the sim anyway…perhaps you mean proficiency? The training tools (FMGS/ECAM trnr etc) should be upgraded and sim time should be made available (fixed base, so there are no OH&S issues) to those approaching an upgrade, thus the trickier sequences can be practiced (V1 cut etc).

The SO position has no relevance anymore and should be scrapped, however there is merit in maintaining at least 3 levels of F/O for the reasons of reducing staleness (+ve psychological effect of progression), and a thorough but fair process of assessment prior to command (as stated above). I’m sure anyone would be happier to be held back 6mths at the F/O level, rather than the ignominy of failing cmd after 10 yrs in the Co.

As for flying at KA to get sectors up, great idea, as long as it’s a 2 way street! Sending SO cadets there is a good idea, but they should only fly with trng capts, the environment in China just isn’t conducive to safe ops otherwise. I’m not sure why CX isn’t processing all new pilots through KA anyway…faster trng process, more hands on, thus more likely to pass upgrades, earlier command for those who want to stay a bit longer before going back to long-haul, everyone wins!

Essentially I’m all for hi standards, unfortunately the trng dept doesn’t have the standardisation expertise to carry out the task in a fair and equitable manner, thus it needs to be simplified. This problem will only get worse as the co gets larger. As for the ‘star chamber’, how does the TRNG Manager who signed-off on the candidate as reaching the required level for command, maintain his dignity when the panel tells him (on numerous occasions)… no, you got it wrong he’s not good enough – what an absurd and incredible insult. :yuk:

[BuzzBox]

Buzzbox, regards recency, I don’t see there are any recency requirements around here, apart from landing and LWMO, which are satisfied in the sim anyway

Landing recency CAN be revalidated in the sim, by way of an exemption to the AN(HK)O. However, CAD takes a dim view of operators that use the exemption as a way of regularly keeping large numbers of pilots in recency, much to the chagrin of one particular HK airline (and I don't mean CX).


As for the ‘star chamber’, how does the TRNG Manager who signed-off on the candidate as reaching the required level for command, maintain his dignity when the panel tells him (on numerous occasions)… no, you got it wrong he’s not good enough – what an absurd and incredible insult.

Simple - these days the command trainee doesn't get 'signed off' until after the star chamber has completed its review. (I'm not saying I agee with the system mind you...)

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

Buzzbox

"Before that change, CX only recruited very experienced Direct-Entry First Officers. The training system was structured accordingly and most of those FOs went on to pass their commands."

What this comment really means is that the CX training system was effective when candidates joined the company already trained by other airlines but cannot cope when the candidate actually requires to be trained.
This is the essence of CX (and KA apparently) and its approach to training.

[Buttie Box]

DTH

Agree with you 100% mate.

We were always taught there were 4 stages of training: instruction, demonstration, practice and assessment.

Instruction is sometimes an out-of-date CBT package backed up with this FCOM system (can we please please have the old Vol 4s back!)

Demonstration is non-existent, arguably due to face-saving, but I'm not that cynical.

Practice, well, we can all read a book.

Assessment is where we first have the opportunity for hands-on experience. Thus, our training system has the reputation of being a trapping/checking system.

With few exceptions, and we know who they are, the trainers I find are helpful but are operating within a system that is constrained by both cost and difficulties, such as having to relocate based crew to Honkers for training.

Back to DTH's comment above, I am of the opinion that:

a. We are hired on our ability to use previous experience to allow us to train ourselves, and

b. Our command course is the length it is as it is a "supervised experience" course, or, in other words, if we are seen to be keen and flawless for 4 months, it is unlikely that we we will err in some form in the future.

BB

[ChairmanBoysClub]

My god.. Is it really that bad in this company.. I remember once when I was proud of being part of this team. Now. Watching young chaps joining and leaving after only a short time Ive come to realize that we or perhaps rather our management pilots and its like have not done well. Not done well at all. We been through a lot in the last two decades. We've lost good friends (though some came back) but I have this empty feeling that things are not getting better at all.. And that is the worst bit. Payrise is one thing, but I think we need to adapt to the "new world". Just not too sure whether its too late for the "new ones". :sad:

[Captain TOGA]

I’m sure anyone would be happier to be held back 6mths at the F/O level, rather than the ignominy of failing cmd after 10 yrs in the Co.
What will another 6 mos do for a FO since he more than likely been with the company for 9-10 years?

[buggaluggs]

I agree, 6 months on my fleet may well mean only another 7 or 8 PF sectors! If you're lucky! A huge difference thats going to make to a command course!!!

:ugh:

[Glass Half Empty]

How is the retention/pass rate going for those joining as FO fast track commanders on the freighter fleet??

[spud]

None so far

[FYI]

Buttie Box wrote:
"a. We are hired on our ability to use previous experience to allow us to train ourselves, and
b. Our command course is the length it is as it is a "supervised experience" course, or, in other words, if we are seen to be keen and flawless for 4 months, it is unlikely that we we will err in some form in the future."


BB,
I couldn't agree with you more.
FYI

[ChairmanBoysClub]

Whats your problem WNC,

You dont think we have integrity in Cathay? :ugh:

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

Speaking to friends who have sampled more than just the CX training system, it appears that CX does have a very high standard. BUT, how they set about achieving it is the problem.

Many years ago in QF, just after they had absorbed Australian Airlines(short haul), the long haul fleet had 100% failure rate on commands. They thought the short haul fleet was being slack as they had near 100% pass rate - did I forget to mention that the command course was 9 months long on QF mainline!

We all make mistakes. Thats why we have a PM. Being flawless for 4 months is possible but difficult. Maybe the checkers and trainers have forgotten what it was like to do command course - the self induced stress far greater than anything CX can throw at you!

A mature organisation looks outside itself and asks why other airlines have higher pass rates. A mature organisation seeks best industry practice. But then we don't even manage boeings the way boeing suggest. What did someone post ....we invented aviation here;-)

[FlexibleResponse]

WNC,

No integrity?

Then what does that say about you?