Two EK Rumours

[LHR Rain]

Word on the street is that the Stasi is no longer giving Boeing upgrade interviews. It must have been the 70% failure rate that was his domain.
Also DN had to fly the other day because he was the only Boeing pilot left to fly the trip. He had to leave a LTC interview day much to his dismay.
We got them by the balls if we as a pilot group play our cards right. Keep the faith and the £ is ours!

[harry the cod]

****, doesn't sound good for my standby tonight!

[Volverine]

Any confirmation about this rumours ?
Who gives interviews now ?

Upgrade failure rate above 10 % would demonstrate the weakness of EK general pilot performance, a direct consequence of poor recruitment and/or poor training (supposed to rise up and keep up the level, not the opposite).

Instructors credibility is now based on how much guys they fail.

Stars on shoulders meaning "License to kill" like sheriff in Texas.

Because of this Sh*t and due to open war between Fleet dep and Training dep, some cleaning in our "Training" Department is to be expected soon.

Hope some nasty heads will roll down.

[Bring Back The Biff]

Had ground training day a while back and was told that upgrade interviews would be shared between DCP Boeing, DCP 380 and DCP Airbus Classic Fleet.

Was bad enough with just one, now have to figure out what 3 are going to ask!

[Wizofoz]

Instructors credibility is now based on how much guys they fail.



And where did that gem come from?

Simply not the case.

[Dropp the Pilot]

True, it is not the case but I can guess where he got the idea. Some of the Stakhanovites applying for the promotion from TRI to TRE were asked why they hadn't given more 2s and 1s as trainers.

[yardman]

Volverine,

What you're saying is utter crap. Where's your evidence of such a policy? It simply isn't true. Fact!

[Volverine]

Read previous post and decide yourself what is utter crap.
Disgusting infamy.

[helen-damnation]

Infamy, Infamy.... they've all got it in fa me :O

were asked why they hadn't given more 2s and 1s as trainers.
Possibly true. The answer is that a TRI/TRE can only mark what they see on the day.

[Praise Jebus]

Vulver... It would appear to me that as a TRE checks and a TRI trains, then one could expect a TRE to end up giving more 2s and 1s than a TRI. So would it not be a reasonable question at an interview, to ask the TRI about why he/she has or has not had to fail anyone in training as this would be very likely in his/her new position? To suggest that a question implied that not enough 2s and 1s had been given is a bit steep, unless of course they had been guilty of over-marking.

I think it was that suave British spy, James Bond who was given "license to kill", I doubt a Texan Sheriff would need a license for anything....

[woodja51]

"No such thing as a bad student - just a bad instructor.." - well mostly this holds true. Thats what I learnt in the RAAF as a QFI and we still failed around 50% of the guys...not exactly sure that was a good thing - just worked out that way...and probably reflects on my training ability!!

"those that can - do.. ...those that can't- teach..." or do upgrade interviews...! lol

If one assumes the recruitment process collects the right guys, and the training department trains effectively, then the pass rate should be higher no doubt... of course I would be hard pressed to pass a command upgrade interview now as I no longer know where anything is or what todays current SOP happens to be ...too hard to keep up with the various ignominious changes, to give the illusion of progress!

Just dont embarrass the company, hurt the pax or break the jet... pretty simple really.... sorry that is a trite response but happy to accept the hits if anyone can be bothered...

WJA

[kotakota]

Oh dear , sounds like EK have got OLD C****y Syndrome............ie , lets scour some obscure tech manual and ask some poor 'average' pilot a question which even I have not heard of ...........what fun !! Apparently I should have known a LOT about Kevlar etc . Sad thing is , the git who tortured me was later fired for a VERY NEAR miss with terrain somewhere in the newest Chinese take-away (1997) . Apparently its very hard to see Cumulo-Granite when your eyes are welling up with self-importance and pommie-bashing mania. I really should have been in the right squadron heh ?
Strangely , have managed to get on and fly various large jets both with and without Kevlar since ..sounds a bit risky / dodgy non ?
IAB -its all bo............

[atiuta]

13 years later and still carrying a grudge? Sounds like they made the right decision.

I heard DCPB is over worked and therefore sharing the love...err....interviews.

[Willie Everlearn]

woodja51

"those that can - do.. ...those that can't- teach..." or do upgrade interviews...! lol

As a professional TRI, unfortunately, reality is just the opposite. Many 'dummies' occupy the LHS and RHS. If it wasn't for sound SOP, a good number of pilots today wouldn't get off the ground. As for failure rates, it only points to the need for better training. Evidence based training. If it points to a shi**y instructor, get rid of him.

In an ideal world, when a student fails to cut it, the student and his instructor should be expected to answer some questions. That way, solutions for remediation might be found. (Remember, every one of us has a limit to what we're able to achieve. I guess that explains why I never made it into professional sport.) Then, of course, the skill test should be measured against the regulators standard and not the personal opinion and standards of some "ace of the base".

If you're an instructor with a 50% failure rate, then I'd suggest you're overdue for some serious inward reflections on whether or not you can actually teach. The last thing I'd expect EKs would want in its training organization is an instructor who can't teach and a TRE/TRI that uses his own standard as the yardstick rather than the regulators.

"No such thing as a bad student - just a bad instructor.."
I'm not sure where this statement came from but I couldn't disagree more. There are hundreds of bad students out there. Hundreds, if not thousands. So, don't kid yourself.

Sorry to disagree, but those who CAN, teach. Those who can't, fly the line. Whether or not it's that way at EKs is a different matter.

Willie :ok:

[EK_Bus Driver]

Willie, I agree with all of your post except the last paragraph. Unfortunately there are Trainers here at EK who couldn't teach a Dog how to take a cr@p!

There are many line Captains who have training experience and even some former EK trainers who were very good at their jobs but have resigned from training because they do not want to compromise their integrity. And they have my utmost respect! Lots of us CAN train but refuse to do it in the EK "way." This is definitely not an "ideal world".

[Fart Master]

For my tupppence worth, over 90% of the pilots who winge about EK Training and Trainers quite simply haven't done their work and preparation properly and are looking for an excuse because deep down they know that it was nobodies fault other than their own.

For guys that do OK and still complain it's normally because they are comparing it to their previou airline/experiences. YOU'RE NOT AT YOUR PREVIOUS AIRLINE, GET OVER IT!

Regarding bad trainers/personalities, yes, there will always be some in any airline. I suspect the 777 fleet has a few more than the airbus fleet, but on the airbus side I can only think of 1 that shouldn't be there.

[Willie Everlearn]

Gentlemen,
It's a shame on/for EKs if their training department is short of quality instructors. And it's a shame/disgrace on their HR and Fleet Managers if those quality people haven't been identifited or recruited.

Going forward, it would appear as though EK will need to recruit and train hundreds of new hires for a type rating. Somewhere in their thought process one would think Instructors would be a high priority.

They can hire as many pilots as they like, at the end of the day, they won't fly the line til they've all been trained.
That ain't news, but that too, is reality.

good luck,
Willie :sad:

[woodja51]

Sorry Willie - not trying to insult professional instructors at all. I think that from my 14 years in airlines and about the same in the Air Force, what I was trying to get at was that, (with sufficient inward reflection), a good instructor can discover the root of any students problem. Granted it does depend on a decent product in the first place - that is the job of recruitment systems. The idea is if you recruit a suitable candidate, then a sound training system and trainers should be able to produce a sound pilot. Perhaps that more clearly explains the no bad student thing....Agree - SOUND SOPs are the cornerstone of flight safety ( to quote Boeing) but that is the point... they have to be sound , not just rules for the sake of replacing thinking....In my experience the concept of demo direct monitor in airline training is mostly replaced by: ' have a go and I will tell you what you screwed up'. How many instructors have actually demonstrated an EFATO, A rapid decomp, or show me any airline that actually produces say a training video with a text book response to abnormals etc. I know we generally learn best by doing, but sometimes monkey see monkey do works pretty well too. As far as EK training goes, for the most part it is trying to improve the general level of pilots above regulators minimum... but you really need to see the wads of random documents that the guys here have to know inside out and which one supercedes which .. except when they choose not to.. etc to get an idea of how convoluted things have become in what is a pretty easy job. perhaps we could take a leaf from your organisations book? Cheers. WJA;)

[Willie Everlearn]

woodja51

I truly enjoyed your reply and the sensibility of your comments. I wholeheartedly agree with your expanded comments and more clearly understand your original post. I also appreciate your not misunderstanding my comment and taking it the wrong way. Good on you mate.

In my organization, whether or not you have previously taught, whether or not you have even commanded a jet transport in scheduled ops before, you won't get to the classroom without thorough training as a trainer. It takes quite a legitimate effort and I'd say a professional attitude and approach to get someone up-to-speed. Six months at a minimum. There are a number of observations along the way before you're signed off to teach your first ground school to a crew. Once you've completed your 'apprenticeship' as a Ground School Instructor, you can move on to the sim. We're at least allowed to determine when we're comfortable with moving on. That transition could take as much as a year depending on individual background and experience. Which is another monkey see, monkey do exercise, followed by further evals before being cut loose to instruct as a fully qualified SFI/TRI. Generally speaking, I'd say we've got a helluva buncha quality instructors where I work, and it shows in the critiques.
I know this approach to qualifying instructors works and it works well. I've never known an aircraft as well or as thoroughly as I know my present aircraft.

For those who may make it beyond the check airman's sign off and who actually don't do a good job of instructing, the student critiques usually indicate where the cream of the crop can be found. Too many unfavorable reviews and I'm afraid you're done like dinner. Maybe EK needs to have their crews under training critique their trainers. For they are the ones who truly know what they need and whether or not the instructor delivered the goods.

For the record, there have been numerous times when I've had to abandon the IOS to jump into a flying seat and demo V1 cuts, profiles, stall recognition, high dives, you name it. Because sometimes, as you've stated, monkey see-monkey do, is sometimes all that works.

For those companies who think a seasoned line Captain automatically makes a good instructor, let me say this...

what a fool believes.

Willie :ok:

[Talon Driver]

Come to Saudi Arabia, my friend, to have the " There are no bad students only bad instructors" myth blown completely out of the water!:ugh::ugh::oh:

[Exit Strategy]

The theoretical world: Demonstrate, direct, monitor.

The airline world: Check, and then possibly, scrub.