This quote below is IMHO the best piece of advice here. I think if you take the following to heart, and govern yourself accordingly in subsequent interactions during the evaluation/acceptance/training process, you will do well.
I would suspect that given the circumstances it may have had more to do with an evaluation of "trainability" . . . Let me explain:
A pilot lands 10 inches left of centerline and the examiner scolds and says "good grief I can't believe you just did that!". Does the student pilot scoff at the critic, accept the criticism, ignore the examiner or take the critique in stride and try to do better next time? You said you we testing for a cadet program. I wouldn't be the least surprised if this is what was going on.
I'm a military pilot and very, very early on the examiners and flight instructors will use this technique to gauge how receptive a student is to training. Simply put: are they "trainable"?
With regard to other nation's flying ability I can speak from experience. I currently fly NATO AWACS. Imagine multi-national crews (16+ different sending nations). I've flown with pilots from CAN, US, Bel, DE, ITL, GRC, TUR, NLD, etc . . . Each have their own quirks and traits (as do I) but they're all professionals who are serious and dedicated to what they do. Judge folks on their individual abilities not on their backgrounds or nations . . . Sound advice.
I have flown and trained in the UK, US, Australia and NZ. I work with all kinds of pilots now from diverse countries and backgrounds. Everyone brings their 'baggage' and I am no different.
I don't care where you got your licence or how many exams you passed. I care that you lookout when required, obey the local rules, don't break the cab or me or pax, and don't sound like a fool on the radio. In my experience people who break the rules above come from all countries and backgrounds because they are either: idle (rare in a professional environment), or ignorant of the context of their actions (much more probable).
In converting to a new environment one brings the knowledge from the last one. If the skills and knowledge and techniques are not appropriate for the new environment they need to change. Individuals dislike having to change something that has in the past worked well. If the trainer does a sound job of providing content and context (ie here in xxxxx we don't fly the approach like you just did because yyyyyy) change is contextualised and learning takes place.
When one is told 'Canadians are wrong ....' the question to ask is why do (insert country / region here) do it differently and perhaps it all makes sense.
A magnificent example is a North Sea helicopter pilot approaching a Timor Sea oil rig. Concepts such as TAS vs IAS and power margins are evident in both environments but higher temperatures / DA mean there is a new consideration for the pilot. If it is well explained and contextualised, all is good. If not, scary!
Most right hand seaters are the product of approved courses in a lot of the world, but my memory of Canadians is that they had extensive GA experience of the hardest type before getting near an airliner. As a geriatic pax I feel happy behind a Canadian crew. Best of luck to you.
Sure...a nice sunny summer afternoon in southern Ontario. Vis is a mile, maybe two in haze. It's 35C, and the met guys have a cold front moving at 20 knots from the northwest...puts a strain on the navigation skills of your average newbie! I hated summer days in the area! Winter too, for that matter... butas I think about it even more, fall was awesome. That's about all there was to offer. (And I HATE that excuse for a hockey team! )
The correct term is "Oztranauts". They invented aviation, you know.
Having said that, the best trainer (and a true gentleman) I ever knew was an Australian. So there are exceptions to every rule. But there's also a reason for stereotypes. I don't know why the disconnect between the Croc Dundee/ surfer dude personas and the reality of supremely anal, but there it is.
Don't let the bastards get you down. Just smile, pretend that getting the wording of something, or some other pedantic non-issue, is The Most Important Thing In The World (and do get it right, of course!) and then let them carry on their silly way.
No worries, mate.
The other one, the Brits, that's just the usual former-RAF-we-had-an-empire-once compensation thing going on. More to be pitied than feared. Pay no mind.
Last edited by nolimitholdem; 8th Jan 2013 at 16:05.
I find it hard to believe that any Ozzie is lumping you into a category because you did your initial training in Canada.
I don't, unfortunately. However, you can sub any nationality for "Ozzie" and any other for "Canada" and you'd be about right. This happens all the time, everywhere, although overall only a small percentage of check airman types are guilty. Think of it as one more hurdle to jump. The people who engage in this sort of baiting all too often don't know what they're talking about, and that's not limited to flight training.
Again, just grin and bear it. You're too far down on the totem pole to be able to do anything about it, for now. Resolve not to "be like that" when you get into the instructor's position. Indeed, one day in the future your positions may be reversed.
"Be nice to the people you pass on the way up the ladder. You'll see 'em all again on the way down."
Last edited by Rotorhead1026; 13th Jan 2013 at 23:08.
Australians need to remember that Canada is a huge place with diverse flying and while lots of flying is similar to Aus a lot is not.
There is a Canadian attitude that if you are not from Canada you don't know what you are doing, and to a point they are right. Australians don't have a clue about what its like to spend days shoveling your driveway, lake effect snow, icing in its various forms, deicing, frozen throttle and mixture cables, landing with a windshield full of ice etc
Canadians don't have a clue about tropical , or what its like to see six inches of water come down in 30 minutes and or to fly though such a rain storm.
At the end of the day, the differences are easily learned, and the claims that one is a better system than another is a dead argument.
As for exams, yes, Australia has or had tougher exams generally, but take two pilots who did exams in different countries and a year later, what do they remember? and, is it really relevant? The Canadian approach does include a large practical emphasis while the Australian is more technical.
If you go from one country to the next, don't expect it to be easy, but treat it as a hell of a learning exercise that will be a load of fun.
Just be prepared to pay your dues all over again.
As for standards of pilots, you take each pilot as you find them, lots of schools in Aus and Canada that turn out endless streams of pilots who can pass exams and tests but have woeful flying schools.
To those who disagree, sticking with that logic... Those who can fly big aeroplanes DO, and those who can't DON'T. I wouldn't make that conclusion.
Those who can pass an airline interview DO, and those who can't, DON'T. If HR are involved, you best keep your money in your pocket.
Does any of that make sense? If it does, no wonder this industry is in trouble! The logic of an idiot.
There are shitty pilots out there who have no business on a flight deck just as there are instructors out there who have no business instructing. But to make such a ridiculous generalized statement like that is actually saying nothing and a great insult to those of us who do both, and quite well I might add.
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 28th Jan 2013 at 01:53.