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Are outdated techniques to blame?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.
