“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?