How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?
How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check?
Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?
Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?
Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to themselves be top-notch and competent?
Very interesting topic, and something I have had many a discussion on. I look forward to seeing this one progress.
System here works fairly well most of the time, but incompetence has and does creep in and is not always addressed appropriately.
A select few have failed LPC, but not many. Those that have, could not argue it was wrong.
Generally our proficiency checks are a good balance and work most people.
Those responsible for the checks are generally pretty good, but here in lies the problem. They probably all have the ability, but perhaps not always the back-up to do the job completely. I suspect this is a common problem.
Extra training costs big-bucks at the end of the day. I know an accident cost more, but only in hindsight is it realized. If an instructor in starts failing people, the first person who will likely be called into question will be the instructor. Often companies do not have the time or resources to really standardize themselves with regards to established, clear, measurable guidelines for non-acceptable standards. I believe this is something that needs to be addressed form the start of a pilots career within a company. We should be hiring all co-pilots with a view to them being suitable for upgrade to commander within 3-5 years (emphasis on suitable, depending on requirement.). They may not become commanders in this time, but we must see a steady curve of improvement over that time to indicate he will one day be ready. If a guy is in a company after 2 or 3 years and is still no better than the day he arrived and will clearly never be suitable for command, still requires constant close supervision and is still struggling with capacity, procedures, techniques and division of attention, should we keep him on? He may just be up to standard of a brand new pilot, but a long way short of his peers. I would argue the answer is no, but reality is more difficult. This is where we have to try and define levels of competency and the "checkers" need the back-up to deal with the problem.
Companies may well also be very aware that in some cases the customer is looking over their shoulders. If the customer suddenly sees an increase in the number of people failing LPCs, this might have an adverse effect on confidence levels. Better just to paint a rosy picture and hope it will be alright and the problem will "sort itself out".
Finally we tend to be becoming more and more averse to conflict. This stems from multiple areas, but largely from the trends within modern western CRM/HF. The job of checking people in your own company will lead to elements of conflict and feelings must be left at the door on the way to the sim or planning room. The instructor has to work with the same guys on the line, but must be clear that he is not there to be friends with everybody. Again this is made far simpler by very clear training and competency standards that are crystal clear for all to see and adhere to. This needs importantly to identify areas that are NOT acceptable as well as what is required.
Sounds easy. But.........