upgrade failure rates / sacked while in trainig

[sisyphos]

can anybody confirm that the failure rate for commands especially on the 747 is out of control (again) ? I heard only one guy out 6 made it recently.:mad:

also , is it true that chances failing the training(!) on the classic is one out of four this year statistically ?

[Numero Crunchero]

It is easy for me to say and hard for you to accept....no one wants you to fail. If you focus on failing you may very well do so. CX wants 100% pass rate for everything...do you realise how much money it wastes for all teh failures? Instead of finding a reason why you should fail let them try and find a reason why you shouldn't pass! Come on people its just a job....1000s have gone before you...why shouldn't you walk in their footsteps?

[filejw]

Doesn't say much for the Training and HR departments if true.

[CXtreme]

"CX wants 100% pass rate for everything...do you realise how much money it wastes for all teh failures? "

Sorry Numbers, have to disagree. Lets look at the sums if you upgrade from J.F/O to F/O. The difference between the two positions in terms of Pay ? Huge

The difference in productivity? Hmm, cross wind from 10 kts to 15 kts and a bit less vis.

So if we fail a couple of Q.L's ( as is the case more often that not ) where is the smart money?

It is 3 month's between Q.L. check's at lets say 10 J.F/O's vs. 10 F/O salaries.

It is not just failures, lets look at upgrade for S/O's. At the moment the buzz word is " not accertive enough" A substantial number of S/O's have been informed lately that the have to do at least 3 more months as S/O as they are not "accertive enough". This was after reviewing a file of a S/O that do a module every 6 weeks, and after scrutenizing the very subjective ERAS system.
P.S. They only do a couple more sim's, once again there is no remedial help to "become more accertive" Only more S/O modules.

With all respect, you might be a little out of touch with what's happening at the lower levels Numbers

[FlexibleResponse]

CX wants to upgrade you.

If you are not ready, you will not be upgraded.

Talk to your line Captains and get some free advice on your strengths and weaknesses. This information will not normally be offered unless you ask.

[Numero Crunchero]

Hey flex, if you fly with me I will definitely let you know what I think of me;-)
And of course, if I laugh after the landing that is usually a clue that I have seen better landings!

CXtreme
I have heard of this QL upgrade delay thing before. Can you give me the numbers...like how long after becoming a JFO till you can QL..what back pay do you get...etc Don't worry about the salary figures, I have COS at home. I would like to get some numbers on this. If it appears the 'system' is taking a monetary approach to training we need it highlighted....not left on a posting on PPRUNE.
Also, are you suggesting that CX are keeping SOs as SOs for financial gain? In the words of Pauline Hanson "Please explain"
cheers
PS being an Aussie I don't have the best speelin in the world, but it is "assertive"

[cpdude]

PS being an Aussie I don't have the best speelin in the world, but it is "assertive"

and that's without any beers! Do you also turn into a green monster when you're angry?:E :} :) ;)

[FlexibleResponse]

Hey flex, if you fly with me I will definitely let you know what I think of me;-)
And of course, if I laugh after the landing that is usually a clue that I have seen better landings!
It is very rare indeed for the physical manipulation of the jet to feature in the failure of pilots to be upgraded to Command (possibly a little more likely for other upgrades for early career JFO/FOs).

By far the greatest factor is plain old simple application of commonsense to the operation of the jet to accomplish the mission safely and efficiently.

For some people it is inate, for most people it is learnt and for other people it will never happen.

[Five Green]

CX wants to upgrade you.

If you are not ready, you will not be upgraded.

Talk to your line Captains and get some free advice on your strengths and weaknesses. This information will not normally be offered unless you ask.

So after 10 years flying heavy jets you are saying that 40% - 50% of cx FOs are not ready for command ? That this is not a failure of the training department ? Wow !

"This information will not normally be offered..." just about sums up cx's training department !

As for "physical manipulation", (which I assume means flying "the jet") not entirely true. People are held back all the time at the JFO upgrade for said lack of manipulative skills. Pilots are also Cat B'd because of Line checks and/or sim rides that were less than stellar in the manipulatin' department.

What is the common thread and most likely root of the problem ? ....LACK OF SECTORS and LACK OF NON THREATENING SIM SESSIONS. A pilot at Cathay is not given the chance to explore his weaknesses and improve on them in ANY sim sessions here at Cathay. Even the "handling" and T(x) sims come with extensive written reports. So where and when can a pilot put up his hand and say "I need to practice landings.." or 'give me another V1 cut at rotation..." you hardly ever hear that and why ? Because they will write a report on it !! You hardly ever fly here and yet you are written up for "lack of local knowledge"..."had to repeat radio transmission"...."gave briefing in wrong order"...."not assertive enough"...."too assertive.." "too N. American"..."too conservative on approach.." These types of comments that are in no way safety related are over the top. In my book if a pilot clarifies a radio transmitted clearance etc. that is good airmanship. Yes there are extremes, if he needs to clarify every one well maybe not so good. Clarifying one or two in this neighborhood is good practice but not on a line check cause you will get written up for it ! That is just one example of how pedantiscism has been misinterpreted as "High Standards". I love high standards, I want them followed and I want them written down.

I have been trained to do something the sim and then written up for it on a ride ! What a joke ! At a more reasonable airline the checker might say " hey where did you get that from?" then go and fix the problem at the training meetings. Or how about after noticing something a comment like " I notice you did your flow in this order...the fleet's accepted way is this.. carry on well done do it right next time since you covered everything and flew safely !"

At the moment the above scenarios would result is a quick briefing (possibly a running briefing during the ride itself) and then a surprise ERAS with extras !

Soap box off

I am off to manipulate now....cheers

[jtr]

Five Green there is not one point in that post that anyone could dispute.

You have summed up the situation EXACTLY as it is.

Hope you are not planning on going into C+T soon?

[flyingkiwi]

I for one hope Five green is going for C&T soon. The more guys that know the system and the issues assosiated with massive ERAS reports the better.

The best check i had was with a checker that saw my mistake reemed me out for it abused me some more told me never to let him catch me doing it again and left it at that the ERAS reflected the otherwise really good check.... Ill tell you what i kicked the habbit pretty fast.. What good is it to give a guy a one off low mark that could and would have delayed a promotion 6 months down the track. (it was my PC prior to the QL)

Regarding failing guys QLs for monetery gain this system is as follows.

Once you do your check to line as a JFO the clock starts ticking , 6 months after the check you become eledgiable for upgrade to FO, they will then roster you for the QL, this can take up to a few months to be rostered and actually happen because you are the lowest priority for a check, (legaly you are still not due for one for 6 months) If you pass the QL then no matter when you sit it you will be back paid FO salery to that 6 month mark. However if you fail the QL then you continue on JFO wages for another 3 months which is when they will reschedual another QL.

The big issue is that you endup doing exactly the same flying, except the odd Melbourne and Sydney trips.

Guys put the accusation up that it its money savings because the company does not just look at the QL line check they do a full review of your last RTPC and any other progress flights you have done. If you have erred anywhere they will knock you back first time. Even if they have just had a fantastic line check.

I remember going up to the third floor to work out my QL and talking to one of the training managers he said "hmmm flyingkiwi let me see..... i see this is going to be your first QL......" I looked up in shock and asked are you planning on giving me more than one at which point he started back pedaling, but it really gave me the impression it is just a normal thing to knock guys back first time. and yes to answer the question it saves them a lot of money, i reckon in my case had i failed first time i would have lost 85k, 2.5 months back pay, 3 months more on the JFO salery and 13th month being based on JFO not FO pay.

Hope this gives a clearer idea.

[airbusa330]

Hi guys/gals,

here's my thoughts.

What about if everyone concenrates on discovering what are the prime reasons behind failures (other than prehaps the checker's lack of sex maybe)and try to correct them even if it means sharing information among crew on a place such as PPRUNE.Use it to our advantage.

If one goes in for an assessment with the thought of a possible failure, in the subcounscious mind which we do not have control over, that is bound to show without one realising it.
How about thinking that one will pass instead of failing and go in with a positive attitude(easier said than done I know).
If we can't beat them than what about we try and join them at their own game, think startegically.

Why not post one's experiences and prehaps recive input/thought(piss take) from all the crows at PPRUNE.

I dont work for CX so I can't really comment on inhouse politics.

[airamerica]

Can anyone confirm regarding the S/O to JFO upgrade policy.Is one asked to resign if they do not make the grade, no additional training just resign?How many attempts can one have?
AA

[Numero Crunchero]

Flying Kiwi...was that a freudian slip when you said "kicked the habbit" when you meant to say "kicked the hobbit"??????


Five Green....well said! You have to wonder at a system that keeps failing, well I dont' know exactly but lets say 30-50% of courses, for years on end and never looks up the phrase "systemic problem"!

I don't have any immediate solution in mind...flexresponse sounds ex military....in the military the culture was definitely training(non threatening) on a daily basis so that by the time you came up for any upgrade it was a no brainer! There should be an amnesty....only your reports for the last 2 years count...delete everything before! And double the number of sims when you are within the last 2 years of any major upgrade(half unassessable)! Of course this will never happen as it costs money and we are training capacity constrained. I think it is like CX medical policy...it is statistically cheaper to pay the medical expenses of a wife with cervical cancer than it is to pay for pap smears! Great logic if you don't give a sh@# about people, only money!


PS Flying Kiwi, thanks for explaining the JFO thing...I might see if I can quantify this. If you have any ideas/help let me know, cheers

[404 Titan]

airamerica

I think it is four attempts at the QL check which is from JFO to FO. If you can’t get through you will be asked to leave. Also an SO that can’t make the grade to be upgraded will be asked to leave and a JFO that can’t pass his line check after his LFUS training will also be asked to leave. In short CX doesn't allow career SO's.

[ACMS]

FIVE GREENS
RUBBISH RUBBISH RUBBISH
Just about every RT sim I've ever done has had lots of time for extra V1 cuts etc. Only a short time ago I did an RT in the 777 sim, the FO and I both accepted the offer of extra V1 cuts and 1 eng missed approaches. And not a word was written in ERAS. Just positive and constructive comments from the Sim instructor.
Then the STC offered us time at the end of the PC for "fun"
Stop complaining and blaming everyone else you lot, CX is what it is--- CX.

[Five Green]

First of all the 777 fleet does not suffer from a lack of sectors. The 400 and to a lesser extent the 340/330 fleet does.

Also on the 400 fleet the candidates are less likely to do and ask for what you have in the 777 sim.

If you have done the latest RT I am really suprised you had so much extra time to do all of that. We did not even get all the items on the profile complete in our 4 hours and there was someone on the phone asking us when we were finishing. Now that might be as a result of having more engines buut still means noo extra time. ast RT was the same.

So it is not RUBISH RUBISH RUBISH. It may be "what it is" but it could be better. We the lowly First Officers all know what the problem is. You sir seem to have made it to command at a time when there were not the written reports and hurdles there are now. Nor did you sit and rot as a relief commander when all the while you are being checked at pedantic extremes. I am telling you from personal experience that you get written up for things that are not in the book. For things that are a personal peeve of the checker and for things that the checker has just got plain wrong. If you flew more sectors these would not be an issue, both from an operating seat and from the checking seat.

No I do not want to just accept it. I suppose I could if there were not so many of my friends getting Cat B'd for dubious reasons. Or getting held back on their command courses because of grey areas. Or direct entry captains taking positions that my friends deserve to get a fair crack at first. I have heard all your answers before. Three sides to every story....deserve to fail..etc etc. It still does not wash. We should not sit back as a pilot body and accept that it is entirely our fault. There are problems with the system. Those problems WILL grow as the airline does.

If they cannot increase the command pass rate where the frick are they gonna get the commanders from too fill all the seats on arriving aircraft???
Age 60 will only solve part of the problem.

Which "LOT" are you referring to ?

Standing by.......

[ACMS]

We did the JFK RT, and had about 25 mins to spare at the end. No corners were cut I assure you. Same with the EDDF EDDK PC.
I spent 8+ years on the 400 flying through the night across the Pacific, I know what you feel like believe me.
I too get pissed off seeing friends CAT B and D.
However 9 times out of 10 there is a reason for it. They just wont tell you the full story.
I agree the Star chamber system is flawed, it should not exist. If you are not good enough you shouldn't get a 4 bar flight in the first place.
Lets not forget the politics of CX, unfortunatly it does exist and sometimes it causes a few good men to fall along the way. PLAY THE GAME.
The 3 most important letters in Cathay........- O I C -
What am I trying to say here????????
Nothing is perfect, true CX have a few hiccups who doesn't? I've seen a lot of good guys sail through the system without a scratch. So the system does work. A few will fall by the wayside, shouldn't happen but some guys just aren't up to it.
Put the work in, study the books, keep your mouth shut, take what's offered, stop wanting freebies and you will make it.
We now have a lot of good trainers, sim instructors and checkers in CX. Most of the old lot have gone or will go very soon.
The glass is half full, not half empty.
PLAY THE GAME

[sec 3]

Best advice I've seen on here for a long time!PLAY THE GAME !! It works everywhere, all the time:ok:

[Five Green]

That is well said FCUX ! This is not a game, it is a serious business. One in which we should be open to change that results in safer flying. The culture at CX is by no means open to allow for mutual learning. In the same way CRM changed cockpit culture to a more open relationship such that sharing of information improves overall safety, so too could the cx training culture be more open so that when a checker is most obviously getting it wrong, there would be a mechanism to allow for the candidate to bring this to the training department's attention.

"Oh I see" should be occansionally replaced by "can I confirm that in the SOPS ?"

Do we want the safest airline possible or not ?

[flyingkiwi]

ACMS you sound very similar to an AOA commitee member i talked to the other week about this issue. I questioned him wether the AOA was addressing the training problem and the high failure rate on command courses. His reply was "off course not its the companies trainset they can do it how ever they like" i questioned him further saying it was AOA members having there lives ruined by this. (There are over 120 people on the seniority list either Cat B'd or D'd ie senior to the most junior 330 or 777 captian) He again pushed the point saying if thats how the company wants to run the training system then thats ok.

Unbenowen to that committee member i had my AOA application form and cheque in my bag, I was on my way to post it when i stopped for the coffee. The only place that application went was the bin.

Lets put it in a way you may appreciate. Do you have kids.. are the really stupid (off course not) How would you feel if you sent them to a school that had a very strict entry process including exams and a history check on there previous school records. Then 30-50% of the kids in the same class FAILED, not passed with an average mark but failed outright. Who would you be pointing your finger at. I bet when you saw that your kid was amongh 30-50% of other kids that had failed you would start asking questions about the training system.

What does surprise me in the CX case is that the DFO has not started to hold the training managment more accounable. 30-50% is unacceptable even from the finnacial cost.

My 50 cent answer to a lot of the problems.

1. Hold the review board before the candidate goes up for the check, so the instructors can train the problems out of the candidate. The company will then save valuable resources in freeing up BTCs/STCs for other checks and give the TCs somnething to train, It also saves the candidate failing, losing confidence and entering the CX spotlight.

Before you reply and say that the problem is in the candidates check. well hands up anyone that does not know a friend/peer that has passed the check only to be knocked back at the review board.

2. Make the TCs and Checkers more accountable by having the trainee sign off on his ERAS. OK leave the final say to the checker but have a feedback system. We all know of the checkers that will say nice flight welldone then write up an aweful ERAS.

an example a new cpt told me the other day. on his 3Bar with a certain infamous A330 STC going into Saigon or somewhere similar. the VOR was U/S. so the STC asked him what he was using for the 25nm sector MSA, he replied he was using the ILS DME as it was appoixmitely in the same location and displayed on his PFD. The checker queried why not put SGN VOR onto the PROG page on the MCDU. The trainee used the magical letters O..I..C. This discussion was hardly even included in the debrief. however the ERAS later read "poor terain awareness" This 3 letter comment meant he failed the review board and had to do another 3 bar check which subsequently was with another checker and passed with flying colours.

Does the CX training system have a problem... of couse it does and if you disagree you must be either in managment or wanting to be in managment.

[ACMS]

FCUX said that the last thing they would be expected to do is play a game instead of using their accumulated knowledge, experience and talent to ensure advancement.
Playing the game is:- using "accumulted knowledge, experience and talent" combined with "street smarts"
The more you have the better you can play the game.
You should know what Cx expect of you after being here for 8 odd years, if you don't then you'd better wake up.
How many people spit the dummy after a setback? more than a couple, this is not playing the CX game. Our management want to see a lot of talent mixed with a bit of humility. "I love Cathay, i've done wrong, i'll do better next time, thankyou". That's what they want to hear, not "f.... you Cathay, I deserver better" Those guys never advance.
As I said before I don't like the star chamber system, I don't like the fact a person can be held back by one persons dislike or opinion of another.
CX is what it is--- CX
I am trying to say Cx is not Qf, Ba, Ka, or Ek. We have develped a way of doing things over 60 years, right or wrong this is our way. Things evolve slowly, out with the old in with the new doesn't happen overnight. You should know the system, work with it not against it.
What is the failure rate at the moment? I know it's damn close to 0% on the 777. maybe that's why I have the opinion I do, coming from the best fleet:ok:
I guess it fair to say I have a foot on both sides of the fence, I can see the crap aspects of our system, but knowing your enemy goes a long way to defeating him.
Five Greens there are 3 important points in the back of the 777 FCTM:
1/ SOP
2/ Convention and
3/ Opinion.
Keep these in mind.
It's easy to say, but I'll say it again......"play the game"

[Five Green]

FCUX said
Playing the game is:- using "accumulted knowledge, experience and talent" combined with "street smarts"

Don't forget suckin arse, towing the company line, and putting your family second ! Where do I get "street smarts" from ?

That's what they want to hear, not "f.... you Cathay, I deserver better"

See now that is the whole problem right there. If you speak out against the training system this is how you are thought of ! It is an extremely simplistic viewpoint. Just because I disaree with some of the system does not mean that I am saying F you CX . On the contrary I am trying to point out, as did Kiwi, that there are some simple improvements that can be made in the training department.

Things evolve slowly, out with the old in with the new doesn't happen overnight. You should know the system, work with it not against it.Exactly we should work with it to improve it !I do not expect it to change overnight. We do need to continue to keep this issue in the limelight and help it change gradually. That is why the AOA should keep a dialogue on this issue going.
What is the failure rate at the moment? I know it's damn close to 0% on the 777. maybe that's why I have the opinion I do, coming from the best fleet:ok:

Not to belittle the improved rate on the 777 but you must look at yearly averages not just a good week or two. The meer fact that one fleet has a better pass rate than another by such a margin should prove to you that the system needs some tweeking.

Five Greens there are 3 important points in the back of the 777 FCTM:
1/ SOP
2/ Convention and
3/ Opinion.
Keep these in mind.
It's easy to say, but I'll say it again......"play the game"

That again is one of the problems not a solution. SOPs are SOPs. Some people are checking using convention and opinion as SOPs. Fine great as a comment in de-brief but not as a negative write up in your ERAS.

I and all my mates are "playing the game" as best as we know, but unless you have been personally affected and you lack an empathy gene then I guess I am banging my head against a rock wall ?

[ACMS]

FIVE GREENS
Don't forget suckin arse, towing the company line, and putting your family second ! Where do I get "street smarts" from ?
Street smarts, jungle savvy. Call it what you like, Don't rock the boat.
Oh and yes I guess a certain amount of suckin arse is required. Tell em what they want to hear, after you pass you can say what the hell you want.

See now that is the whole problem right there. If you speak out against the training system this is how you are thought of !

Mate as an FO keep your opinions to yourself, it's not fair I know but for your own sake tow the line. Change the system as a Captain later if you have to. This is what I mean by playing the game. Our managers hate being told what to do by anyone, especially FO's !!

I and all my mates are "playing the game" as best as we know, but unless you have been personally affected and you lack an empathy gene then I guess I am banging my head against a rock wall ?
Yes I have the "empathy" gene.
Not to belittle the improved rate on the 777 but you must look at yearly averages not just a good week or two. The meer fact that one fleet has a better pass rate than another by such a margin should prove to you that the system needs some tweeking.
I can only speak from personal experience on the 400 and 777 fleet.
That again is one of the problems not a solution. SOPs are SOPs. Some people are checking using convention and opinion as SOPs. Fine great as a comment in de-brief but not as a negative write up in your ERAS.
NO, this is part of the solution, why do you think the training dept put this paragraph in????? because they recognised that some trainers were pushing their opinions onto students as fact/must do things and it needed addressing.
Don't underestimate our training managers, they know how their training/checking Captains "mark their students" and they adjust their thinking accordingly.
FIVE GREENS I don't totally disagree with you thoughts, you make some valid points.
Maybe the 777 has a much better bunch of training guys? ( i am not one of them ) The 777 has a a nearly perfect record for a long time now. Is that a reflection of the 777 a/c? or a reflection on what the trainers write in their ERAS reports? The poison pen syndrome is alive and well, no doubt about it.
I'm just trying to put my side of the argument, me and a lot of others that have passed command ( and there are a lot of us ) managed to scrape through somehow. Maybe it was luck? I dunno but i'm here.
We could sit here and debate it for a long time, the fact is this is what we have here in Cx, love it or hate it.
Come to the 777, we'll look after you.:ok:

[Numero Crunchero]

Flying Kiwi...look back through that rubbish bin. Better to agitate from the inside than yell from the outside. PPRUNE isn't read much by the GC...well it wasn't when I was on it...who has the time! If you want to be heard, join up...adn join us non-voters/abstainers;-)

Five Green...
statistically speaking, you can get a very accurate prediction of the total vote from a sample as small as 30people...I think it is called the "Student T distribution" or some such mumbo jumbo. Point is...700...70...1700...you can always 'spin' the numbers. I think Nick said only 15% or something voted against it...technically true as over 50% could not vote as they weren't in the AOA, and anther 10% chose not to vote even though they were in the AOA. You can always spin numbers...the facts are that out of those that bothered to vote, 57% voted yes, 43% voted no to RP07.

Onto the training system...both you and ACMS make good points. I have to agree with ACMS on being smart and playing the game(I don't and it has cost me). But there is hardly a business out there where there isn't kiss arse and politics. Its just that in our profession, honesty in the cockpit is paramount. We are not alone in this working dichotomy. Just watch one of the plethora of medical dramas...the surgeons are all gung ho, honest go getters and tehn leave the operating theater and suddenly it is politics and financial pressures! It is their train set...so play smart.

What I do STRONGLY disagree with ACMS on is the training system...how is it that we have gone from pass rates into the 90+% 5 years ago to such high failure rates? Is it the recruits? The system? The trainers? The syllabus?
I think they(management) recognise there is a problem, but like any good tail wagging any dog, they are solving it with more checks on the candidates, pre command sims etc. Big picture...at least they are reacting to a problem...little picture...it sucks trying to get an upgrade nowadays.

[Five Green]

Bravo FCUX ! Well said.

The training management should develop a system that gets feedback from the candidates. Then they could highlight areas or checkers who need attention ! Only then would there be true HONESTY in the system.

At the moment it is gear up shut up , listen to me !

"oh by the way your autopilot is disconnected...."

Cheers

FG

[Five Green]

Five Green...
statistically speaking, you can get a very accurate prediction of the total vote from a sample as small as 30people...I think it is called the "Student T distribution" or some such mumbo jumbo. Point is...700...70...1700...you can always 'spin' the numbers. I think Nick said only 15% or something voted against it...technically true as over 50% could not vote as they weren't in the AOA, and anther 10% chose not to vote even though they were in the AOA. You can always spin numbers...the facts are that out of those that bothered to vote, 57% voted yes, 43% voted no to RP07.

The whole idea is to get all the AOA members to vote. It is better to abstain than not to vote. It shows you are concerned with the issue and following along. Not voting tells us nothing but that you are apathetic on the issue, something that has an affect on how seriously any changes are negotiated.

As for the spin on non-members as I have said before if the company made it clear that they were only going to negotiate with the AOA and supported the AOA recruiting then this problem of representation would go away! Then anyone who does not like the AOA might join and try to fix it from within !!!

FG

[ACMS]

FCUX ACMS what you fail to recognize here is that we are not on street patrol in Fallujah, or taking a stroll through the Amazon with only a spoon and a map. We are professional pilots employed at a major airline. We are grown men and women. I missed the part of my job description that said I needed to hide a "shiv" in my waistband or keep checking my back every few seconds for irate monkeys.
correct, we are not in a war. BUT you must be on your guard during training and checking, this is a major part of playing the game. I don't know what a "shiv" is but you should check over your shoulder every now and then.
First of all Numero Crunchero, your statement is a huge contradiction. You obviously cant "play the game" and be honest at the same time...thats why its call playing a game.
You have to lie, suck up, do things you dont feel are right, go against your gut feeling, ignore SOP to fly to the checkers convention or opinion, listen to their deviant behaviors in Wan Chai pretending to be impressed, and accept their criticism on ERAS though it may not be correct. None of which are traits of honesty.
ignore SOP to satisfy the checkers convention????????????? huh Not on my fleet you don't. And i would hope that most trainers on the other fleet would be the same. SOP and standardisation are the catch words on the 3rd floor.
As for there not being a business out there where there isn't ass kissing. Its called FedEx, UPS, BA, Virgin, etc. There is no need to play games, to the extent that is required at CX, to gain advancement. You go through a very selective process called an interview which roots out most of types of pilots they dont want, you then gain experience in the right seat, when your time comes they then TRAIN you to upgrade, not check you to upgrade. If you look at the success rates, they are guaranteed to be better than even the cx 777. The difference being the training department, cause on average pilots are all the same. (except for me perhaps... )]
Really? At Cx we come from many and varied backgrounds, Africa, North America, Europe, Asia ( not to mention NZ ) etc etc. This brings many different standards and ideas to Cx. That means our training dept need to adopt a slightly different method to ensure we are all on the same page.A dumbing down of the operation is required in some respects to reflect the lower experience levels of some of our crews. It is not and cannot be the same way Virgin, Ba, Qf, fedex, UPS, et al do business. I think if you compare our safety record then we more than equal those other airlines mentioned.
Now let me try to sum up my opinion.
We at Cx are not perfect, never have been never will be. The Star chamber system is flawed, and should not exist. There are some checkers out there that definately "have an excellent grasp of the non-essential" Guys that write too much in ERAS. That is the same in any airline, just ask your friends at Qantas.
Until the star chamber is history and all checkers are cloned the same things will not change here. Personalities will continue to play a big part of the process, we are human after all.
Be as professional as you can, do your job the best you can and play the game. It's not going to change overnight so adapt to your environment or become extinct. Harsh maybe, but true.
I don't know what else to say.

[Numero Crunchero]

FCUX
I read somewhere the other day that 93% of the time the meaning of the written word is misinterpreted.

I am almost 100% honest in the cockpit, including in training/checking, which is why it has cost me...trust me, people senior to you don't like it when you disagree with how they do things. I don't presume to know better than them, but when it comes to personal opinion on non SOP items, I listen to everyones ideas and then do whats right for me, not the checker on the day. It definitely puts noses out of joint. Recently an infamous Checker told me he remembered me as a 'punchy FO'...I guess I didn't laugh at bad jokes or flatter and told him when he was wrong!

No matter the politics....does it cost anything to keep your mouth shut on opinion on checks/training...argue SOP that is fine, but not the niff naff.

It does sound like those other airlines are quite good. But guess what we are here. My ex military job was way better for professionalism and lack of political b&*sh*t. But this job pays more so I choose to stay here. I have friends who have worked in QF(long and short haul), National Jet, EK, Asiana...in fact one of them has worked for all of them since he left CX. He still regrets leaving CX...he said it has the best work culture of all..and when he left he was only flying with the 'long shirters with cuff links' on the -400. I do remember an airbus CN leaving to join Virgin...and his salary there(as CN) was the same as an FO here...it has probably improved since though!

So maybe there are better options than CX....but the salary and the culture will keep me a while longer. It could definitely use improving though!

[FlexibleResponse]

We should remember that Command is a privilege that is earned.

It is not a right of passage to just any SFO/FO/SO.

Command is not rocket science but does require a reasonable degree of intelligence. I can assure you that you wouldn’t be in your job if you didn’t possess this quality already. Therefore, it stands to reason that you are Commander material? Read on…

Most of all Command requires superior commonsense and judgement.

Note that every ERAS Check Form has items for your Check Captain to fill-in such as attitude and other personal qualities relating to Command potential. An FO could make it really easy for the Checker by personally addressing and enhancing each of those qualities that need to be assessed.

If an FO is having problems with his upgrade, it is highly likely to be some deficiency which will be highlighted by the ERAS system long, long, before...rather than something wrong with the training/checking system itself.

The following messages are secret and only to be read by those pilots with the right attitude to aviation and truly aspire to be excellent Commanders. Preparation is the vital element. This is worth repeating.

CX wants to upgrade you.
If you are not ready, you will not be upgraded.
Talk to your line Captains and get some free advice on your strengths and weaknesses. This information will not normally be offered unless you ask.

It is very rare indeed for the physical manipulation of the jet to feature in the failure of pilots to be upgraded to Command (it is possibly a little more likely for other upgrades for early career JFO/FOs).
By far the greatest factor is plain old simple application of commonsense to the operation of the jet to accomplish the mission safely and efficiently.
For some people this is innate, for most people it is learnt and for other people it will never happen.

Get with the program, or if you do not truly understand the demands of aviation Command, do yourself and everyone else a favour and check-out early. Take that either way!

In closing, allow me to say that nothing has given me greater pleasure in my aviation career than to take some poor lad with the right attitude on remedial Command training, fix his problems and pop him out the other end with four bars.

[Five Green]

We should remember that Command is a privilege that is earned.

It is not a right of passage to just any SFO/FO/SO.

Finally some truth ! Cathay will not give a command to every First Officer. Therefore should you be considering CX for a job you must weigh this against other carriers that would be happy to get you to command.


Command is not rocket science but does require a reasonable degree of intelligence. I can assure you that you wouldn’t be in your job if you didn’t possess this quality already. Therefore, it stands to reason that you are Commander material? Read on…

Wait a minute I thought you just said that Command is not assured ? Or was it not a "right of passage.." or are they the same....?

Most of all Command requires superior commonsense and judgement.

No kidding.....wow... you mean like using spell and grammar checks?


Note that every ERAS Check Form has items for your Check Captain to fill-in such as attitude and other personal qualities relating to Command potential. An FO could make it really easy for the Checker by personally addressing and enhancing each of those qualities that need to be assessed.

Hey there are a lot of candidates that have spotless training records and get the boot. This also does not explain the arbitrary nature of "Cat'Bing"

If an FO is having problems with his upgrade, it is highly likely to be some deficiency which will be highlighted by the ERAS system long, long, before...rather than something wrong with the training/checking system itself.

Yep so what about the ones who do not have a highlighted ERAS trail ? That get held back at the round table ?




In closing, allow me to say that nothing has given me greater pleasure in my aviation career than to take some poor lad with the right attitude on remedial Command training, fix his problems and pop him out the other end with four bars.

So what is wrong with passing the "Poor young little lad" (who probably is an Adult in his 40s) on his first try ? If he is having a problem during the first course FIX IT THEN if he or she is not ready give him the training he/she needs don't just dump him on the same fleet to continue doing relief.

See there are things we can do to improve the system. You just have to open your eyes look at what other carriers are doing and then look at us. Surely we can still learn a thing or two here at CX.

rant out !

[Glass Half Empty]

Hey there are a lot of candidates that have spotless training records and get the boot. This also does not explain the arbitrary nature of "Cat'Bing"

I always wonder how people know that unless they have read the ERAS reports of the ones involved. Bar talk is never as accurate as the real report!

[electricjetjock]

Five green:ugh:

You go on about them so much why dont you leave and get your deserved command at one of these other carriers. After all they apparently have no failures according to your argument.:=

You do not get your Command at Cathay or any Airline just for turning up and being there when your seniority number hits the top. You do actually have to put the effort in.

ATTITUDE plays a big part and once you have cleared the large hurdle of the Command Course, then you are left to get on with the job without much interference from management. You have to show them that you can produce the goods consistantly and deal with stress / problems. Once you are free you will be flying worldwide is these fantastic widebody jets - what other airline gives you the chance of a widebody command after 8 years?????:D

Finally please tell us of the qualifications that you have to give you creditability to debrief the Trainers / Checkers.

[cpdude]

Finally please tell us of the qualifications that you have to give you creditability to debrief the Trainers / Checkers.

There are several CFS experienced A1 and A2 qualified instructors that are more than qualified to de-brief CX trainers and checkers on their performance. Most I have spoken to just can't be bothered to get involved!:ooh:

[stratocumulus]

Best advice I've seen on here for a long time!PLAY THE GAME !! It works everywhere, all the time:ok:


Even with Etihad????????

[electricjetjock]

CPDUDE

I was asking for FIVE GREENS qualifications!:rolleyes:

Some of us are ex CFS A2's.

As for GODLIKE ( and I am NOT being derogatory) A1's there are not many of them around.

I do not think you have spoken to all of the ex QFI's, there are plenty in the training department.:)

[Five Green]

Five green:ugh:

You go on about them so much why dont you leave and get your deserved command at one of these other carriers. After all they apparently have no failures according to your argument.:=

Typical answer from your sort. If you don't like it LEAVE. Well I actually do like it, it can however be better. Also I never said that I even deserve command. However many who do have not made it through. So as a professional would you not like to see the Cat'bing slow down, JFOs upgrades improve and command pass rates increase ?

You do not get your Command at Cathay or any Airline just for turning up and being there when your seniority number hits the top. You do actually have to put the effort in.

Please, don't treat me like an idiot. Firstly I never said you did. Secondly, as I have said, NO ONE SHOWS UP FOR A COMMAND WITHOUT DOING THE PREPARATION !!!
So do you think that CX's pass rates are in line with industry averages ?

Finally please tell us of the qualifications that you have to give you creditability to debrief the Trainers / Checkers.

Regardless of my background, the question is a perfect example of the problem with the training system here at CX. "What right do you have to question me..". Not very professional don't ya think ? A good pilot once told me "you can learn something from everyone" When I had my days in the left seat I always kept that in mind.

Standing by.....

[Sqwak7700]

Well said Five.

I also like it here. That is why I would love to see some changes in CX, to make it even better. If I didn't like, then yes, I would leave. But I find that this place has a lot of potential to be even better than it is.

I would question anybody that doesn't criticize the training in Cathay. Besides, for a company that is so keen on handing out criticism, they sure aren't too happy to receive it. That is what I think should change. A sort of checks and balances.

Let me give you an example. We record every flight through ACMS, right? So if a checker mis-writes an ERAS comment to say "trainee configured late", or "trainee disengaged autobrakes too late", then you could look up the ACMS and make reference to it so that a harmful comment could be evaluated. This isn't necessary at other airlines because if employees were punished at their job without proof or due cause, the employees would have the right to sue.

It is a two way street. CX seems to want to make it a one way street. A lot of "This is good for you, but not quite for me" attitude. I really would like to see that change. :D

[Yeager]

Just face the fact - the sooner the better.

Most of the dudes stay with Cathay only because its their best option in terms of money. CX payscale is good and especially the housing assistance for the Honkie based crew is great. If you are doing B744 longhaul your roster is great, eg. lots of days off and that means a great opportunity to live your life - outside "the company". The aircrafts are fairly new and quite well maintained - fine. The rest is ****. Admit it. Company ressource management, here under; Management, Flight Crew "training" - wooooowww the hole in that Swiss cheese is HUGE - an accident waiting to happen - the incidents speaks for themself, sure lots of long haul and not lots of sectors and bla bla bla - its that hole in the Swiss cheese that pocesses the biggest threat to Cathay. A constant breath down your neck - hows that next Line check, hows that next sim, hows that next interview, remember OIC and the list goes on. Until you get those 4bars - u better not f... up - because backup from your company is a city somewhere in Russia, they will focus on finding your mistakes and how to put the blame on you and then degrade you - most other professional airlines would try and back you up, learn from the f... up and then try and avoid it in the future - just like we all know avition should be like.
"Training"(read. checking). Let it be said, there are some good instructors/trainers in Cathay that knows what training is all about - unfortunately there are also a bunch of looser "trainers"(read checkers) with no life besides from flying and they are the ones that might f... up your life. It will be in your report and it will be questioned when your upgrade comes - no matter weather its corrrect or not - and you should never question that - that will only take you further down the drain. The shout up and accept management by fear culture is very, very strong here. Face that fact. :}

An airline and an flight operation should exist in an OPEN minded enviroment, where its crew is not afraid, but motivated and encouraged to speak up, and let others learn about their mistakes and exchange ideas. Flight operations should back up its crew and belive in it - until otherwise proven. Training in an open enviroment is the root of a safe operation. These are basic fundamentals that most other airlines has adapted to back in the 80-90s. Cathay has got a very long way to go. Very long indeed.

Take care out there - but watch your back := :ok:
Y

[BillytheKid]

I find it suprising that the company allows the trainers/checkers such a low pass rate (compared to the rest of the industry). That stuff costs money! Sending a guy back to RC after a failure was basically a waste of thousands of dollars.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

No matter what the reasons are for this, whenever such a situation exists the fault is with the organisation itself not with the people. The organisation makes all the decisions about it's people from day one, starting with the selection process all the way to command course selection. If CX pilots are acceptable for command qualification at only a 50% rate and others flying the same type equipment and operation have considerabley better then either the CX selection process failed to select the right people in the first place, the right people were selected but company failed to develope and train it's people so they're ready and acceptable for command when the time comes, or the initial selection was correct and developement was adequate but the command qualification process is at fault. But no matter what, the people were selected by the company in the first place and have passed all the hoops and hurdles the company asked of them up to that point, so if they've functioned in that environment up to that point then there shouldn't be such a large disconnect in the system and if there is then the system is broken.

Any good teacher knows that if a student is failing the very first place to look is the mirror (the teacher), and if there's any effort put forward in the order of 'career development' in this case without which any expectation or claim of an effecient system is a joke, then in this case that effort or system is failing. At my currnet airline we did have a similar situation with one of fleets' command upgrade rates which was close to 50% failure. To make a long story short all hell broke loose after a short while with the FAA coming down hard on the training department and instructor heads rolling, half of them were sent back to the line. And the problem was fixed in short order, with success rates now in the upper 90% range... with the same pilots and the same preformance standards.

Any airline where so many people openly suggest 'playing the game' as a method of qualifying has got some serious standardisation problems and cannot claim to have anything called 'Standard Operating Prodecures'. If SOPs exist at any airline it means that ANY check airman that EVER teaches or demands anything NON-STANDARD is sh!tcanned in short order, in an environment where company knowingly allows such check airmen to exist SOPs do not exist.

I personally know of five pilots who for this reason alone either turned down the second interview or said no when offered a class date with CX having passed all the selection process, but NONE of them told CX the real reason for this decision to avoid burning any bridges so I doubt CX knows how badly this particular reputation is affecting them in attracting people since no one in the right mind would tell them truthfully. Nearly every time I suggest to a friend to apply at CX this reputaion comes out immediately as a reason they're not willing to even apply. Wrongly or rightly this is CX's reputation out there along side all the positive reputations it has which are many to be fair, and as they say where there's smoke there's fire.

I for one would've never thought such an airline would have such a problem with something so basic, fundamental, proven and essential as standardisation. I would've thought CX would be a model of absolute standardisation, the absolute opposite of the 'playing the game' system.

[electricjetjock]

Heavy wrench there is NOT a major problem with standardisation at Cathay.

Believe it or not the trainers / checkers and flight operations management are out to get the people through. We do ask ourselves if we teach and get the message across. The company is also looking hard at its courses and career development structure. It IS making changes!

Unfortunately there is a vocal minority who pontificate about things mostly with second or third hand knowledge and we will never be able to convince them otherwise.

The Command course pass rate is now averaging 70% and it is only that low because of the very bad "blip" in the first three months of the year, which is dragging the percentage down. You also cannot use the argument that everyone must pass the Command Course just because that that is how it happens in the US or wherever. Yes the system may be have been partially at fault (different experience levels / backgrounds than what had been the "usual" Cathay Candidate - and that is NOT trying to say the people subsequently hired are not as good as before), but that has now been addressed. The build up to the course is different and the course itself has been modified. The company does not want to waste money!

It is unfortunate your friends have turned down Cathay due to "perceptions", if that was the real reason, as the only way to really know is join.

Going back to the beginning of the year and the high fail rate, most of that could be laid at the company door using your arguments. In other words perhaps the recruitment was not ideal, perhaps they should not have been given a "go", perhaps their development had not been thorough enough. Perhaps the candidate preparation although good did not concentrate on the "correct" areas and counter to your argument sometimes it is just the candidate. People DO make mistakes, it is how many, how often and more importantly how are they corrected - dealt with!! If the rest of the flight falls apart then error recovery is NOT good.

The "star chamber" has to take all these things into consideration and they have a huge responsibility not just to the candidate but to the travelling public. Cathay operates worldwide and in many "hostile" environments where TEM is vitally important.

Life is hard and sometimes you have to take the knocks, anyone who has had any time in aviation realises that. Nothing is a given and if people want an easy tick the box career, then they picked the wrong one with aviation.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

Electricjetjock, firstly thanks for the thoughtful response, I completely agree with all of what you said. Furthermore let me say that I'm extremely anal about following SOPs and I'm often having to say "We're not flipping burgers here, we're flying planes... we either do it right or don't do it at all". So if an airline is very particular about how they want things done their way I see it as a positive not a negative and I wouldn't have it any other way... as long as it's the same way every time and in writing. Also no problem with the additional standard of command selection criteria in addition to command course passing, some people can pass the training and qualify but have no business being airline Captains (I fly with some from time to time we all know some of those) so an effective mechanism to weed those out is a good thing as long as it's truely effective and not purpose defeating.

However regarding the level of CX's enforcement/commitment to SOP compliance in particular, is what has been clearly said here true about non-standard check airmen and Captains having the power to make non-reversible negative remarks in permanent files of those who insist on doing things the way CX's standards have spelled out in writing in various CX manuals???

Does CX back the side of the conflict that is demanding the SOPs or does CX back the higher rank regardless of who's right, more importantly does CX allow such non-standard Ca or check airman to contine operating in such manner??? Because if they allow it then it's easy to see how the student being told to do it one way by one instructor in the sim and critisized by another IOE instructor in the aircraft and told to do it some other way (lack of standardisation) can cause a disconnect in the training/qualification system the way so many seem to describe here resulting in negative check marks and low pass rates due to no fault of the student.

Because I'm here to tell you that if CX even allows rank to trump SOPs and has a culture in which those who have a habit of "my way or the highway" do not get severely punished and instead others who challenge them are punished by being black listed permanently, then CX cannot in any way claim to respect SOPs or CRM in any way. The only way to stem out these problems is to literally sh!tcan those who don't comply with SOPs regardless of rank and back those who do insist on complying.

Old world aviation culture was directly responsible for it's horrible saftey record until CRM and SOP compliance were enforced (and mostly not done volunteraly by the airlines), mainly the days of 'Captain is god' were brought to an end after many high profile crashes resulted from the rest of the crew fearing to challenge the Captain when he was mistaken. This challenging is now encouraged and in fact demanded of the crew. This new world aviation environment cannot exist if the company does not back the crew against the Captain who wants to be a dictator and non-standard at the same time.

Regarding what I said above, which does CX do??? Back SOPs or back rank??? And if not, is the culture changing for the better???

[Jumbonomore]

In no other place on earth does it take so long to check people out. Why is that? 4 Weeks on the 727, 4 weeks on the DC-10, 747-200, G-550, but 6 months at CX on the 744. Is the training that good or that bad? i'd have to go with that bad, I'm afraid.

[ACMS]

Jumbonomore: you're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.

[2 cents]

Silberfuchs,

Very thoughtful and informative post. I'm sure this topic has been discussed at great length throughout all levels of the company from new joiner, to upgrade trainee right up through the training system and higher. Each with their own opinions and views on the situation.

Effective training, indeed, is very hard work. Anyone who makes it through the long road from SO to Capt, has obviously had significant exposure to the training system and many, many of the individuals that are part of it. In addition to this I was an FO during a period of high training and therefore exposed to more than my fair share of SP duties. Although fairly monotonous, I found it facinating to observe so many different styles and techniques of various check and trainers. Just like in most things, you see the whole spectrum, from very good, to very poor. Some guys are excellent at assessing the candidates capability to absorb information, and training appropriately, and in a positive atmosphere that is condusive to learning. Others are not very good at this and sometimes it is clearly obvious from a fly on the wall perspective that the trainee is getting nothing out of the experience what-so-ever. And as a personal observation, seniority, and check and training experience are not related to the quality of the check and trainer. However I have to say that in general most are very, very good at what is indeed a very demanding and challenging task.

I agree that third hand rumors should not be the basis of a contsructive discussion, and that there are always 2 sides or more, to a story. With regards to command course success, all a guy wants is a fair shot at it. In some cases I don't believe this happens due to a very few individuals that for whatever reason are incompetent in their position. This is a shame, a waste of resources, and a waste of money.

[max autobrakes]

I hear JetStar is looking for good candidates!

[Three Bear]

Thought you might like to know that the command pass rate on the Airbus Fleet over the past six months has exceeded 85%. Can't agree with any of the comments regarding poor SOP's.They are much stronger than 10years ago, decluttered and to the point. Would agree that they trend towards the conservative side. Knee jerk reaction to the perception of lack of experience. Cheers.

[ACMS]

Yes the Bus has improved a lot.
And on the real aircraft ( 777 ) it's damn near 100%

[Five Green]

That is certainly good news. However you must be careful with stats. The latest group of command candidates was made up mostly of second attempters. The second go does seem to have a better pass rate. I guess it is because you put your time in on what was probably a new fleet, and that allows the big picture stuff room to fall in place.

However there is still the issue of the arbitrary Cat B'ing that prevents people from even getting a course. As a function of the system this must also be counted when looking at failure rates. ie a 8-10 year FO who is not good enough to be CAT A'd is a failure of the system not of that particular FO. You could disagree but the numbers of FOs Cat'bd is out of statistical averages for the industry.

Awaiting more good news.

FG

[Three Bear]

Five Green to my knowledge since July the majority of command candidates on the airbus joined the company in mid to late 96 through to the middle of 97. I could be wrong but my information suggests that only 3 were on their second attempt. I do agree that you must be wary of statistics but I would argue that it seems a fairly good pass rate that is certainly within industry standards. Flight Ops are well aware of the issues that have been raised and highlighted within this forum and have made positive steps to address the issues. All systems have their downside and the responsibility of correction not only falls to management but the individuals at the coal face doing the training. I for one beleive that the intent amongst trainers is to do just that. Not perfect, I agree, and subjective analysis on the flight deck is always open to interpretation. As a job I thouroughly enjoy going to work and flying the line and look forward with cautious optimism that the mechanisms for continued improvement of pass rates have been put in place. The F/O's coming through the system at the moment are of a high standard and a pleasure to work with. Regards Three Bear.

[Five Green]

Wonderful ! Now as my suggestion for the day can this forward thinking management team restructure some more ? For example how about preventing ( or stopping ) the practice of giving a checker a specific candidates' Line Check or sim. There is nothing to be gained from Check and Trainers targeting specific individuals. That is unless the forward thinking management actually wants said candidate targeted.

After all we are now stuck with some of the less forward thinking check and trainers for another DECADE !!

FG

[havick]

I don't fly for an airline, but I have a question to those of you who are 'struggling' to make their upgrade so to speak. Are you going waaaaayy back through your training reports and reading about what defiencies were highlited before you even finished your type endorsement?

[Mach75]

Just wondering what the failure rate is for new-joiner DESO's and how much weight is carried by the training & checking in Adelaide and your initial type endorsement in HK?

[A/T less]

airamerica
In short CX doesn't allow career SO's.


But looks like the list of CAREER F/Os are just growing and growing!!

How many people on the CAT D list?

[sisyphos]

just heard the first and so far only "rapid command" fo got rapidly fired.

anybody can confirm this?

[FlexibleResponse]

I guess when it is all said and done, it comes down to assessment of individuals against their peers. The best guys will suceed whereas the chaps that don't measure up get the short end of the stick.

These are fairly harsh words and a new and bitter experience for a younger generation, many of whom have been the victims of education systems that are prohibited from grading them due to perceived problems of self esteem etc.

However the demands of airline aviation are that on each flight the destiny of some 400 lives, $200 million of airframe and $1 billion of insurance payout are in the balance (and possibly the commercial survival of that airline). This sort of responsibility doesn't allow for automatic promotion of mummy's little boy who is used to been molly-coddled and spoonfed.

To survive in an aviation career, you need to take full responsibility for yourself. Any flight crew-member with a modicum of commonsense will devote their energy to finding out what is required for promotion and prepare and present themselves in the best light.

OTHR, any crew-member who goes around trying to find someone else or some other system deficiencies to blame for their own inadequacies to be upgraded, will be doomed to failure. No one respects a person with a lack of self-disciline, and more importantly, no one trusts such a person.

From the time you put your first foot in the door at CX as the most lowly S/O trainee, you are being assessed for Command (do not take these words lightly).

As I mentioned earlier, do yourself a favour and make a decision now to check out early, or do everyone else a favour and check out early.

If you let yourself or anyone else screw up your progress to Command, it's your fault, period.

[spud]

just heard the first and so far only "rapid command" fo got rapidly fired.
anybody can confirm this?
Yes.
Merry Christmas

[natops]

I confirm, he didnt make it through basetraining.
He 'only' had 4500hrs on the aircraft....:confused:
N.

[L_Loader]

I agree with Studi

Have been and still am considering CX but have become somewhat worried about all these rumours.

On the other hand I have met people who has complained a lot about the very same instructors I have had and which I found very professional, straight forward and easy to work with so I suppose the truth is somewhere in between.

[hog tied]

FCUX,
of course I take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, such statements seem to fit into CX's self-perception in the training department.

If its just a propaganda trick, it still is a statement about which characters are sought by CX for their cockpits.

No pun intended, just really surprised from what I read in this topic.
studi

Take it with a grain of salt, but the very fact that this subject continues to emerge shows there is a problem here. I'm all for a meritocracy, cull the weak. As I said before, it's not just the weak who suffer here.

Argue all you like, but the fact remains that the culture here is very different. If you argue this, you haven't seen much in your career.

Don't get me wrong, pilots complain the world over. They just don't have to look over their shoulder elsewhere.

[Five Green]

Flex:

I have found you postings on other issues to be well balanced and intelligent. Why then do you show such a callous disregard for your fellow crew members and those aspiring to be captain ?
These are fairly harsh words and a new and bitter experience for a younger generation, many of whom have been the victims of education systems that are prohibited from grading them due to perceived problems of self esteem etc.

I would suggest that this is not at all an open minded view. Something that you promote on other threads but are sadly lacking here.

However the demands of airline aviation are that on each flight the destiny of some 400 lives, $200 million of airframe and $1 billion of insurance payout are in the balance (and possibly the commercial survival of that airline).

As I have said before this is precisely why you need to make sure that you are at the forefront of not only aviation technology and equipment, but also at the forefront of educational and human factors thinking. It is pure arogance to think that there have not been some improvements in training since your Aus air force days. Might I remind you that the system being applied to current command candidates is far different than when you checked out in the left seat. Command assessment interviews, massive write ups fo RTs, etc. etc. Also the system is currently wired for failure. Check captains can extend their's and senior mate's careers by ensuring that enough Captain candidates fail.

This sort of responsibility doesn't allow for automatic promotion of mummy's little boy who is used to been molly-coddled and spoonfed.

Again from a usually balanced view you turn and denigrate your fellow pilots. Why ? Nobody expects an automatic promotion. What we do want and sorely need in this airline is a balanced playing field. One where hard work and skill is rewarded not where the luck of who you draw as a checker determines your fate.

[FlexibleResponse]

Why then do you show such a callous disregard for your fellow crew members and those aspiring to be captain ?
I beg to disagree. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for my fellow crew members.

What I was trying address was what I thought was an element from some Posters of "Poor me, I've been here ten years and therefore I deserve to be upgraded to Captain".

If this doesn't apply to your case (and I strongly suspect that it doesn't), then please disregard my comments on the issue.

Nobody expects an automatic promotion. What we do want and sorely need in this airline is a balanced playing field. One where hard work and skill is rewarded not where the luck of who you draw as a checker determines your fate.

I could not agree more.

[sisyphos]

flex,

why do you think safe and respected airlines all over the world manage to promote most of their f/o 's sooner or later and don't crash either ? :hmm:

[FlexibleResponse]

why do you think safe and respected airlines all over the world manage to promote most of their f/o 's sooner or later and don't crash either ?
An excellent question. I think the answer might be:

1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)

The absolute and key element in every flight that you perform depends ultimately upon the abilities of the final decision maker which is the Flight Commander or Captain. For the most part, flights proceed according to plan and SOP. However, ocassionally special decisions need to be made by the Commander to keep everthing on an even keel. Quite often these Command decisions pass virtually unnoticed by the other crew members as they make their own decisions under the watchful and approving eye of the Captain.

The policy of CX is to ensure that they promote to Command only those whom they think will not have to rely on statisitics and outside help to achieve safe and efficient outcome on a regular basis.

[CruisingSpeed]

Flex, a bit simplistic don’t you think?

Perhaps the company is also suffering victims of educational systems (especially those of old) that were lacking anti-bullying programs or a culture of dialogue and open communications that would allow you to understand and share what company standards and values really could be about rather than wield the “check out early” stick at people who put in a sensible challenge to the system or who may even be underperforming.

What kind of leadership or character development is possible in this environment?

Again: What Five Green and some others on this forum advocate is surely a disciplined but also a coordinated and consistent system linking training and professional development, resulting in improved standards and career prospects. What they highlight is that the core business of the training department should be training rather than concentrate on dealing people short ends of sticks, that’s what recruitment does.

Studi, the problem does not lie in ridiculous command requirements or inadequate selection processes but the lacking developmental support for junior pilots. To say you are required to measure up to command assessment criteria and face scrutiny from day one as a Second Officer is a little absurd, I am sure even some of those big egos displayed on this forum needed to be nurtured and given the tools and due time to succeed in years long ago.

[Five Green]

An excellent question. I think the answer might be:

1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)



A case of the pot calling the kettle...something.

By that I mean these are the exact reasons we have an enviable safety record. I am sure you know what I mean, reference last few years and exciting events which could have been more than exciting had the above three not played a part.

So I think that you have made my case once again. We are no better and no worse than other international airlines.

As for the buck stopping at the Captain. Mostly true and to be expected however even lofty CX commanders do need the help from their crew. I have seen it personally with what would have been serious concequences, and I am not the only one. This is not a slag on our captains because they are extremely competent and experienced but even so....

I also think that you are being a little arogant saying that other airlines get by on luck. Every airline faces problems unique to their operating arena and demographics.

FG

[Numero Crunchero]

The safety record of other airlines!?

Well I have a friend who it so happens has worked for CX, QF, EK and is now doing contract for Asiana. He spent 2 years at CX, almost 5 years in QF, 6 years in EK and has done almost a year on contract for Asiana. His take on all this....CX had/has the highest safety margins. The arrogance level at QF has the potential to take them to a major hull loss...they got a wake up call in BKK and another potential ditching in Perth and yet another engine pod scrape a couple of years back. My friend says EK isn't bad but it may be starting to slip as they are having trouble getting enough pilots so the standards will have to come down. Asiana....well it is obvious in the fact they have to get foreign captains! Enough said about them. And talk to the 49ers that flew with China Airlines...those stories will keep you awake at night!

So to answer the question about CX pass rate...I think this airline has a very high standard. I personally don't feel that I have to keep an eagle eye out on the FO when flying. My friend said he saw some pretty hairy stuff in QF by quite senior guys(admittedly he was with the geriatrics on the 400). It seems the CX culture is to ensure any single pilot can operate the whole mission. Other airlines seem to RELY on the fact that their are 2 or more pilots up there!

So maybe the question is, is the CX pass standard providing too high a safety margin given new aircraft technologies, ATC, TCAS, EGPWS etc. Maybe we are being overly cautious and testing to a paradigm of aviation difficulty that no longer exists? A simple analogy...BMW/Mercs have great safety in the case of a crash...but if you don't crash, a Hyundai or Daewoo will do just as well at a fraction of the cost! So to continue the analogy...maybe their are too many airbags in CX??????

[cpdude]

BMW/Mercs to a a Hyundai or Daewoo...interesting comparison.
Good thing you didn't use Land Rover/Chevrolet:E :) ;)

[Oasis]

I think most pilots at cx a comfortable with the standards set.
It is not bad to have high standards, as long as they can be met by those involved, and they can with some work.

I think the problem is that those standards can vary between different checkers and it is very possible to get a bad report from one guy, whilst another would give you full marks, so you sometimes have to be a little "in the know" about some checkers likes and dislikes.

Another is politics, if a checker doesn't like your personality (or sometimes nationality) the checker has free reign, there is no way to challenge a report, or support if you talk to someone upstairs about it. (even if there is a history with this checker)
This means that the checking/training department has limited accountability, therefore it operates somewhat unchecked, which is unhealthy for any department in any company.

This has changed some of late and I think the higher passing rates reflect this.

I also think most of the trainers/checkers at this company are extremely competent at their job and are working hard to help you and are very happy to see you succeed.
The few bad ones, are not weeded out, or kept in check. These are the ones that could cost you your carreer (at least temporarily).

[Five Green]

Oasis:


Well said !

I agree, we here at brushstroke need some accountability in our checking department.

The trainees needs to be able to question what goes in the report. We need to stop the Checkers from being able to request a particular candidate's Line Check or sim. We as pilots also need to be able to go and request a checker not be assigned if the problem is severe enough and a one time deal. Colorful language and personal and political statements must not be allowed in training reports. These are just a few areas we can improve our standards !!

If what I am hearing about the latest resignations is even half true then I am not the only one who feels this way !!

Peace out

FG

[cpdude]

I think most pilots at cx a comfortable with the standards set.

I think most are comfortable with the typical standard set of CX but standards among checkers has been an issue.
CX needs to spend more time on standard setting within the check n training group. More meetings and discussion on what are the standards is needed instead of checkers having to interpret their own set of standards from the CX library. For instance...how many of us have seen techniques incorporated into standards by individual checkers?
I feel more group discussion on standards can reduce this variance among checkers.:ok:

[CAN-NOT!!]

If what I am hearing about the latest resignations is even half true then I am not the only one who feels this way !!
Peace out
FG
5 Green,
would this be the resignations that are floating around CX about guys going to UPS/FDX?
Or are there more out there? I know quite a few S/Os personally that are bailing, some to good places, some not so good places, but if it meant getting out of CX they were happy!

In response to what was said by Oasis: you are correct. No one has a problem with high standards set for the cockpit. As pilots, we want to do a good job to the highest possible safety standards! That is not what is debated. It is only how the Checking department carry out their business has us staying up at night wondering if coming to Cathay was the right decision.
Happy New Year, and let's hope Iconnect gets back up soon. I miss my groupwise!

[Sqwak7700]

An excellent question. I think the answer might be:
1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)

The absolute and key element in every flight that you perform depends ultimately upon the abilities of the final decision maker which is the Flight Commander or Captain. For the most part, flights proceed according to plan and SOP. However, ocassionally special decisions need to be made by the Commander to keep everthing on an even keel. Quite often these Command decisions pass virtually unnoticed by the other crew members as they make their own decisions under the watchful and approving eye of the Captain.

The policy of CX is to ensure that they promote to Command only those whom they think will not have to rely on statisitics and outside help to achieve safe and efficient outcome on a regular basis.

Are you for real dude?? Your attitude of "Captain knows best" was dropped by every respectable airline with half a decent CRM culture. Boeing/Airbus built the airplane and they stuck two seats in it. That means two pilots are required. The only reason we have a Captain is because someone does need to be higher rank. Otherwise, you would get two big-headed egos arguing over the stupidest little detail and the flight would never leave the gate.

When I did my first type rating (at a previous airline with a really good training department) one of the first things my sim instructor told me was "the only reason you are in that seat is because of seniority, not because of your ability". He told me this to make sure that it didn't go to my head that I was now in the left seat, and it worked. Just because you are sitting in the left seat does not mean you aren't gonna make any mistakes. You can't go on thinking that your ****t don't stink.

A good manager knows his resources and utilizes them appropriately. REAL major airlines have been teaching this for years, and here at CX we are still teaching that the Commander should take over flying as soon as something goes wrong. As a Captain during any sort of emergency, the last task I want to pile onto my already full plate is flying the airplane. That would be my first call out, "your airplane". Now I can concentrate on managing all my resources to reach a successful outcome.

Speaking of statistics, they are definetely on our side. You can't compare CX to airlines like AA, BA, or even any other major airline in the states. American Airlines has 4500 departures a day. That is what Cathay flies in a month. Every month at Cathay is a Day in the life of AA. One year at CX is less than 2 weeks at AA. So if AA has an accident once every 5 years, that is the equivalent of CX having an accident every 60 years. You get the point. :rolleyes:

Flexible, you need to wake up and evolve with the industry or move over and let someone younger take your place. Sometimes I think that is the reason retirement age has been 60 for so long. You remind me of the guys who criticized GPS when it came out and said they would stick with their "trusty VORs and NDBs".

And I agree with the analogy, way too many airbags at Cathay. This airline needs to seriously look at its operations and apply the KISS concept to it. We are overloading our pilots with so much non-essential crap that they are missing the big stuff. Like ILS not aligned with the runway, or AP not engaged. Maybe if you didn't have to make so many worthless call outs on a missed approach someone in the cockpit would hear the AP disconnect horn. These incidents were warning signs, the fact that we had 3 of them without loosing any planes or lives means we are running out of close calls. :ooh:

[CAN-NOT!!]

the fact that we had 3 of them without loosing any planes or lives means we are running out of close calls. :ooh:

luck will eventually run out mate!

[cpdude]

luck will eventually run out mate!
Hope not cause...I'd rather be lucky than good!;)

[A/T less]

We need to stop the Checkers from being able to request a particular candidate's Line Check or sim.
FG
At any other airline, this will immediately pop up a question mark as to why a certain checker would want a certain trainee. That goes both ways (as in does he want to fail him or if it's his buddy that he wants to pass).

Of course, no one upstairs (particularly floor numero tres) at CX has any common sense. (common sense is not very common around here).

Same Team, Same Dream

[Centaurus]

That would be my first call out, "your airplane". Now I can concentrate on managing all my resources to reach a successful outcome.

If you as captain have to shove the responsibility of flying an emergency on to a surprised ccopilot then either you are gutless and should not be in the LH seat or you are incompetent - same result. You make the whole business of flying an aeroplane so complicated when it is not. "Managing resources" is just another example of weasel words.

[SMOC]

Centaurus, your "surprised copilot" sounds like the incompetent one, if he can't handle flying the plane during an emegency he shouldn't be there. Sounds like you don't need him :D

[Sqwak7700]

If you as captain have to shove the responsibility of flying an emergency on to a surprised ccopilot then either you are gutless and should not be in the LH seat or you are incompetent - same result. You make the whole business of flying an aeroplane so complicated when it is not. "Managing resources" is just another example of weasel words.

I was just about to reply to you, but then I saw your location.

Enough said. :rolleyes:

[fire wall]

Centaurus, it is standard proceedure unless loss of bus renders instruments on FO's side inop....... Capt to work checklist with other avail crew members and trouble shoot whilst monitoring FO performance. Your emotive comments are not justified and lack perspective.

Sqwak7700, your comment re location belies a lack of maturity. Dumb call.

[cpdude]

Your emotive comments are not justified and lack perspective.

...and experience with CRM.:bored:

[FlexibleResponse]

I loved Numero Crunchero's post on airbags!

May I say that I came from an era prior to airbags where the aviation margins were sometimes very slim indeed. My generation of pilots had to walk through too many smouldering stinking sites and attend too many funerals to leave any element too chance. Because there was very little passive safety to save your arse if you stuffed it up.

As a result of those earlier experiences, new aviation systems have been invented and operational procedures have improved tremendously. It would now appear to the newer chaps and the uninitiated that the margins are now excessive, perhaps too commercially expensive and in any case too damn personally inconvenient!

We should reflect that on every sector we embark on is is a one-way ticket to a smoking hole, the aversion of which is ultimately left to pure and simple excellence (or otherwise) of the training and judgement of the operating crew.
Now, just exactly where were we saying that CX's training standards are too high?

I guess my job is making airbags out of windbags!

[Five Green]

Flex Numero :

Once again it is not that the standards are too high.

The problem is that the checking is not standard across the fleets. This is why you have different pass rates on different fleets, even when considering aircraft differences. It is also why different checkers have different pass rates. No particular C+T should stand out with a dramatically higher failure rate. We all know there are those that do. You even have checkers bragging that they are harder on certain nationalities than others. The training management ,and I am sure you, are aware that a "4" from one checker is another's "2" etc. etc.

So please stop making out that the issue is about lowering the standards. The issue is about applying the standards evenly to every candidate across the fleets.

Soap Box off........FG

[electricjetjock]

FG
Just so that we know where you are coming from, what Training and Checking experience / qualifications did you have prior to CX?:hmm:

[Five Green]

Deep breath and typing....... "one who has been chosen" asks what right 'one from below" has to question....

And again I will answer in the same way as I have before on this forum. If you attempt to solve a problem by only solliciting those above you and those you deem as more learned than you, how can you really fix the problem.

Your attitude speaks to the whole problem here at BBSA (Big Brush Stroke Airlines ). Do not question authority and do not speak out. Those two examples of company culture, have in the cockpit, caused serious accidents in the not too distant past.

What you should be asking is " How can I learn something from everyone around me ?" If you don't, then you are one of the arrogant few surviving by pure luck.....because I got news for you, you do not know everything.

Happy Flying.

FG

[FlexibleResponse]

As an F/O, a new Captain said to me, "When I was an F/O nobody wanted to hear what I had to say. Now that I am a Captain, everybody listens to my every word."

When you get your upgrade to Captain , remember to treat your F/O and crew with respect and treat them in a way that you would have wanted to have been treated. Don't abuse the position of power and the respect that has been bestowed upon you with the upgrade.

There is nothing new in aviation. When you become part of the C&T section, "son of 5G" will be up your clacker like a rat up a drainpipe. This is time-honoured and healthy and part of the apprenticeship.

Use your time to pick the best from the best you fly with and put that into your personal toolbox.

When you fly with the worst, rather than hiding in your corner of the cockpit, try to enhance the mission with your own personal qualities and make a difference. When you can meet that challenge, you will have arrived.

Happy landings!

[electricjetjock]

"Empty kettles make the most noise"!!

[Five Green]

Elec Jock:

So how long did it take you to think up that informed response ?

FG

[electricjetjock]

FG
A Nanosecond o great Oracle of the harbour! :}
Why the chip on your shoulder FG and what makes YOU the fountain of all knowledge. Please do enlighten us all.
All I know for certain is that I do NOT know it all and the day I stop learning and think I know it all is the day I will give up flying, that will not be for a long time yet. We are all fallible and I certainly try to TRAIN and impart knowledge thus hopefully allowing the trainee to develop his or her own style. Unfortunately your pontificating just puts you in the same league as the people you are supposedly condemning.

[Five Green]

You posed the question. The question itself represents the issue. What diiference does it make what my background is ?

However I have worked in check and training elsewhere. I have also helped write policy and procedural manuals for airlines in the past. I have seen the check and training thing done far worse and I have seen some methods that if included in the Cathay training programme would make our very good system even better.

Other systems have checks and balances in them to prevent the uneven application of policy. In terms of individual trainers, inter-fleet and fleet specific policy. While I know that there is a move towards improving this area, I think we need to do more. I bring this up now because the crunch is coming. If the anticipated number of command slots is to be filled at our current average pass rate of (aprox) 65% then we need to change the methods, or at least recognise the limitations of the current system. If you look at the numbers and even assume a pass rate of 75% then you will need to process 200 command candidates to get 150 commanders. Not possible under the current system. Best case we can do 100-120 command courses and get 75-90 captains which is well short of the projected requirement.

So where do they get the captains from ?

I have never made a personal comment about your abilities. The fact you read and post here tells me you are concerned enough and proud enough of your position at BBSA. I am sure that you do not represent the style of "checking only" that is so common.

Cheers, looking forward to meanigful discussion on how we handle the training and improve the pass rates at all levels.

FG

[Basil]

at CX we are still teaching that the Commander should take over flying as soon as something goes wrong
You astonish me. Only a handful of years ago it was normal procedure to hand control to the FO at an appropriate time whilst the captain or captain & FE sorted out the problem. The captain was required by SOPs to carry out the landing.

[Kitsune]

What's with this 'big brush stroke' idea...I always thought it was a headless parrot...:}

[BusyB]

Its alright Basil. Anyone who knows SOP's is also astonished.:ugh:

[CruisingSpeed]

"Not WHO is right, but WHAT is right", maybe news to jetjock... daily bread and butter for most others across the industry, nuff said. :}

I can second five greens contention of lack of standardisation, when I left CX I had another manager apologise for what he called a personality clash with a someone in a key position on a certain fleet. Nice to be told you have been on the wrong fleet at the wrong time, it is also costing the company money and hemorrhaging growth. Might be time to get rid of the old gits and adopt a modern approach to human resources management. :hmm:

[electricjetjock]

CS

Great statement! :D Where have we advocated that it is the WHO and not the WHAT? :rolleyes: :ugh:

Try reading and understanding the posts. NUFF SAID!!!!!!;)

[CruisingSpeed]

I think I do understand where you are coming from with Post Nr. 93 and subsequent, prevalent attitude in your latitudes.